US President Barack Obama dedicated a significant part of his UN speech to Russia and Ukraine, noting that the United States would force Russia to pay for aggression against Ukraine. In particular, he reminded that “all countries, big and small, must meet the responsibility to observe and enforce international norms.” Also the US president said that “Russia’s actions in Ukraine challenged this post-war order” and then provided facts of the Kremlin’s specific involvement in what has been happening in our country.
He emphasized that America stands for a different kind of behavior, which is not based on the principle that might makes right. “We believe that right makes might – that bigger nations should not be able to bully smaller ones, and that people should be able to choose their own future. America and our allies will support the people of Ukraine as they develop their democracy and economy. We will reinforce our NATO allies and uphold our commitment to collective self-defense. We will impose a cost on Russia for aggression, and we will counter falsehoods with the truth,” said Obama.
At the same time, he expressed an opinion that Russia can choose the path of peace, a chance for which is offered by the recent ceasefire agreement. “If Russia takes that path – a path that for stretches of the post-Cold War period resulted in prosperity for the Russian people – then we will lift our sanctions and welcome Russia’s role in addressing common challenges. That’s what the United States and Russia have been able to do in past years. And that’s the kind of cooperation we are prepared to pursue again – if Russia changes course. We will be happy to recognize Russia’s role, when it tries to solve common challenges not with the help of might, but with the help of right,” the US president summed up.
Obama also outlined the vision of the American government in the interconnected world. He said that the world had not confronted forcefully enough the intolerance, sectarianism, and hopelessness that feed extremism together.
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the Ebola outbreak in Africa are the problems that must be solved. But the gravest one, according to Obama, is violent extremism in the Middle East.
In his turn, Prime Minister Arsenii Yatseniuk in his two-minute speech at the Assembly called not to cancel the sanctions against Ukraine until Kyiv restores control over the whole territory of Ukraine. “We ask our partners not to lift sanctions until Ukraine gains control over all of its territory, from the east of Ukraine to Crimea. It is hard to achieve some kind of peaceful agreement when a gun made in Russia is pointed at you,” he said. But according to him, “as long as President Putin remains in office, it will be extremely hard for Ukraine to obtain control over Crimea.”
Despite the fact that “Russia’s aggression against Ukraine” along with two other threats, Ebola virus and Muslim state was among the main themes that were discussed at the UN General Assembly, Ukrainian issue was not completed with a resolution, as it happened in the case of extremism in the Muslim states. Is the threat of Russia’s expansionism, which was already revealed in the annexation of a neighboring country’s territory and Russia’s direct aggression in eastern Ukraine, in the course of which more than two thousand people died, less dangerous than Muslim extremism?
Late at night the other day the UN Security Council adopted a resolution that forces all countries take measures so that their citizens should not join jihadists in Iraq and Syria. The US President Barack Obama chaired the session. He stated that there “can be no negotiations” with Islamic State militants and countries must prevent the financing of foreign fighters. The US reported that jointly with Arab states it has been carrying out aircraft attacks on Islamic States targets and oil infrastructure in particular. Obama also urged the global community to dismantle the IS “network of death.” Security Council members cast a unanimous vote for the resolution created by the US.
The US started air raids against the IS fighters in Iraq last month and expanded the geography of attacks to Syria. The IS now controls several oil fields in Syria and Iraq. Revenues from selling contraband oil help the movement finance the attack in both countries. More than 120 Muslim scholars signed an open letter to the IS, in which they condemn the group’s ideology.
Muzammil Siddiqi, one of the signatories and chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America, which interprets Islamic religious law, said: “It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.” “It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats. Hence, it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers,” he added.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said at the Security Council meeting that Great Britain is ready “to play its role” in fighting the Islamic State, which he called “an evil against which the whole world must unite.” According to him, conflicts in Iraq and Syria attract young hirelings from developed countries.
And a question emerges here: isn’t Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, isn’t Russia’s expansionism also “an evil against which the whole world must unite”? Since Russian troops and their proxies are like Islamic extremists, they kill Ukrainians, and Russia is virtually a sponsor of terrorism by supplying military equipment and hirelings to the territory of another country. It is impossible that the right of veto at the UN would prohibit the punishment of Russia for these crimes, let alone the violation of international law and international agreements.
COMMENTARY
“THE CURRENT SITUATION DEMANDS NOT EASING, BUT INCREASING PRESSURE ON RUSSIA’S GOVERNMENT INCLUDING INTENSIFICATION OF SANCTIONS”
Oleh SHAMSHUR, former ambassador of Ukraine to the US, Kyiv:
“In general, this speech was designed to loudly proclaim the US’ intentions to play a leading role in fighting the global crises caused by the spread of the Ebola virus, Russia’s aggression in eastern Ukraine, and actions of the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. To a large extent, Obama’s speech was aimed at domestic audience, critics at the US Congress who blame him for unwillingness to take resolute actions in Ukraine and the Middle East. The approval rating of the current US president’s foreign policy is record low. Fighting the IS was a core of the speech. Obama tried to urge other countries to join the anti-terrorist coalition headed by the US with his speech at the UN General Assembly. He said that ‘the language of force is the only language understood by terrorists. So, the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death.’ The speech in New York was preceded by attacks of the US Air Force against the IS and unanimous support at the UN Security Council of a resolution offered by the US and aimed against IS foreign fighters (two thousand European citizens and a hundred Americans are fighting for the Islamist side in only one of its subdivisions). Unfortunately, I did not sense similar resoluteness in the US president’s words addressed to Vladimir Putin. He did condemn the support of militants in eastern Ukraine, which demonstrates ‘a vision of the world in which might makes right.’ At the same time, he did not specify parameters and the nature of the American aid to Ukraine, having confined himself to traditional assurances that the US and partners would ‘impose a cost on Russia for aggression.’ The least understanding and the most concern were caused by Obama’s words that the US is virtually ready to consider a possibility of lifting the sanctions against Russia if diplomatic path of the settlement of this crisis, which was started by the ‘truce,’ was continued. And this is said at a time when not only truce, but mere ceasefire seems to be too fragile, when Ukrainian civilians and military continue dying, when Russian troops are still on Ukraine’s ground, when Nazi-resembling regimes are created in territories controlled by terrorists, when human rights are systematically violated in occupied Crimea. This part of Obama’s speech shows that he and other Western leaders are still in a state of denial as regards true intentions of the Russian government. Ukraine faces a real threat of Russia’s expansionism, but the US president is ready to consider the option of restoring Russia’s previous role in the world. Such an approach poorly fits the US leader’s words that ‘Russia’s actions in Ukraine challenged the post-war order.’ The current situation demands not easing, but increasing pressure on the Russian government including the intensification of sanctions. Otherwise, Western politicians will be doomed to express ‘deep concern’ over quite expected surprises from the Kremlin’s host.”
