Russia's Lame Legal Arguments

Russia's lame legal arguments

falseCoyle, James J

Press the Escape key to close

.Orange County Register [Santa Ana, Calif] 25 Apr 2014.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has put forward justifications for his annexation of the Crimea and continued meddling in Eastern Ukraine.

The broadest of his claims is that Russia has the right to intervene anywhere, anytime, if ethnic Russians are endangered. If accepted by the world community, this modern day Brezhnev doctrine (the Soviet Union has the right to intervene in communist countries to protect them from the threat of capitalism) would give the Russian leader the right to intervene in the internal affairs of any country of the former Soviet empire.
Putin has also put forward a number of legal arguments, the first of which is that the government in Kiev is an illegal formation. Russian leaders have pointed out that the Ukrainian constitution allows for the removal of a president only by death, illness, physical or mental incapacity, or impeachment. When the Ukrainian parliament removed President Viktor Yanukovych from his position after he fled the country, the parliament did so by a majority vote - failing to observe the constitutional niceties.
Consequently, Yanukovych remains president of Ukraine. This has a number of implications. Since the current government in Kiev was created outside of constitutional provisions, it is illegal and Russia has no one with whom to dialogue about events.
Putin has asserted that Crimea has always been a part of Russia and that Premier Nikita Khrushchev's transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was "in clear violation of the constitutional norms that were in place even then." When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russian people realized they were not simply robbed, but plundered.
Russia also uses the principle of self-determination to justify annexation of Crimea, citing a referendum held in March in which 83 percent of Crimean inhabitants participated. The vote was held under the guns of armed supporters of Moscow. Integration into Russia received 96 percent approval.
Russia has gleefully called on the example of the West, including the United States, that approved the independence of Kosovo from Serbia. If Kosovo can do it, Putin asked, why can't Crimea?
The Russian position is wrong. While it is true the Ukrainian constitution did not include removal of a president by majority vote, the constitution also did not envision its president fleeing the country after looting the treasury. Further, there is no provision within the constitution authorizing parts of the country to declare independence or to unite with neighboring powers.
Putin declared the fall of the Soviet Union the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. It is therefore odd to hear him challenge the 1954 decision of that country's premier. The leader of the Soviet Union had the power to send its citizens to the Gulag, authorize mass deportations of the Tatars and so on, but Putin does not believe he had the power to transfer Crimea.
No one accepts the legitimacy of the 2014 referendum that took place while Crimea was under armed occupation. A more accurate view on the right to self-determination is the 1991 referendum in which 54 percent of Crimeans voted to separate from Moscow.
Kosovo separated from Serbia after war and ethnic cleansing. Kosovo did not seek to join another country. In Crimea, there was no war, no ethnic cleansing and no desire for independence. International law recognizes the right of a government to have the monopoly on the use of force within a country: Kiev's efforts to regain control in the east is its sovereign right.
Moscow's meddling in Ukraine is cynical, power politics and not justified by international law.
 

Crimea following Russian Playbook

James J. Coyle: Crimea following Russian playbook

 

By JAMES J. COYLE / Contributing Writer

Published: March 6, 2014 Updated: 3:19 p.m.

Moscow has a long history of using military force to maintain its control over areas it considers part of its empire. East Berlin, Hungary and Czechoslovakia are examples from Cold War history. Other examples are less well known in the West, but are still significant.
On Dec. 27, 1979, Soviet forces dressed in Afghan army uniforms took over the major government and military installations in Kabul, Afghanistan. Russia recognized Babrak Karmal as the rightful leader of Afghanistan and then heeded his request for intervention (broadcast from his location inside the Soviet Union) to justify the invasion. The Soviets announced their military action was to protect the socialist revolution in Afghanistan.
A decade later, as the Soviet Union collapsed, a section of Moldova separated from that country and unilaterally declared its independence. This separatist region, the Trans-Dniester, was supported by Moscow in a brief war in 1992. Russian troops then moved into the area as peacekeepers. Russia now chairs fruitless peace talks between the two sides. Russia also used its position in Transdniester as justification to cancel its involvement with the Conventional Forces in Europe arms limitation treaty.
In the same period, areas within Georgia broke away from that country. These separatist regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, declared their independence. Russia again moved troops into the area as peacekeepers and co-chaired peace talks that have gone nowhere. In 2008, when Georgia tried to restore its sovereignty over these separatist areas, Moscow fought a war with that country, supposedly to protect Russian citizens living in the breakaway republics. Russia has since recognized the two areas as sovereign nations and kept their forces on the Georgian border.
In 1991-94 Armenia invaded around one-fifth of Azerbaijan's territory, including the Nagorno-Karabakh region. During the war, Armenia was heavily supported by the Russian military. Today, the largest Russian military base outside of Russian territory is located in Armenia.
The United Nations Security Council passed four resolutions acknowledging that Nagorno Karabakh and the surrounding occupied territories are part of Azerbaijan, and demanding immediate withdrawal of all Armenian troops from the occupied territories. But the resolutions remain unfulfilled by Russian-backed Armenia. Given Russia’s veto power on the Security Council, it is not surprising that the Council does nothing to push for the implementation of its own resolutions. As in Moldova and Georgia, Russia is a cosponsor of peace talks that have not solved the conflict.
Now it is Ukraine’s turn. Russian military units dressed in uniforms without insignia (but driving Russian-licensed military vehicles) occupied or surrounded major governmental and military installations in Crimea. Russia has recognized Sergei Aksyonov as the leader of Crimea, despite his party having the support of 3 percent of the people. Russia is defending its moves in the area as an effort to protect Russian citizens in Crimea. As NATO forces mass on the Polish border and the United States calls for a cease-fire, Russian President Vladimir Putin has ended military maneuvers on the Russian-Ukrainian border. He said he has not ruled out direct military intervention in the east of the country, if necessary to protect Russian citizens.
If history is a guide, neither Europe nor the United States will militarily defend Ukraine’s independence. Any United Nations resolution will call for respecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but will not contain enforcement provisions or a condemnation of Russian moves.
A cease-fire will be established, with Russian troops acting as peacekeepers. Russia will co-chair peace talks that will enshrine their continued involvement. Russia, controlling Ukraine’s northern borders and the Crimea, will have a stranglehold on that nation’s independence. American prestige in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus will slip another notch.
American politicians are calling for steps to roll back Russian gains in Crimea. For their calls to be heeded, they should first call for the removal of Russian troops in the conflicts in Moldova, Georgia and Azerbaijan.
James J. Coyle, Ph.D., is the director of Global Education at Chapman University and is chair of the Eurasian committee of the Pacific Council on International Policy.

Radicals Take Over Ukraine Protests

James J. Coyle: Radicals take over Ukraine protests

-->

--> Street demonstrations have resumed in Kiev, capital of Ukraine. Unlike the 2013 demonstrations, which protested President Viktor Yanukovych’s decision to turn from the European Union, the new violence is being led by anarchists.

Jan. 19, several hundred rioters on Hrushevsky Street, near the site of previous demonstrations on Independence Square, attacked police lines with sticks and bats. They threw Molotov cocktails that burned police buses. There were pitched battles in which both sides threw rocks. Eighty security troops were injured, and 103 demonstrators were treated for injuries. Police arrested 32, including two reporters working for the U.S.-financed Radio Liberty.
Opposition figures, such as Fatherland party leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk and former boxing champion Vitali Klitschko, who had been ringleaders in the November/December demonstrations, condemned the violence. “Violence leads to nothing but mayhem,” Yatsenyuk said. “With radical actions, we destroy our probable victory.”
What changed the attitude of the opposition leaders? First, the government appeared willing to negotiate. According to opposition parliamentarian Andriy Pavlovsky, the government announced it would not implement a new law forbidding street demonstrations. In a nationally televised address, Yanukovych called for dialogue and compromise.
Second, and more importantly, the demonstrators themselves have changed. The organizers of the violence appear to be members of a right-wing youth group, the Right Sector movement. This group is not part of the larger mass of demonstrators camped on the square, but a radical fringe that occupied the Kiev City Hall building in December. The BBC reports that the backbone of the organization is formed by Russian-speaking soccer fans sharing nationalist views.
While most members of the Right Sector oppose Ukraine joining the Russia-sponsored Customs Union, they also oppose moving closer to the European Union. The Right Sector considers the EU to be an oppressor. Instead, the group wants to use the unrest to “destroy the state skeleton” and allow them to build a new state, supposedly in their own image and likeness.
The “mainstream” demonstrators have grown tired of the stalemate, and the inability of opposition parties to influence government decisions. It does not appear, however, that the protesters have joined the anarchists in their attacks on the police.
As dire as it appears, the attacks by the Right Sector offer an opportunity to resolve the political crisis that has paralyzed the country for three months. For the first time, the centrist opposition and the government are in agreement on something: that the Right Sector movement must be stopped. If the government decides to break the violence through police action, conditions will worsen. If, on the other hand, the government enters negotiations with the opposition parties, a peaceful ending to the unrest is within reach.
James J. Coyle is a professor and the director of Global Education at Chapman University and chair of the Eurasian Committee of the Pacific Council on International Policy.

Blinders in Benghazi

James J. Coyle: Blinders in Benghazi

Following the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, senators have tried to find out who was responsible. Hillary Clinton, the outgoing U.S. secretary of state responded, with some heat, “What difference does it make?”

A report last week by the Senate Intelligence Committee answered that question: between 1998 and 2012, there were 273 significant attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel. It is therefore essential that our representatives abroad be protected if America’s interests are to be advanced.
What the intelligence committee found, although they did not put it in these words, is an echo of the findings of the 9/11 Commission: the attack could have been avoided and the principle reason why it was not was a failure of imagination. No one believed that an attack using commercial airplanes against New York City was possible, even though there were indications something similar was being planned; similarly in Benghazi, despite indications that our diplomatic personnel were in great danger, no one took steps to protect them. No one seriously anticipated such an attack.
A harsh judgment? The Senate found that in the months preceding the attack there were hundreds of analytic reports providing strategic warnings that militias intended to strike U.S. facilities in Libya. There were ten militia training camps surrounding Benghazi alone and some of them were training to attack Americans.
Despite the warning and 20 specific incidets against the compound or other international organizations in the area, the compound had to rely on a local militia for security, the 17 February Martyrs Brigade. Yet, when “the security team asked 17th February members to ‘provide cover’ for them … members refused, saying they preferred to negotiate with the attackers instead,” according to a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report.
Clearly, when the host government cannot provide security for our diplomatic compounds, the United States needs to rely on its own military, not on a “rent-a-mob” recruited from the back alleys of a third world city.
Ambassador Stevens recommended on June 6 that some sort of security team be established in Benghazi, a recommendation that was not acted upon. On July 9, he asked for the temporary assignment of additional security personnel. “The State Department never fulfilled this requested and … never responded to the request with a cable.” On Aug. 15, the Regional Security Officer expressed concern about the ability to defend the post, citing limitations in manpower, security measures, weapons, and support from the Libyan government. The State Department took no action to meet these concerns.
Even Ambassador Stevens seems to have erred. When AFRICOM head General Carter Ham read the results of the Aug. 15 review, he offered to extend the deployment of 16 special operations personnel assigned to the embassy, a DOD site security team. State Department had not requested the extension, and Ambassador Stevens declined General Ham’s offer less than a month before the fatal attack.
Until the United States government begins to imagine that the worse can happen and is willing to act on the warnings it received, there will be more disasters in the future. One can only hope there will not be another report outlining the government’s lack of imagination.
James J. Coyle, Ph.D., is director of Global Education at Chapman University and the chair of the Eurasian Members Committee of the Pacific Council on International Policy.

Azerbaijan: Kuwait of the Caucasus?

James J. Coyle: Azerbaijan, Kuwait of the Caucasus?

 

By JAMES J. COYLE / For the Register

Published: Jan. 9, 2014 Updated: 2:28 p.m.

It was the coldest January in a century. Throughout Italy and Southern Europe, people shivered in their homes. The year was 2009 and Russia had turned off the flow of natural gas over a price dispute with Ukraine. It was the second time in three years the Russians had closed the spigot. The European Union decided something needed to be done to protect their citizenry. Europe imports one third of its natural gas from Russia and the Russians had shown themselves to be unreliable suppliers.

The EU decided to support a pipeline to bring natural gas from the Caspian Sea to Europe, avoiding Russian territory and Russian infrastructure. This project was declared to be of community-wide importance, and was deemed eligible for EU grants to help with the construction costs. The original pipeline, named Nabucco after Verdi’s opera, was supposed to run from Baku, Azerbaijan to Baumgarten, Austria. It would carry 33 billion cubic meters, or bcm, per year. Azerbaijan pledged 10 billion bcm and encouraged the EU to find additional sources.
The Russians were alarmed: while Nabucco would only supply approximately 5 percent of Europe’s gas needs, it would break Gazprom’s monopoly on delivering pipeline gas from the East. It would gradually move Russia more to the edge of European energy concerns, instead of keeping it front and center. To counter this, Gazprom announced its own, rival pipeline project: South Stream. Designed to carry 63 bcm per annum, South Stream would take gas that had previously transited Ukraine and send it directly to Europe under the Black Sea. The EU refused to grant it the status of a community project, because it did not diversify the source away from Russia.
When the EU proved unable to make Nabucco work, Azerbaijan and Turkey decided to build the Trans Anatolian Pipeline. From 2018 on, this line is designed to carry 16 bcm per year of natural gas from Azerbaijan’s Shah Deniz gas field, one of the largest of its kind in the world. Six billion cubic meters will be offloaded in Turkey, leaving 10 bcm for delivery to Europe. TANAP will link up with the Trans Adriatic Pipeline at the Turkish border and the natural gas will be delivered to Greece and Italy. Eventually, as more Caspian gas becomes available, TANAP can double its capacity. Over the longer term,TANAP/TAP could supply 20 percent of Europe’s energy demand. A group of companies led by British Petroleum has signed a $45 billion deal to expand the gas field and construct the pipelines. The big question is whether TANAP/TAP can be built since Russia has already begun construction of the much larger South Stream to service the same markets?
On Dec. 4, the executive arm of the EU, the European Commission, announced that South Stream would not be able to operate on EU territory unless it complies with the EU’s Third Energy Package. This is a series of rules and regulations designed to increase competition in the European energy sector. The major impact on Russia: the package states that an energy supplier must “unbundle” itself from the energy distribution system. In other words, if Gazprom wished to sell natural gas to Europe, it could not own the pipeline system that would deliver it.
When the package was originally announced, Russian President Vladimir Putin had cried foul. He said the Third Energy Package was theft, a European attempt to seize Russian strategic assets. Gazprom decided to ignore the package and signed bilateral agreements with seven European transit countries (six EU members and Serbia, an EU-aspirant).
A European Commission official stated that if negotiations began immediately, it would take at least two years for the community to reach an agreement with Russia over implementation of the package. In the interim, the bilateral agreements that Russia had negotiated were all in breach of EU law. “We have told these states that they are under the obligation, either coming from the EU treaties, or from the Energy Community treaty, that they have to ask for re-negotiation with Russia, to bring the intergovernmental agreements in line with EU law,” said Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, director for energy markets at the European Commission.
The objection is not only to Gazprom’s failure to “unbundle” its ownership of the pipeline. The project also fails to meet the requirement that any pipeline system must grant access to other suppliers, and there are unresolved questions over how the price of the gas will be determined.
Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s prime minister, took the position that the bilateral treaties were governed by international law, which trumped EU law. EU energy spokesperson Marlene Holzner responded that any member state who did not renegotiate with the Russians would be subject to penalties for infringement of EU regulations. The pipeline could be built, and Russia could fill it with gas, but no European state would be able to purchase it. Holzner added that, in her opinion, no bank would be interested in financing a project based on such legal uncertainty.
Given the complexities of the issues involved, southern European hopes are now squarely on the TANAP/TAP Southern Energy Corridor. British Foreign Secretary William Hague commented, “It will increase our energy security by providing an additional route and a new source for gas supplies to Europe. There is also the potential to expand the southern corridor to reach major gas suppliers in the Middle East, which could bring huge additional benefits.” BP’s vice president, Al Cook, concurred, noting that the pipelines were being built to accommodate gas from other suppliers.
Thus, European energy independence begins with the delivery of Azerbaijani natural gas.
James J. Coyle is a professor and the director of Global Education at Chapman University and chair of the Eurasian Committee of the Pacific Council on International Policy.

China Challenges the West

James J. Coyle: China challenges the WestBy JAMES J. COYLE / For the Register

Published: Dec. 30, 2013 Updated: 2:44 p.m.

PARESH NATH / CAGLE CARTOONS

On Dec. 5, the guided missile cruiser USS Cowpens was in the South China Sea, observing the maiden voyage of the new Chinese aircraft carrier, the Liaoning. It received a radio message from the Chinese fleet advising them that they had broached an inner defense perimeter surrounding the carrier and was ordered to leave the area. The American skipper replied he had a right to be in the area, as the ship was in international waters.

Suddenly, a Chinese naval vessel accompanying the Liaoning crossed the bow of the Cowpens, within 200 yards of the American naval vessel. The Chinese were apparently trying to force the Cowpens to stop dead in the water, to what ends no one is certain. To avoid a collision between the two ships, the American captain had to make emergency maneuvers. The Americans then broke off from the Chinese fleet. Score one for China.

It was not the first military confrontation. In 2001, a Chinese fighter jet collided with an American EP-3 reconnaissance plane. In March 2009, another U.S. warship, the Impeccable, was forced by five Chinese ships to make emergency maneuvers to avoid another collision.

The “inner defense perimeter” was a Chinese unilateral declaration of sovereignty over the South China Sea. Perhaps even more dangerous are Chinese unilateral declarations in the East China Sea, where China has laid claim to an island group that has been a part of Japan for the past century. It also has laid claim and seized a shoal claimed by the Philippines and a reef claimed by South Korea.

To boost its claims, the Chinese last month declared an air defense identification zone, or ADIF, over these troubled waters. All aircraft flying in the area must declare themselves to Chinese authorities. The U.S. military has ignored the ADIF, but the Obama administration has counseled American civilian aircraft to abide by the rules. Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun advised this would not be the only ADIF China would create.

The United States takes these claims of sovereignty seriously. In the case of the island dispute between China and Japan, the U.S. has stated that these islands are covered by the U.S.-Japanese defense treaty which states any attack on Japanese territory is considered a threat to the peace and security of both countries. The U.S. has similar pacts with the Philippines and South Korea. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Manila the week before Christmas, condemned China’s unilateral actions, and pledged $40 million to strengthen Manila’s sea defense capabilities.

It is only natural for countries that are growing in strength to flex their military muscles. At issue, however, is the possibility on either side of a miscalculation or mistake. The results could be catastrophic as two nuclear-armed countries faced off against each other. This is something the United States and the Soviet Union avoided throughout the Cold War.

China claimed that other countries need not fear its increase in power, arguing that it was not like great powers in the past. China said it has no military or territorial ambitions. Hu Jintao’s “peaceful rise” has been replaced, however, as China begins acting like a normal great power.

James J. Coyle is a professor and the director of Global Education at Chapman University and chair of the Eurasian Committee of the Pacific Council on International Policy.