Slava Ukraini, for sure -- but there's more than patriotism at stake

The signing of the UN Charter in San Francisco, on June 26, 1945

As Russia's invasion of Ukraine rolls into its second grim year, we should of course recognise and applaud the extraordinary efforts and sacrifice the Ukrainians have made in defending their country. If there is any glory to be had in such a brutal and unforgiving conflict, it most certainly belongs to them. 

But we should also recognise and deplore what has not been achieved. Despite warm words of support, the international community has been dilatory in its response, and incremental in its actions. Russian aggression has not been stopped, and the war looks set to drag on, at great cost to Ukraine. Though buttressed by supplies of 'lethal aid' from the West, the Ukrainians have largely been left to fend for themselves. Their allies are not dirtying their boots on the ground. 

If this were business as usual, just another regional squabble between neighbours over territory and resources, that might be understandable: Russia is a nuclear power, and the risk of escalation is real. But this is not just another war; what's at stake in Ukraine is more than patriotism. That's because at the end of the Second World War - another regional war over territory and resources that spiralled into a global conflict - we resolved to do something to stop it ever happening again. 

That something is called the United Nations. Though scarcely seeming to merit a mention in the mouths of politicians today, its existence is a landmark achievement in human civilisation: it is nothing less than an international mechanism for preventing war. And the UN Charter - a legal document signed by almost every country in the world - is thus the framework in which the conflict in Ukraine ought to be being viewed, a point made forcefully by President Zelensky himself in his speech to the Security Council last year. It should be front and centre of the argument, not left to languish in the wings. 

It matters because we have all agreed to abide by it - even if it remains more honoured in the breach than the observance - and it should be the guiding star for our actions now. The reason we should be supporting Ukraine militarily is not just moral - because we happen to believe in democracy and the sovereignty of nations - but because 75 years ago we had the meetings, did the math, and collectively realised that this is the only way for the world to maintain international peace and security without descending into war. That was, and is, the founding purpose of the United Nations. 

So we should need no rallying cry for solidarity among allies, or calls for unity against a common enemy. This is not about ending a war. It's about ending war itself, the task to which we are all committed by virtue of our membership of the UN. All that is required is that we do what we have agreed to do. Because the UN Charter is clear: Article 51 says that until the Security Council does its duty in resolving the conflict, members may act in collective self-defence against an aggressor country. It's a legal right and even a responsibility. No ifs or buts. This is not a test for Europe, for America, for NATO or even democracy itself. It's simply a test of whether we're willing to stand by what we say.   




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Auditioning for an audiobook

Image
Just spent a fascinating few days listening to auditions sent in by prospective narrators for an audiobook version of my book SPEECH! How Language Made Us Human  -- which I hope will be released in mid-December (just in time for Xmas 😉). I've not done this before, and was astonished both at the range of voices sent in and the very different ways they chose to read the script I'd chosen for the audition -- the introduction to the book. As a writer, you inevitably hear your own voice as you write, so it's a rather odd experience to hear your words being read aloud not just in another voice, but even in a different persona. It must be even more extraordinary for a playwright or a scriptwriter, as their words are not only translated into different voices, but are literally brought to life in ways they may never have imagined.  They say a work of art no longer belongs to the artist once it is finished, because people will interpret it in different ways. It certainly felt like...
Read more

Why Talking Tough to Putin Won't Work

Image
Does anyone seriously think Vladimir Putin is going to back down just because we threaten him with more sanctions? Or supply a little more 'lethal aid' (in that weasel phrase) to Ukraine? Do we suppose that he hasn't anticipated all this, and already factored it into the equation? We're talking about a man who is playing chess, always working several moves ahead, and yet we seem to be playing checkers in response -- simply reacting to events as they happen.  Putin knows, for example, the extent of what we can do. And he also knows the extent of what we can't, or won't be willing to do. On top of that, he knows that what he can do by way of retaliation will be far worse: as well as vital supplies of gas and oil, Russia supplies significant percentages of key raw materials for the high-tech industries -- titanium, palladium and rare-earth minerals. Cutting off those would really hurt the economies of Europe and America. It would also cut off a huge source of Russi...
Read more

Ukraine: Time to stand up and be counted...

Image
Boris Yeltsin, P resident Bill Clinton, Leonid Kuchma  and John Major signing the Budapest Memorandum in December 1994 Let’s just get this straight. At the last count Vladimir Putin was in violation of at least three international treaties that the Russian Federation is signed up to. First, the UN Charter, which amongst other things prohibits signatories from using force – or even the threat of it – in the settlement of international disputes. Second, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which commits them to respecting the sovereignty of Ukraine within its existing borders. And third, the protocol of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits attacks on “installations containing dangerous forces” – such as the nuclear power station they’ve been shelling. Not to mention that the intentional targeting of civilians and civilian buildings also constitutes a crime under international humanitarian law. No matter what the justification, Putin is way out of line. Yet so far, he's getting away with i...
Read more