Still
another such session was held on November 12th pursuant to the
initial request on this issue dated February 28, 2014 by Ukraine's Permanent
Representative to the Security Council president when Russia invaded Crimea.
This latest session was spurred on by a further letter of the Ukrainian side
dated November 7th, following the purported elections in terrorist
held territories of Ukraine and the most recent invasion into Ukraine by
Russian troops, tanks, armored vehicles, howitzers and “humanitarian” convoys.
On one hand
the Russian aggression against Ukraine is the subject of international concern
at the global community's premier forum. On the other the proceedings highlight
the futility of this forum and more importantly Ukraine's need to take on
Russia by itself despite the seeming sympathy of that global community. The UN
Security Council is essentially a television talk show. There is little purpose
for the debate. Despite updates from UN undersecretaries and OSCE monitoring
mission ambassadors, at the conclusion nothing is decided in this case because
Russia holds a veto on action.
Perhaps the
most striking example of international futility is that despite the Minsk
protocol and memorandum of September 2014 pursuant to which all parties agreed
to OSCE monitoring of the 400 km border between Russia and Ukraine near the war
zone, OSCE in effect monitors some 2 km.
Still the
diplomatic debate goes on. Russian Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin was
not in good form on November 12. Not
only was he not credible which has been a problem for some time, but now he
didn't seem to care that no one was believing anything he was saying. In arrogant and boorish fashion he simply
attacked. Perhaps, assuming the tactic of an offense being the strongest
defense by deflecting from the real issues, he attacked the OSCE monitors for
being invited to brief the debate, thus poisoning objectivity and rendering the
debate a farce. He attacked the victim
Ukraine. He attacked the Ukrainian side
for not abiding by the Minsk agreement with no examples or evidence and
exhausting himself in the process he attacked Ukraine for not believing in the
Minsk process, but simply using the “ceasefire” to regroup.
Not
surprisingly the representative from Argentina participated in the debate yet managed
to say absolutely nothing. Ukrainian sovereignty was never mentioned. Neither
was Russia. The word “Ukraine” was used only in a geographic sense. Even China
did better reinforcing its support for Ukraine's sovereignty. What continues to
baffle me about this Kirchner position despite President Kirchner's affinity to
Putin and Russia is that there is such a large and vibrant Ukrainian community
in Argentina, apparently saying very little or not enough. Even some of my
Ukrainian – American friends were born or spent their early years in Argentina.
Perhaps they need a road map. The Permanent Mission of Argentina to the UN is
located at 1 UN Plaza, just across 1st Avenue from the UN in New
York City. Public assembly and sound
device permits can be obtained at the Midtown police precinct on 51 st Street between
Third Avenue and Lexington.
Australia
chaired the council meeting and its representative concluded the remarks of the
Security Council members. He spoke about
respect for Ukrainian sovereignty, its territorial inviolability and blamed
Russia for the conflict as well as the Malaysian Air tragedy. However, the language excoriating Russia seemed
to lose much of its bite as back home “down under” Prime Minister Tony Abbott
was about to host the main perpetrator Vladimir Putin at the upcoming G20
summit. How do you condemn someone for murdering almost three hundred innocents
among them many of your own people and then wine and dine the criminal in your
own home? Only a politician or diplomat
can answer that question.
The United Kingdom
and France as usual spoke diplomatically in support of Ukraine and against
Russian aggression and duplicity. So did
Rwanda, Chad, Nigeria, Jordan, Luxembourg, the Republic of Korea and Chile. The
representative of Lithuania as usual was particularly emphatic manifesting
a more pronounced understanding of
Russian imperialism than the others.
Most
disappointing, however, was U.S.
Ambassador Samantha Power. She was brilliant, best informed, forceful,
articulate, generally disdainful of Russia and Vladimir Putin and strongly
supportive of Ukraine. She supported her comments with tangible examples as
evidence of Russian aggression and duplicity. Unfortunately, her President was not in the
audience listening to those arguments. He was in the far east meeting, greeting
and generally having a good time with the object of her strong condemnation.
November
13, 2014 Askold
S. Lozynskyj
Немає коментарів:
Дописати коментар