WHY ARE WE SLEEPWALKING INTO ARMAGEDDON?

Russia's President Putin has now said that if NATO forces assist Ukraine by providing long-range missiles that can strike deep into Russia, it will mean the NATO allies are at war with Russia, and he will respond in kind. And without any other framing context, he is perfectly entitled to do so. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and NATO has no business in getting involved beyond the ancient code of war: act in your own interest; might is right. 

But in the context of war with Russia, this is the counsel of fools. Russia is a nuclear power, and although it has thus far hesitated to use nukes, there is no doubt it would do so if it ever felt its territory and defence capabilities were being seriously threatened. And even if the current conflict only continues on a tit-for-tat basis, NATO cannot defeat Putin without risking the ultimate option, and bringing on Armageddon.

So why are they playing this dangerous game, one that cannot be won? Why is the conflict being framed as a 'war' with Russia when there is another, much larger context in which we could – and should – be dealing with it? For every country in the UN is signatory to its Charter – which means we have all agreed that no member state will attack another sovereign state. It's right there in Article 2.4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Like any other legal document, this is a binding contract. Russia is signed up to it, and through its attack on Ukraine, is clearly in breach of that agreement. If this were a domestic dispute, they would be taken to court, but the court that ultimately decides such issues at the UN is the Security Council – and the five permanent members (of which Russia is one) can veto any decision which would allow the UN to formally take action against them. This seems to be the sticking point at which everyone gives up, the inbuilt fatal flaw. 

But wait: though we seem to have forgotten, it turns out the drafters of the UN Charter had thought of that. Here's the relevant section, clearly stated in Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective [my emphasis] self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. 

This means that even without the formal authorisation of the Security Council, other member states are allowed – and even morally bound – to assist Ukraine in defending itself against Russia's illegal attack on its territory. There should be no hesitation in saying this. It's not enough to say, as NATO leaders do, that Putin is acting illegally – yet prevaricate over whether and how they should provide assistance. Under the existing law, in the absence of a Security Council resolution, they have every right to give Ukraine what it needs to defend itself, including the provision of troops if necessary. 

The West is, of course, worried about escalation. But this is not the point. Any conventional war risks escalation – but this is not a conventional war. This is about upholding the law, the only effective alternative to war. We accept that principle absolutely within our own countries. Why do we not now insist that the same principle be upheld internationally? We've all agreed that naked aggression cannot be accepted. Russia's signature is there on the same page as everyone else's. This conflict is not about war, it is about enforcement. We should not be shy about saying so, and acting accordingly.

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