Post-World War Two order faces growing setback

‘Military drills’ are currently unfolding relentlessly on the Ukraine-Russia border and they are beginning to feature nuclear-capable ballistic missiles. The latter reality ought to set the world thinking with unprecedented concern. A coldly inhuman order to unleash these mass-destruction weapons on Ukraine is all that is required to plunge Europe into a nuclear catastrophe of mind-numbing proportions.

The use of the nuclear option by Russia in Ukraine in the event of Russia deciding on a full-scale invasion of her embattled neighbour would not draw a like response from nuclear-incapable Ukraine but some militarily powerful Western states that are supportive of it are likely to react with the use of like weapons on invading Russian-Belarus forces. Needless to say, such weapons of daunting range are available to Russia’s adversaries as well. Thus, would come to pass a Europe-wide nuclear holocaust, if wise counsel does not prevail.

May be this is a worst-case scenario but one that is very likely to happen considering that the use of the nuclear option by one major party to the conflict is likely to draw like responses from other principal actors in the stand-off in the manner of a chain reaction. Hopefully, this grim prospect is being dreaded by all concerned. It is time that the anti-nuclear movement, which was once so prominent by its presence in the West in particular, reactivated itself.

Likewise, it would be relevant to question as to what has become of those anti-war movements that were vibrantly active in the Cold War decades. A deadening of the human consciousness to war and its ravages is one of the most dreaded developments that could occur in the modern history of mankind. May not this come to pass, is the hope of the humanist.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin could be considered as having compounded the crisis by unilaterally declaring the ‘rebel regions’ of Donetsk and Luhansk of eastern Ukraine as independent states. Through this act, the Russian leader is putting the world on notice that International Law is not of much importance to him. Besides, he seems to be indicating that the UN system and its strictures do not matter much to him as well, thus, reverting Russia and its satellites in the Ukraine region to pre-World War Two times. That is, the post-World War Two order is being gravely undermined and it seems that the stage is being set for land grabs of the Hitlerian kind which, of course, paved the way for World War Two.

It does not follow from the above observations that the West, led by the US, has not done its part to undermine the World War Two international political order or has scrupulously upheld civilizational values and norms at the heart of International Humanitarian Law in its military involvements around the world over the decades. Military intervention by NATO in the late nineties in the Kosovo crisis, as some commentators have pointed out, marked the beginning of the violation of the post-World War Two political order.

Needless to say, breaches by the West of International Humanitarian Law were numerous in Iraq and Afghanistan, to consider just two examples. It could very well be that the West’s ability to infringe International Law and get away with it has emboldened Russia.

However, what is notably new about Russia’s military involvement in the Ukraine is the potential it has to stoke divisive nationalistic fervour in the region and outside it to highly concerning new heights. Arbitrarily drawn-out land borders in Europe and outside it has led to intermittent war and conflict but a responsibility is cast currently on states big and small to ensure that no fresh, divisive tendencies of a particularly nation-breaking kind occur in the world, considering their grave implications for war and peace.

A crucial factor that needs consideration by parties to the Ukraine conflict is the democratic right to self-determination of the Ukraine people. President Putin ardently feels that Ukraine is an inseparable part of Russia and that it should therefore go back to the Russian fold. But if his wish were to be respected, this would amount to Putin arrogating unto himself, and himself only, the right to self-determination of the Ukrainians; a clear violation of International Law.

If the principle of national self-determination is to be respected in this connection, a referendum would need to be held in Ukraine to ascertain the wishes of the Ukrainian people on this decisive issue. After all, Ukraine emerged from the collapse of the USSR as an independent state. The outcome of this referendum should be allowed to decide the future status of Ukraine. However, an attempt to enforce President Putin’s personal wishes could result in further conflict and war, given their undemocratic and autocratic nature.

Moreover, the international political order needs to be continually based on law and democratic principles. There’s no denying the fact that we have inherited a highly flawed international order since World War Two but the world would need to soldier on with the current system while trying its best to rid the system of its limitations. As a way of rectifying some of these shortcomings, UN reform would need to be persisted with.

There is no denying that ‘We are living in a highly dangerous moment’. This is not only because nuclear-capable weapons are being showed off on the Ukraine border. It is also because the UN is not being made to count in the Ukraine tangle. The attempt by the main parties is to counter force with force and it need hardly be said that this is the path to mutual destruction.

Right now, the UN needs to play a far more proactive role. Tough negotiations could lie ahead but the possibility of mutual destruction ought to convince the antagonists that it is to the UN that they must turn to wrest a win-win solution to the crisis. Meanwhile, limitless patience should be exercised by all sides, because even a moment’s impatience could cost humanity very dearly. The time’s also right for the millions of ordinary people in the states concerned to raise their voices in the cause of international peace. They are likely to be at variance with their politicians on this crucial question.