Ukraine
war: Where are
the
peacemakers?
The
tragedy of war
in Ukraine
shows the need
for globally
respected
statesmen who
could act in
the cause of
peace.
By
Kishore
Mahbubani
Published
by Straits
Times on 19th
March 2022
The
Russian
invasion of
Ukraine is
illegal and
has to be
condemned by
the
international
community. And
it has been
condemned. As
a former
ambassador to
the United
Nations, I
fully
understand and
support the
need to
protect the
principles of
the United
Nations
Charter.
Yet,
in geopolitics
we must always
do two things
simultaneously. We must moralise. And we must analyse. Since geopolitics
is a cruel
game and
follows the
cold and
ruthless logic
of power, we
must be cold,
dispassionate
and
hard-headed in
our analysis.
The only iron
law of
geopolitics is
that it
punishes those
who are naive
and ignore its
cold logic.
So
could we have
predicted this
war in
Ukraine? And
could we have
prevented it?
The simple
answer to both
these
questions is
yes. Indeed,
many leading
statesmen in
the West
correctly
predicted this
disaster in
Ukraine.
Probably
the greatest
strategic
thinker that
the US
produced in
the 20th
century was
George Kennan.
He fashioned
the famous
containment
strategy which
ultimately
succeeded in
defeating the
Soviet Union.
He died on
March 17,
2005.
On
Feb 21 last
year, New York
Times
columnist Tom
Friedman
requoted at
great length
what Kennan
told him in
1998. When
asked about
the impact of
the expansion
of North
Atlantic
Treaty
Organisation
into former
areas of the
Soviet Union,
he said, very
presciently:
"I think it is
the beginning
of a new Cold
War. I think
the Russians
will gradually
react quite
adversely and
it will affect
their
policies. I
think it is a
tragic
mistake. There
was no reason
for this
whatsoever. No
one was
threatening
anybody else.
This expansion
would make the
founding
fathers of
this country
turn over in
their graves."
Expansion
of Nato
So
why did Nato
continue
expanding
despite the
clear warnings
of Kennan? In
some ways, the
correct answer
was also
endorsed by
Prof Kennan.
On Dec 1,
1997, the
editor of The
National
Interest
magazine, Owen
Harries, wrote
an article
explaining why
Nato expansion
was unwise and
then gave the
reasons why it
was happening.
He
cited several
reasons, but
let me just
quote the
first two:
"The strength
of the
Polish-American
vote, as well
as that of
other
Americans of
Central and
East European
origin" and
"the enormous
vested
interests -
careers,
contracts,
consultancies,
accumulated
expertise -
represented by
the Nato
establishment,
which now
needed a new
reason and
purpose to
justify the
organisation's
continued
existence".
In
short,
short-term
domestic
political
interests of
gaining voters
and narrow
economic
interests
trumped
geopolitical
wisdom.
Immediately,
after Harries
published this
article,
Kennan wrote a
letter
endorsing all
the points
made by
Harries. He
said: "It was
in some
respects a
surprise
because
certain of
your major
arguments were
ones I myself
had made, or
had wanted to
make, but had
not expected
to see them so
well expressed
by the pen of
anyone else."
What
is striking
about the
project to
expand Nato is
that many
leading
American
thinkers, both
liberal and
conservative,
opposed it,
including Paul
Nitze, James
Schlesinger,
Fred Ikle,
John
Mearsheimer,
Jack Matlock,
William Perry,
Stephen Cohen,
Bill Burns,
Vladimir
Pozner, Robert
Gates, Robert
McNamara, Bill
Bradley, Gary
Hart, Pat
Buchanan,
Jeffrey Sachs
and Fiona
Hill, among
others.The
greatest
living
strategic
thinker in the
US today is
Henry
Kissinger. He
didn't oppose
the expansion
of Nato to the
former Warsaw
Pact states of
Eastern
Europe. But he
strongly
counselled
against
admitting
Ukraine into
Nato.
As
a good student
of history,
Kissinger
pointed out
why Ukraine
was viewed
differently by
Russians. In a
2014 article
published in
the Washington
Post, this is
what he said:
"The West must
understand
that, to
Russia,
Ukraine can
never be just
a foreign
country.
Russian
history began
in what was
called
Keivan-Rus.
The Russian
religion
spread from
there. Ukraine
has been part
of Russia for
centuries, and
their
histories were
intertwined
before then.
Some of the
most important
battles for
Russian
freedom,
starting with
the Battle of
Poltava in
1709, were
fought on
Ukrainian
soil."
As
a wise
statesman,
Kissinger
proposed a
sensible
compromise
solution. On
the one hand,
he said:
"Ukraine
should have
the right to
choose freely
its economic
and political
associations,
including with
Europe." On
the other
hand, he said
(in 2014):
"Ukraine
should not
join Nato, a
position I
took seven
years ago,
when it came
up."
The
real tragedy
about Ukraine
is that if the
then American
President
Barack Obama
(a Nobel Peace
Prize winner)
had heeded the
advice of
Kissinger, the
war in Ukraine
could have
been avoided.
Kissinger's
formula
emphasised
that the
Ukrainians
would be free
to choose
their own
political
system and
regional
associations.
Indeed, the
strong
Ukrainian
resistance to
the Russian
invasion was
not
anticipated.
This strong
resistance
confirms their
strong desire
to join the
European
Union. And
they should be
allowed to do
so. And, as
advised by Dr
Kissinger,
Ukraine can
stay out of
Nato and
remain
"neutral".
In
the past
"neutral"
states were
allowed to
join the EU.
Ukraine could
follow that
precedent.
Such a win-win
solution could
have prevented
a war. Indeed,
two days after
the Russian
invasion of
Ukraine,
President
Volodymyr
Zelensky (who
has emerged as
a real hero
after the
invasion)
said: "We are
not afraid of
Russia, we are
not afraid of
engaging in
talks with
Russia, we are
not afraid of
discussing
anything, such
as security
guarantees for
our state, we
are not afraid
of talking
about neutral
status." If
neutral status
had been
agreed to, the
war could have
been avoided.
When
future
historians
write about
this Ukraine
episode, one
big question
they will
surely ask is
why the clear
and explicit
warnings of
leading
Western
statesmen,
like Kennan
and Kissinger,
were ignored?
They will also
ask why our
world doesn't
have
distinguished
peacemakers
today who
could have
prevented the
conflict.
This
may well be
the most
important
lesson that
the world
should learn
from the
Ukraine
episode. Wars
are tragic, as
they always
have been.
Peace must be
preserved. And
the world
needs to
develop a
class of
globally
respected
statesmen who
could emerge
as global
peacemakers.
Curiously,
we used to
have such
globally
respected
statesmen,
including
people like
Nelson
Mandela, Kofi
Annan and
Desmond Tutu.
Many of them
were members
of a council
of "The
Elders" which
has tried to
provide calm
and sensible
advice from
time to time.
Clearly, we
seem to lack
such
distinguished
statesmen
today.
And
the risks
continue to
grow.
Recently, the
former US
Secretary of
State Mike
Pompeo said in
Taiwan that
the US should
"immediately
take
necessary, and
long-overdue,
steps to do
the right and
obvious thing,
that is to
offer the
Republic of
China (Taiwan)
America's
diplomatic
recognition as
a free and
sovereign
country". One
doesn't have
to be a
geopolitical
genius to
figure out
that his
prescription
would lead to
a war over
Taiwan.
Since
his
provocative
suggestion
could lead to
a war, a war
that could be
even more
destructive
than the war
in Ukraine,
one would
expect a
global chorus
of voices to
emerge and
condemn the
reckless
statement of
Pompeo which
could lead to
a war.
So
far I have not
heard any
leading voice
condemn his
statement. And
that's the nub
of our global
problem. Where
are the global
peacemakers
when we need
them more than
ever?
Kishore
Mahbubani, a
Distinguished
Fellow at the
Asia Research
Institute,
National
University of
Singapore, is
the author of
the book, Has
China Won?
This article
was first
published on
the website of
the Asian
Peace
Programme, an
initiative to
promote peace
in Asia housed
in the Asia
Research
Institute,
National
University of
Singapore.