The Secession of Crimea

The crisis in Ukraine has been long cooking since 2004 and the Orange Revolution (1). Since then, there has been a strong opposition to pro-Russian supporters.
The situation in the country was relatively calm until 2010, when President Yanukovich won elections and his rival candidate, Yulia Timoshenko, was arrested. In November 2013 the protests started gaining velocity, violent conflicts erupted and opposition blew up in Kiev, responding to Yanukovich’s new agreement on working closer with Russia, whilst stopping negotiations with the European Union. The conflicts did not reach the Crimean peninsula, nevertheless the Crimean Parliament, which is granted limited autonomy, asked Russia to protect them.

Crimea has been part of the Ukrainian state –or formerly the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic- since 1954 and provides great strategic value, since the Black Sea ports of Crimea offer unproblematic access to the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Crimea has been the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet for several decades and is therefore of great importance to Russian military strategy. For the Russian Federation, the base in Sevastopol is the only access into international waters, since the northern ports in e.g. Siberia are subject to freezing. According to the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine, the population is composed of 58.5% ethic Russians, 24.4% Ukrainians and 12.1% Crimean Tartars among others, amounting to a total population of approximately 2.0 million (All Ukrainian Population Census 2001, State Statistics Committee of Ukraine, 2003). During the period between the last population censuses 1989 the number of Russians has decreased by 11.6%. It might be argued that –based on the fact that the last census was conducted 13 years ago- the actual number of Russians living in Crimea has furthermore decreased.

As of late February, pro-Russian armed forces took control of key administrative buildings in the Crimean capital, Simferopol.. Russian troops started patrolling the streets of Crimea in an intimidating way. Eventually, an illegal referendum was held, and the questionable results showed that the citizens of Crimea wanted to rejoin the Russian Federation, which now holds control over the Crimean peninsula.

In chapter 10 of the constitution of Ukraine it is stated, that “(…) the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is an inseparable constituent part of Ukraine and decides on the issues ascribed to its competence within the limits of authority determined by the Constitution of Ukraine” (Constitution of Ukraine, Chapter 10, Article 134. Available at http://www.infoukes.com/history/constitution/index-en.html (21/11/2014)). Although the Autonomous Republic of Crimea has several competences, which are described in Article 138 of the constitution, the power of conducting a referendum about leaving to Ukraine is none of these - it contradicts the constitution, unless approved at national level. We base this theory upon the fact that the Constitution of Ukraine limits the authority of the autonomous republic, which explicitly –see above- states that the Crimean peninsula is part of the Ukraine.

It is furthermore denoted in the second article of the Charter of the United Nations that “(…) all member shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purpose of the United Nations” (Chapter I, Article 2, No. 4. Charter of the United Nations. San Francisco (1945)). The armed intervention by Russian soldiers within the Crimean peninsula and the following annexation of Crimea is an evident violation of international law. It infringes the fundamental principals of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state. The Russian intervention also violates the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 (K-6, No. 1 and No. 2, Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest (05/12/1994)), which reaffirms the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders – including Crimea- of Ukraine. The memorandum also denotes that the US, the Russian Federation and Great Britain will “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations” (K-6, No. 2, Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Budapest (05/12/1994)). In this case, the Russian Federation did not act in self-defense, nor did it act on behalf of an UN resolution. Therefore it is evident that the intervention was a clear violation of international law and cannot be accepted by the international community. Therefore the Crimean referendum itself was only recognised by 15 states (4), and only five UN members –namely Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Syria, Venezuela and Russia itself- have explicitly accepted the Republic or Crimea and Sevastopol as part of the Russian Federation (Source: The New York Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/world/asia/breaking-with-the-west-afghan-leader-supports-russias-annexation-of-crimea.html?ref=asia&_r=0 (22.11.2014)).

In a TV interview on German television published on 16.11.2014 and conducted by NDR-journalist Hubert Seipel in Vladivostok (link: http://mediathek.daserste.de/G%C3%BCnther-Jauch/Das-Putin-Interview-wohin-steuert-der/DasErste/Video?documentId=24757468&topRessort=tv&bcastId=8109878 21.11.2014), President Putin argued that he had the moral obligation to intervene in the conflict in order to protect his Russian kinsmen living on the Crimean peninsula. He justified the decision to send troops to Crimea by comparing it to the international intervention in Kosovo in the 1990s. But analysing this, one has to argue that –compared to Kosovo- no mass murder and no ethnic cleansing has happened in Crimea so far and there is no evidence whatsoever that would indicate comparable actions in the future. In a speech to the German Bundestag in March 2014, German Chancellor Angela Merkel considered it “shameful” to compare the independence of Kosovo with what was happening in the Ukraine. Merkel noted that the “conflict is about spheres on influence and territorial claims” (found at: http://euobserver.com/foreign/123454. 21/11/2014) and not about moral obligations to intervene.
In order to analyse the situation from a moral point of view, one should also contemplate what Immanuel Kant said about moral justification. Kant formulated the categorical imperative, which says that a specific action could only be justified morally, if it could serve as a generally accepted norm or principle (free translation of lecture: Einführung in die Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, Prof. Dr. Bernward Gesang, Universität Mannheim, Germany, 02/2014). Within the framework of the Crimea crisis this would mean, that every state in the world has the right to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of any other state, upon the assumption that its kinsmen could potentially be subject to violent conflicts. If this justification would become a generally accepted principle, the whole world would just end up in chaos.

Consequently we came to the conclusion that the armed intervention of the Russian Federation into the Crimea crisis and the following annexation of the Crimean peninsula cannot be justified - neither legally, nor morally. The Crimean peninsula belongs to the Ukraine.

This move of Russia was highly condemned by the European Union and the United States, which stated that there would be sanctions to the Russian Federation. The G8 has already become G7 after Russia was forced to leave the organization, as well as the United States has stopped commercial relations with Russia.

Although the lack of justification is evident, it is questionably whether this will bring Crimea back into the Ukraine. A scenario, in which Russia would give back Crimea to the Ukrainian government, just because they possess no justification for keeping the peninsula, is highly improbable. In this case the Russian Federation and Mr Putin would lose their face in international politics. The intense effort and propaganda they exercised in justifying their behaviour would have been obsolete in retrospective. On the other hand, Ukraine cannot just sit still and quietly approve the annexation of Crimea; this would undermine the authority of the government. The situation is highly conflict-prone.

The pressure exercised by the EU, the US and other Western states may lead to a more realistic scenario. As German Secretary of Defence Ursula von der Leyen explained, when interviewed by German television (http://mediathek.daserste.de/G%C3%BCnther-Jauch/Das-Putin-Interview-wohin-steuert-der/DasErste/Video?documentId=24757468&topRessort=tv&bcastId=8109878 . 21.11.2014), an armed intervention of Western states in the conflict is out of the question. In solving the conflict, von der Leyen stated, Western states have to rely on more modern methods of conflict resolution – such as political and economic sanctions in three steps of escalation. The first step of the escalation ladder was freezing EU-Russia talks on visa freedom and trade. The second step was directed at President Putin´s inner circle and the political and economic elite in Russia. The EU and other Western states impose travel bans and freeze bank accounts of Putin´s allies. The third step that was taken until now is economic sanctions, directed at the Russian economy and therefore at the general population. A possible fourth step of escalation in our opinion could be the entire exclusion of Russia from the worlds´ financial system. This step would be absolutely devastating for the Russian economy, Russian firms would have no access to international capital markets anymore and the unemployment rate would rise drastically. The Kremlin could be forced to cooperate. Although Putin suggests in the above stated interview with Hupert Seipel that the sanctions would hurt the EU more than they hurt Russia, they have had quite an impact on Russia, politically and economically. According to German newspaper Handelsblatt, the Rouble has depreciated 45% on the Dollar since January 2014. The RTS-Index (“Russia Trading System”; Russian stock-market index) lost around 30% in the same time (Handelsblatt Online. Available at http://www.handelsblatt.com/finanzen/rohstoffe-devisen/devisen/rubelkurs-oelpreis-und-sanktionen-druecken-rubel/10990324.html. 22/11/2014). The massive decline in the oil-price furthermore has a significantly negative impact on the Russian economy, which is highly dependent on oil exports. The economic outlook Mr Putin gave in his interview with Mr Seipel of around 1.3% in the first year, 2.4% in the second year and increasing growth rates in the years coming, must be considered propaganda.

The political and economic pressure on the Kremlin is increasing as the sanctions of the West keep in place. Eventually, as this pressure gets too large, the Kremlin may come to the conclusion that it has no alternative than re-thinking their acting in the Crimea crisis. They should consider engaging in negotiations with the Ukraine and finding a solution, that is suitable and acceptable for all parties involved. Since it is highly improbable that the Russian Federation will eventually return Crimea to the Ukraine, an alternative scenario could be as follows: The Crimean peninsula, with its great strategic and geopolitical value, remains part of the Russian Federation and the Ukrainian government receives some kind of compensation. The compensation package for the Ukraine could for example contain monetary components (debt cancellation from Ukrainian balances with Russia) and political components (approval/acknowledgement of Ukraine´s interest to join the EU). As a matter of course, a ceasefire must be established and all Russian troops must exit Ukrainian territory.

Sources:

Kennedy, S. (2014, March 21). Russia-Ukraine Crisis Threatens Europe Economy: Cutting Research. Bloomberg.com. Retrieved April 18, 2014, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-21/russia-ukraine-crisis-threatens-europe-economy-cutting-research.html

Ukraine crisis timeline. (2014, April 11). BBC News. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26248275

Gordon, M. (2014, April 17). U.S. and Russia Agree on Pact to Defuse Ukraine Crisis. The New York Times. Retrieved May 20, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/world/europe/ukraine-diplomacy.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0

Ukraine crisis could hit Russian GDP. (2014, April 15). BBC News. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27031630

US and Russia seek Ukraine solution. (2014, April 10). BBC News. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26965632