COUNTERPUNCH
by
John
Whitbeck
March 17, 2023
Notably absent
until now from the Western narrative regarding
the current war in Ukraine and how it might end
has been any suggestion that the wishes of the
people who lived prior to February 24, 2022 in
the four eastern and southern oblasts whose
sovereignty has since September 2022 been
formally contested between Russia and Ukraine
might be of any conceivable relevance.
Realistically,
there are only two ways for this sovereignty
dispute to be decided: (i) by further and
potentially intensified deaths and destruction
until one side of the other achieves “victory”,
however defined, in a war which neither Russia
nor the United States believes it can afford to
lose or (ii) by the votes of a majority of those
resident in each oblast prior to February 24,
2022 in referendums organized by the United
Nations or another agreed international
organization, with both sides committed to
accept the referendum results.
The vast majority
of mankind, whose only interest in this war is
that it should end, would certainly prefer the
second way. Unfortunately, the leaders on both
sides, who have expended massive investments of
resources, prestige and ego toward “winning”
this war, currently appear to be dead-set and
hell-bent on continuing to pursue the first way.
If it were
possible to “shrink” the public conceptions of
the objectives of both sides in the conflict and
of the issues at stake in it to a dispute over
sovereignty over these four Russian-majority
oblasts and if either side or another credible
state actor were to propose publicly to stop the
fighting and let the people choose, the
leaderships of both sides would be offered an
essential face-saving “off-ramp”.
Opting for a
democratic choice would not require any
politicians themselves to agree to relinquish
their sovereignty claims, for which they could
expect, at a minimum, to be harshly criticized.
Notwithstanding the overwhelming results of the
September referendums, which were rushed, were
held only in the portions of these oblasts then
under Russian control and understandably
attracted few voters who were not pro-Russian,
the results of new, internationally organized
referendums would be genuinely uncertain.
Politicians on both sides could express complete
confidence that the people would vote “their
way”. If, months after the fighting ended, some
or all of them did not, at least the war would
have ended.
If Western
leaders believe that a majority of those who
were living prior to February 24, 2022 in any
of these four oblasts would prefer their oblasts
to be part of Ukraine, they should call promptly
for a ceasefire and internationally organized
referendums to choose democratically between the
two claimants, rationally viewing such an
approach as offering vastly better possibilities
for restoring the greatest possible degree of
territorial integrity for Ukraine than the
current approach of perpetuating the appalling
deaths and destruction in Ukraine and the
worldwide collateral damage “for as long as it
takes”.
Furthermore, if
the West were to propose an armistice and
potential peace on this basis, if Ukraine were
to accept the proposal (as would presumably be
assured in advance) and if Russia were to reject
it, Russia would be effectively telling the
world that it fears that a majority of the
people in one or more of these oblasts would
prefer their oblast to be part of Ukraine and
that it therefore prefers to seek to enforce its
sovereignty claim by military force rather than
to let the issue be decided democratically by
the people most directly concerned. In this
event, the current tolerance of governments
representing the vast majority of mankind for
Russia’s “special military operation” would be
seriously compromised.
If, faced with
such a Solomonic choice, Russia were to accept
the proposal, which is not inconceivable, the
conflict would end with the proclaimed struggle
between democracy and authoritarianism being
resolved through exercises of democratic choice.
Unless Western
leaders accept the Russian contention that a
majority of the people in all four oblasts
genuinely prefer that their oblasts be part of
Russia and view this potential popular choice as
intolerable, what is the West waiting for?
Western
governments which are currently trumpeting the
absolute and universal applicability of the
principle of the territorial integrity of states
had no problem with supporting and prioritizing
the principle of the self-determination of
peoples in Eritrea, East Timor, South Sudan and,
with a heavy helping hand from 78 days of NATO
bombing in flagrant violation of international
law, Kosovo.
In all these
cases, the self-determination choice of the
people was confirmed by internationally
organized referendums. Of course, in these four
instances, the results of the referendums were
never in doubt, whereas no one can be certain of
the results of internationally organized
referendums in these four contested oblasts.
This distinction should not make the
self-determination referendum precedent less
relevant. Indeed, it should make it more
relevant and promising for those genuinely
seeking a face-saving way for the relevant
politicians to end this war.
Those on either
side of this conflict who prefer to decide the
sovereignty issue with respect to these four
oblasts by yet more deaths and destruction in
Ukraine, necessarily entailing yet more
worldwide collateral damage, with no guarantee
of their eventual “victory” and with a genuine
risk of escalation to nuclear war if either
Russia or the United States felt itself to be
facing a humiliating defeat, rather than by the
democratic choices of the people most concerned
should be obligated to explain and try to
justify their preference.
John V. Whitbeck is a
Paris-based international lawyer.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/03/17/a-democratic-end-to-ukraines-war