Opinion: The Crimea - sui generis

The EU's curse on the Crimea referendum is certainly not contributing to an effective Ukraine crisis resolution: the situation on the ground is developing much faster than the slow-motion bureaucratic pace of the institutions - the vote today (16 March) will take place without their blessing.

The so-called sanctions to be imposed on Russia have not impressed the Kremlin sufficiently to push it into a retreat. Firstly, because they are the prerogative of the UN, where Russia has its veto in the Security Council, so the debate of the EU in reality concerns the restrictive measures. Secondly, the major Russian exports are in gas and oil - the goods that are impossible to reject in the highly political battle over Ukraine.

If  Europe took a decision to trade with Lenin, putting economic interests ahead of ideological – the concept that dominated European politics throughout the era of Communism – it is highly improbable it would reject co-operation with Putin’s capitalist Russia. So far, the threats of the EU have made a tremendous impact on communists and nationalists who cheered on sanctions as proof of their claim that Russia is surrounded by enemies. Not good news for those who hoped for rapprochement between East and West.

Looking at the rise of nationalistic fervour in Russia, one is reminded of the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ predicted by US political philosopher Samuel Huntington on the collapse of the USSR: culture is replacing ideology, as the Crimea leans towards Russia due to the magnetic force of their common identity.

Next to cultural, one can also perceive the Crimea situation in a legal framework, referring to Kosovo sui generis – the ‘of its own kind’ precedent, which opened a broad gate to the creation of new state entities. The processes in a global world point in this direction: if after World War II there were around  80 states, now there are more than 200, and the process is not likely to stop there.

However, leaving political theory on the birth of states aside, and coming back to earth to the Crimean referendum, there is a small margin for gambling over the choice that will be made - after the outbreak of violence in Maidan Square, which swiftly spread over the whole of Ukraine, the majority of Crimeans will be eager to join authoritarian but stable Russia. The option of fighting with Molotov cocktails for the European perspective is seductive to only a few…

But violence is not the only reason discouraging the Crimeans from EU integration. In the years following its independence, the struggle for Ukraine identity took the wretched route of fighting against Russian culture as its major threat. As soon as the new Ukrainian leadership took power, it immediately stripped the Russian language of its regional status, which  destroyed confidence.

With the appointment of seven oligarchs in the new government, the regime's negative image was completed: the people felt that this was merely the next act in the ongoing battle after the oligarchs' struggle for power for their own good in the Orange Revolution -  the notorious struggle that branded Ukraine as a ‘defective democracy’.

The EU's anathema to President Yanukovych raises uncommfortable questions: if he is so staunchly corrupt, why was he courted by EU Presidency leaders for his signature on the Association Agreement for so long? Condemnation of the ousted president rubs off on his accusers - why they did not acknowledge Yanoukovych's flaws before?

The close-up on the Ukrainian political deadlock on the eve of the Maidan Square violence did not contribute favourably to the EU leaders' image, as they were pushing the whole of the Union into co-operation with a politician whom they are now declaring as a crook.

In this general atmosphere of confusion, and doubt in the competences of EU leadership, news of the €11 billion reform assistance package for Ukraine's new leaders looks  questionable in the eyes of European tax-payers. With an army of 25 million unemployed, the EU's generosity towards third parties seems inappropriate: where does solidarity end and sacrifice begin?

The European youth fund to support the unemployed (€6 billion) was established with great difficulty and much debate, while nearly double this amount has been swiftly provided to a government of seven oligarchs, who probably could unite their own financial means to rescue their own motherland.

Obviously, the EU's top diplomat Baroness Ashton is sincere in her desire to make the EU a global player, spreading its influence and promoting its values but, with a salary that tops US President Obama's, is she still able to associate with EU citizens, particularly the 25 million of them who are unemployed?

Great empires have flourished and faded on the territory of Europe, challenging us with the inherited issue of its borders, tempting contemporary leaders reminiscent of their ancestors' glory to enlarge. But, unlike the realms of the past, present-day Europe is united on democratic principles to promote its citizens well-being. If the spread of EU values takes over at the cost of negligence of the very needs of its own population, the current Union will repeat the mistakes of the ambitions of the past: overstretching its resources, Europe will find itself exhausted, fractured and powerless.

With the negative referendums in France, the Netherlands and Ireland over the future of Europe, there is an urge for the EU to take care of its own citizens, before burdening the EU's taxpayers with the Ukraine’s €30 billion sovereign debt. First things first!

Anna van Densky

Share this article: