President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko outlined his vision for the UN in the speech delivered on September 21 at the General Debate of the 71th session of the UN General Assembly (GA). The debate’s theme was “The Sustainable Development Goals: A Universal Push to Transform Our World.”
In particular, the head of state believes that limiting the use of the veto power in decision-making on conflict prevention and resolution should become a priority task within the Security Council reform. Besides, he added, the world needed to elaborate mechanisms of officially documenting evidence of the aggression of one country against another and to envisage clear responsibility for the aggressor in line with the UN Charter principles.
Meanwhile, President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves stressed in his speech from the rostrum of the UN that the international community had not drawn the necessary lessons from the Russian aggression in Georgia, which was repeated later in Ukraine. He believes that the world needs not only international law, but also the mechanisms to enforce it. “Unless the UN starts to do more, it will, over time, lose relevance,” said Ilves.
President Poroshenko told reporters in New York that he had had a long conversation with US President Barack Obama, during which they discussed the implementation of the Minsk Agreements.
However, the global media paid more attention to US Vice President Joe Biden’s statement, who, while speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, called on the Ukrainian president to accelerate political and economic reforms, saying that otherwise, there was a risk that some member countries of the EU would lift the Russia sanctions.
Coming from an American friend of Ukraine, such a declaration makes a very strange impression. After all, the Russia sanctions have been imposed by the US and the EU in response to the annexation of Crimea and Russian aggression in the Donbas, and their aim is, according to Obama, to get Russia to comply with the international law. This means withdrawal of Russian troops from the Donbas and restoring Crimea to Ukraine. There is no reference to reform here. The latter is covered in totally different documents: the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU, various memoranda signed by Ukraine and the IMF, etc.
That statement by Biden might rather play into the hands of those forces in the EU that have been wishing to lift the Russia sanctions and to restart trading for a long time. Inspired by the US vice president mistakenly drawing links between the sanctions and reforms in Ukraine, they will now have an excuse to ignore outright the EU’s duty to force Russia to implement the Minsk Agreements.
In the context of such a contradictory statement by Biden, the House of Representatives’ unanimous approval of H.R. 5094 Stability and Democracy for Ukraine Act is a positive development. The document reaffirms the US’s will to maintain sanctions against Russia until timely, complete, and verifiable implementation of the Minsk Agreements on its part.
The law includes a ban on the US recognition of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. It states that the relevant sanctions will remain in force until US president submits to the Congress a certification that Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea has been restored.
Among assistance which the US is to provide in coordination with its allies and partners, the law lists lethal weapon systems of defensive nature. Some of its provisions are aimed at strengthening countermeasures against Russian propaganda and promoting foreign investment in Ukraine.
The Day asked our experts to comment on the Ukrainian president’s speech at the UNGA, the contradictory statement by vice president Biden on the risk of some EU nations lifting sanctions against Russia, and Donald Trump’s refusal to meet with Poroshenko.
“POROSHENKO’S SPEECH WAS A STRONG STATEMENT”
John HERBST, director, Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council; former US ambassador to Ukraine, Washington:
“I cannot speak for the US government, but believe that President Poroshenko’s speech at the UNGA was a strong statement of the danger presented by the Kremlin’s revisionist policies, the sufferings of the Ukrainian people as a result of Moscow’s aggression and the need for the international community to condemn this aggression and to help Ukraine defeat it.
“Hillary Clinton met with Mr. Poroshenko and, by all reports, had an excellent exchange in which she reiterated her support for Ukraine. It is not clear why Donald Trump did not agree to a meeting. Maybe he had no time. But it would have been smart politics to hold the meeting. That would have given him an opportunity to undo some of the damage that he did to his campaign by his incorrect and irresponsible statements regarding Russian aggression in Ukraine and NATO.
“We do not know what policies concerning Russia and Ukraine Mr. Trump would pursue as president. Most of the statements that he has made over the past few months on the topic have shown a naive and reckless understanding of Moscow’s revisionist policies. It is also true that the intervention of some of his aides weakened the Republican Party platform on Ukraine; but one year ago in a Skype interview for the YES conference, he spoke of Ukraine’s just fight against Russian aggression.
“At this year’s YES conference, Newt Gingrich spoke for himself about Ukraine. There is no reason to suppose that Gingrich’s long time personal support for providing Ukraine weapons is a reflection of Trump’s views.
“I believe that Hillary Clinton understands the need to support Ukraine with economic and military aid, to bring pressure on an aggressive Kremlin through economic sanctions and to withstand further Kremlin provocations by strengthening NATO. Those are the right foreign policy positions. It would be a very good thing if we saw a similar statesmanlike understanding from Donald Trump.”
“BOTH CANDIDATES SHOULD NEVER RECOGNIZE THE ILLEGAL ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA”
William B. TAYLOR, executive vice president, United States Institute of Peace; former US ambassador to Ukraine, Washington:
“An opportunity to discuss important issues of international security with the president of one of the most important frontline countries in Europe is not to be missed. One of the US presidential candidates missed that opportunity. Both candidates themselves should commit to supporting Ukraine politically, financially, and militarily against Russian aggression. Both candidates should continue the internationally agreed position never to recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia and to maintain both sets of sanctions until both issues – Crimea and Donbas – are resolved to the satisfaction of the Ukrainian government.”
“UKRAINE IS DEFENDING NOT ONLY ITSELF, BUT ALSO EUROPE”
Oleksandr MOTSYK, former ambassador of Ukraine to the US, Kyiv:
“In any case, we should continue with reforms and actively implement them to change the country for the better, so that it becomes a country in which we and our children would like to live, with all the features of a civilized European country, on par with highest-achieving European nations regarding human rights and living standards.
“Nonetheless, the sanctions imposed on Russia should be not only extended, but also tightened, of course. After all, Russia committed acts of aggression in violation of international law, annexed part of the Ukrainian territory, and occupied another part of it. Such actions are not only violations of international law, but also a threat to international security, they should be recognized as such, and the international community must respond to them.
“The sanctions were precisely a response to Russia’s actions, since they were imposed in order to show a nation that had violated international law that no one may act in this way in the international community. Moreover, given that ever since signing of the Minsk Agreements on February 12, 2015, Russia has completely ignored them, and has done the opposite, inundating the Donbas with arms and troops, the bandits who go there to fight against the Ukrainian people, the sanctions should be only tightened. Unfortunately, there is no other way yet to stop this aggression and push Russia into complying with its international obligations under the international law, I mean the Helsinki Final Act.
“If European countries who are now clamoring for lifting of sanctions think that they will stay away from the fight, they are very naive. After all, Ukraine is defending not only itself, but also Europe, the European values, which are also being targeted by this aggression. And European countries need to understand clearly that they have certain obligations to Ukraine. If some EU countries are saying they are feeling uncomfortable, losing some economic preferences because of the sanctions, it will only encourage the aggressor, and it is absolutely possible that they will then find themselves having to spend far more effort to stop further Russian aggression.”
“THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AIMS TO INCREASE COSTS OF THE KREMLIN’S ACTIONS”
Mykola KAPITONENKO, executive director, Center for International Studies, Kyiv:
“From my perspective, the US strategy towards Ukraine remains consistent and pragmatic, and is limited to minimizing the risks. The key problem is that we are still an unreliable, unpredictable, and inefficient partner, and therefore there is no reason to expect a breakthrough in bilateral relations. The rhetoric and meetings will not change it. The Obama Administration’s cautious approach towards Ukraine is easily understandable. We remain a weak and corrupt state, and supporting it may well be a risky decision. Therefore, the US government’s chosen tactics of doing less than it can is quite justified. Ukraine is a kind of trap which Russia has voluntarily entered.
“The US government aims to increase costs of the Kremlin’s actions that are undermining the foundations of the world order and to keep Ukraine on life support. Everything else takes second place. Hence the logic of the US president’s decisions, who has the last word on foreign policy. Over these two and a half years, the House of Representatives and the Senate have approved enough documents providing ample opportunities for the president to support Ukraine, but Obama is in no hurry to use them. I think that the next American president will follow the same approach. Most likely, Trump’s refusal to meet with the president of Ukraine was guided by similar reasoning, stating that one needed to be cautious in one’s dealings with the Ukrainian issue. We have told Americans nothing new.
“The question of the UN reform and the effectiveness of international law is an eternal one. In dark times of crisis, people return to it with special fervor, because these are the times when hard power becomes disproportionately important. The president of Estonia’s proposal to create an enforcement mechanism to make nations comply with the law is yet another go at it. Unfortunately, it is utopian. The world politics is still largely a jungle, an arena of anarchic interaction between absolute egoists. It is better to perceive it in this way than to entertain illusions about the effectiveness of the UN or international law.
“The current version of the H.R. 5094 Act offers nothing new in comparison with The Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014. The sanctions regime is linked to the Minsk peace process and the status of Crimea. An ominous sign is a reference to the Stimson Doctrine that led the US to implement non-recognition policy regarding the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States between 1940 and 1991. Application of something similar with regard to the annexation of Crimea will actually mean a gradual restoration of contacts between the US and Russia despite the formal non-recognition of the annexation. In addition, the document provides for a solution to the issue other than the full restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea, namely through internationally recognized procedures and with the consent of the government of Ukraine. In general, the document, even if it is approved, which needs the consent of the Senate and the president, will not become the basis for US policy towards Ukraine. The initiative will still stay with the administration.”
