FORMER U.S. ENVOY: UKRAINE IS A STATE BUT NOT YET A NATION
March 5, 2014 – 18:21 AMT
PanARMENIAN.Net – With all of the reports coming out of Ukraine,
Moscow, Washington, and European capitals, the mutual accusations,
the knee-jerk speculation, and–not least–the hysterical language of
some observers, bordering on the apocalyptic, it is difficult to keep
in mind the long-term implications of what is happening, former U.S.
ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack Matlock says.
“Nevertheless, I believe that nobody can understand the likely
outcomes of what is happening unless they bear in mind the historical,
geographic, political and psychological factors at play in these
dramatic events. The view of most of the media, whether Russian or
Western, seems to be that one side or the other is going to “win” or
“lose” Ukraine. I believe that is fundamentally mistaken. If I were
Ukrainian I would echo the immortal words of the late Walt Kelly’s
Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” The fact is, Ukraine is a
state but not yet a nation. In the 22-plus years of its independence,
it has not yet found a leader who can unite its citizens in a shared
concept of Ukrainian identity. Yes, Russia has interfered, but it
is not Russian interference that has created Ukrainian disunity but
rather the haphazard way the country was assembled from parts that
were not always mutually compatible. To the flaw at the inception
of an independent Ukraine, one must add the baleful effects of the
Soviet Communist heritage both Russia and Ukraine have inherited,” he
says in a blog post titled ‘Ukraine: The Price of Internal Division.’
A second mistake people make, according to him, is to assume that
when a given government adopts a particular policy that policy is in
the true interest of that country.
“In fact, as often as not, policies made in the heat of emotion, by
leaders who feel personally challenged by opponents, are more likely
to be counterproductive than supportive of a country’s true interest.
Political leaders are not computers weighing costs and benefits or
risks and rewards in objective fashion. They are human beings endowed
with their full share of human weaknesses, including especially
vanity, pride and the felt necessity of maintaining appearances,
whatever the reality,” Matlock says.
“The current territory of the Ukrainian state was assembled, not by
Ukrainians themselves but by outsiders, and took its present form
following the end of World War II. To think of it as a traditional or
primordial whole is absurd. This applies a fortiori to the two most
recent additions to Ukraine–that of some eastern portions of interwar
Poland and Czechoslovakia, annexed by Stalin at the end of the war,
and the largely Russian-speaking Crimea, which was transferred from
the RSFSR well after the war, when Nikita Khrushchev controlled the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Since all constituent parts of the
USSR were ruled from Moscow, it seemed at the time a paper transfer
of no practical significance. (Even then, the city of Sevastopol,
the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet, was subordinated directly
to Moscow, not Kiev.) Up to then, the Crimea had been considered an
integral part of Russia since Catherine “the Great” conquered it in
the 18th century,” he reminds.
Because of its history, geographical location, and both natural
and constructed economic ties, there is no way Ukraine will ever be
a prosperous, healthy, or united country unless it has a friendly
(or, at the very least, non-antagonistic) relationship with Russia,
Matlock notes.
“Russia, as any other country would be, is extremely sensitive about
foreign military activity adjacent to its borders. It has signaled
repeatedly that it will stop at nothing to prevent NATO membership
for Ukraine. (In fact, most Ukrainians do not want it.) Nevertheless,
Ukrainian membership in NATO was an avowed objective of the Bush-Cheney
administration and one that has not been categorically excluded by
the Obama Administration,” he says.
Many important questions remain, Matlock says. “One relates to
the principle of “territorial integrity.” Yes, that is important,
but it is not the only principle to consider. Russians would argue,
with some substance in the argument, that the U.S. is interested in
territorial integrity only when its interests are served. American
governments have a record of ignoring it when convenient, as when it
and its NATO allies violated Serbian territorial integrity by creating
and then recognizing an independent Kosovo. Also, by supporting the
separation of South Sudan from Sudan, Eritrea from Ethiopia, and East
Timor from Indonesia.”
“So far as violating sovereignty is concerned, Russia would point
out that the U.S. invaded Panama to arrest Noriega, invaded Grenada
to prevent American citizens from being taken hostage (even though
they had not been taken hostage), invaded Iraq on spurious grounds
that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, targets
people in other countries with drones, etc., etc. In other words,
for the U.S. to preach about respect for sovereignty and preservation
of territorial integrity to a Russian president can seem a claim to
special rights not allowed others,” he concludes.
From: A. Papazian
http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/176530/
http://jackmatlock.com/2014/03/ukraine-the-price-of-internal-division/