Hello World,
There is so much discussion going on about the Ukraine war but none of those discussions seems to look into the facts from the past to better understand the background of the conflict. Here is a compilation of some facts and discussion around those for a better perspective of the issue.
With
the Ukraine conflict persisting and western sanctions against Russia being
announced and implemented the global markets are beginning to face the impact.
Since access to international products and services in Russia suddenly
vaporized (as businesses shut down their Russian operations), the Russian
economy is set to face significant shrinkage in the short term. However,
international markets dependent on imports from Russia, are also facing the
risk of sourcing their supply from other corners of the world. While some can
manage in short term, everyone dependent on imports from Russia are ready to
face tougher circumstances as they battle short term inflation while also
anticipating a sudden lack of supply over the mid and long terms. Also, not
every economy dependent on imports from Russia might be fit enough to handle
inflation as Russian supply is getting boycotted at a global scale. All this
happening just when the markets are trying to recover from the impact of
Covid-19 indicates the importance of estimating the short term challenges for
everyone across the globe.
Irrespective of how the Ukraine conflict
is impacting global markets, the conflict serves as a great lesson for
everyone, mostly teaching what not to do from a political perspective. For some
reason, the root cause of the conflict is kept out of discussions across all
platforms. No doubt that what is happening with Ukraine is unfortunate and
negative. However, what is the point in not looking over the root cause of the
conflict?
I wish to bring to your notice a few
snippets of information along with the sources which shed light on the
background of the Ukraine conflict, specifically the pieces of information not
being discussed in public domain. I do not want you to think like me or even
accept what I write here. However I request you to go over these facts (look up
the references if need be) and take some time to think in your own way.
Source: https://www.csce.gov/sites/helsinkicommission.house.gov/files/120191UkraineReferendum.pdf
(A Report Prepared by the Staff of the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 1992)
On October 29, these two largest former
Soviet republics signed a protocol in which Russia blessed Ukraine’s drive for
independence in exchange for guarantees of the rights of the large Russian
minority in Ukraine.
A critical variable in this
delicate equation will be how newly independent Ukraine treats questions of
language. The Ukrainian press, including the official paper of the Lviv Oblast
Council and Pravda Ukraina, the successor to the Communist Party organ, printed
letters from non-Ukrainians who voiced support for Ukrainian independence but
urged a slow, circumspect approach to a linguistic reform that eschewed even
the appearance of compulsion. A representative of the Polish national cultural
society added that national minorities would be greatly reassured by the
passage of a law guaranteeing their rights (Ukraine’s Supreme Soviet has yet to
pass such legislation).
The concern of equal treatment of all
languages within an independent Ukraine had remained a point of contention so
much that it had attracted international intervention. A certain commitment was
given from the Ukraine side with respect to equal treatment of ethnic
minorities who speak non-Ukrainian (Russian) languages natively.
(Language Politics in Independent
Ukraine: Towards One or Two State Languages?, Cambridge University Press, 2018)
Ukraine, like all the others, passed an
exclusionary language law in 1989, making Ukrainian the sole state language.
This stillness may have led some to believe that language was not destined to
become a salient political issue in independent Ukraine. However, in early
1994, approximately 90% of the electors in the key industrial provinces of the
Donbas voted in an illegal referendum for the proclamation of Russian as a
second state language; this demonstrated quite vividly that language is indeed a
very politically charged reality in Ukraine.
Since independence, the language of
documentation in central state organs has largely switched from Russian to
Ukrainian, although Russian is probably still widely used in industrial
ministries." When interviewed by the author in the summer of 1993, a
number of entrepreneurs all said that they are conducting their correspondence
with the state in Ukrainian, since official papers registration, tax forms,
etc.) are now issued in Ukrainian only. Official acts emanating from the
presidential office, the Cabinet of Ministers or the parliament, such as
decrees and laws, are also often published exclusively in Ukrainian, which is
contrary to an article of the language law specifying that such documents must,
as a rule, be made available in Russian.
The policy over public signs illustrates
these diverging trends. In L'viv, the regional capital of western Ukraine, all
Russian signs have been removed. In Kiev, located in central Ukraine, most new
signs are in Ukrainian only, although some are in Ukrainian and Russian.
Russophones in eastern and southern
Ukraine fear the "Ukrainization" of their region and increasingly
reject the unitary nature of the Ukrainian state reflected in the language law.
They argue that in order to preserve their "historic" distinctness,
regions should be granted a certain degree of autonomy, within a federalized
Ukraine. Federalism, here, would mean first and foremost regional control over
language policy…
Russophones in the Donbas want Russian as
a "second state language" not because they are already losing their
jobs due to their poor command of Ukrainian, but because they fear they may be
losing their jobs in the future if Ukrainian is indeed introduced as a
prerequisite. The politics of anxiety among Russophones is colliding with the
politics of identity among nationally-conscious Ukrainians, for whom it is a
question of principle that Ukrainian be used in public offices in all regions
of Ukraine. This is the central issue that can no longer be ignored in
Ukrainian politics.
Ukrainian being made the sole state
language, language of documentation in government agencies migrating from
Russian to Ukrainian and the removal of Russian signs does not indicate
anything positive to begin with. In fact it only indicates an administrative
approach to linguistic oppression violating promises made at the political
front. Having multiple languages deployed in the government machinery might add
convenience and create a sense of inclusion but replacing one language with
another does not indicate democratic behavior.
Here's what happened next:
Source:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-parliament-language-idUSKCN1S111N
(Reuters, April, 25, 2019)
Ukraine’s parliament approved a law on
Thursday that grants special status to the Ukrainian language and makes it
mandatory for public sector workers, a move Russia described as divisive and
said discriminated against Russian-speakers.
The law, which obliges all citizens to
know the Ukrainian language and makes it a mandatory requirement for civil
servants, soldiers, doctors, and teachers, was championed by outgoing President
Petro Poroshenko.
Language has become a much more sensitive
issue since 2014, when a pro-Russian president was toppled in a popular revolt
and Russia responded by annexing the Crimea region and backing a pro-Russian
separatist uprising in the east.
Mandating a certain linguistic
proficiency for government jobs indicates the risk of losing eligibility for
the same amongst the citizens who speak other languages natively. How is this
democratic in any angle? Mandating multi-lingual proficiency for government
officials would make some sense as that could be substantiated with the
reasoning that the government expects the officials to operate in the
local/regional language wherever they are deployed such that the citizens in
those regions find it easy to interact with their respective officials.
However, that is not the case. Care to think why and what this could’ve caused
in the minds of those Ukrainian citizens who do not have Ukrainian as their
native language?
Previous international intervention:
Source: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2019)032-e
(EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY
THROUGH LAW, December, 2019)
From information received by the
delegation of the Venice Commission during its visit to Kyiv, it appears that
representatives of the national minorities were not adequately consulted in the
process of the preparation and adoption of the State Language Law.
The international intervention now
accusing Russian involvement in Ukraine had identified faults on the Ukrainian
administration 3 years ago. However, what actions were taken (besides
recommendations) to coerce fair administration in Ukraine seems to be of less
interest. To be fair, the international assessment of the situation in Ukraine
was fair and it did capture the problem. Democratic processes when not being
inclusive cease to substantiate democratic approach to administration.
History of the problem:
Source: https://www.refworld.org/docid/469f38ed5.html
(Minorities at Risk, Chronology for
Russians in Ukraine, 2004)
Feb 1994
Representatives of the coal mining
collectives in the Donbas region threaten a hunger strike over the failure of
the government in Kiev to pay them since December of 1993. Kravchuk placates
the protesters by vowing to formulate a program and way out of the problem. The
problem is not isolated to eastern Ukraine only, but the situation is more
tense given the ethnic breakdown and importance of the region economically for
Ukraine. In general, ethnic Russians in the Donbas region are becoming more
assertive for their "ethnic rights." Many Russian leaders complain
that 70 to 80% of the revenues from the heavy industry in eastern Ukraine are allocated
by Kiev, but little of that makes its way back into the eastern oblasts. They
charge that the eastern oblasts are barely able to maintain their social
programs as a result. They have begun to call for more political and economic
autonomy from Kiev and closer economic ties to Russia and the CIS. There are
also growing complaints concerning the increased use of Ukrainian in schools
and the media as Russian (and, in general, Russian-speaking) parents claim
their children are now at a disadvantage on entrance exams (due to the language
laws designating Ukrainian as the only state language).
While this does not conclude anything
concrete, I think, this does indicate that over time, the perception of
economic disparity in Ukraine got correlated with the persisting linguistic
bias that has been percolating the Ukrainian administrative infrastructure. Why
did the effort recognize Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens under ‘Minorities
at Risk’?
Source: https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/44a280124.pdf
(CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE)
Article 10 of the Constitution of Ukraine
In Ukraine, the free development, use and
protection of Russian, and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine,
is guaranteed.
Article 53 of the Constitution of Ukraine
Citizens who belong to national
minorities are guaranteed the right to receive instruction in their native
language, or to study their native language in state and communal educational
establishments and through national cultural societies in accordance with the
law.
Article 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine
A citizen of Ukraine who has attained the
age of thirty-five, has the right to vote, has resided in Ukraine for the past
ten years prior to the day of elections, and has command of the state language,
may be elected as the President of Ukraine.
While most of the statements above seem
fair and inclusive, ‘and has a command of the state language’ throws in a
caveat. It really doesn’t break anything. All that is required is to publish a
list of state languages with all the languages spoken by Ukrainian citizens.
However, history has it that more than commission, omission has caused
disparity and discontent amongst citizens.
The Recent Past:
Source:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28858542
(August, 2014)
Tens of thousands of civilians have fled
in recent weeks as Ukrainian government forces have advanced on Luhansk. The
city is suffering acute shortages of water, food and electricity.
An aide to Ukraine's interior ministry,
Anton Gerashenko, said that 14 Russian TV channels had been banned from cable
networks in Ukraine.
In a separate move, the Council of
Europe, to which Ukraine and Russia both belong, urged member states on Tuesday
to "step up humanitarian aid" in eastern Ukraine, saying that the
number of displaced people and refugees was "increasing rapidly".
I am not sure why we are surprised about
the consequences now and more importantly why the world did not consider the
same humanitarian grounds when Ukrainian citizens were facing oppression from
their own government. For some reason, we have been desensitized to accept
military action by any government on its own citizens as normal. On the other
hand, foreign intervention is not in the best interest of any country which we
all tend to agree with the clear knowledge of similar foreign interventions in
other countries that we never questioned. Some of those interventions spanned
over a decade resulting in thousands of dead civilians and soldiers.
We can claim any place on the political
spectrum and we might also choose any stance with the ongoing Ukrainian
conflict which clearly is impacting all of us in one way or the other. What we
should learn from this conflict is that a ‘one-solution-for-all’ approach to
politics and associated administrative procedures will only result in
catastrophic consequences for everyone. Forcing one language on others will
only create more contempt and hatred, resulting in a never-ending loop of
political retaliation. As long as the retaliation remains in the hearts and
minds of the disadvantaged citizens, it remains a mere ‘controversy’ we can
comfortably ignore under the guise of ‘neutral’, ‘positive’ and ‘no comments’.
However, there is a tipping point to everything beyond which things reach a
point of no-return eventually resulting in a conflict that ultimately ends up
disturbing everyone irrespective of their direct involvement in that issue.
Embracing diversity is always beneficial
but implementing inclusive approaches is the only means to it. Most of Europe
has a certain faith being followed by the citizens but a close look at most of the
names of the European countries indicates their roots to a language, spoken by
their citizens. However, the relative peace and progress they have achieved is
the evidence of their inclusive approach to embracing diversity. Of course,
every democracy is a process that needs constant input and efforts to maintain
its sanctity. Being at it is critical and that’s what makes democracy a
self-sustainable and most widely accepted format of political frameworks
adopted across the globe. Yes, there are disparities and yes we might not meet
eye-to-eye on certain topics. This is common for all democracies. However, that
can never be a reason to release our hold of the fundamental democratic
principles that keep our societies civil and peaceful. The day we submit our
sense of logic to populistic political propagandas, we subscribe to a crisis
which will take a long time to brew and will not let us unsubscribe until we’ve
paid our dues for the same.
Given the times we live in, it is of
limited value in identifying who went wrong compared to what went wrong and
most importantly how that can be rectified democratically. Be it avoiding
conflicts, saving democracies or creating inclusive systems, organizations
around the world have so much to learn from the ongoing Ukrainian conflict. All
plans, approaches, benefits and advantages become useless the moment the
greater good starts being the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of
citizens within a democracy. Protection of anyone lies in the protection of
everyone. Ignoring the latter will always put the former at risk. It doesn’t
matter who started it. Within a democracy, we live or die together and as
democracies, we are always connected to each other irrespective of our
political stances and sanctions.
At what point do we admit?
#ukrainecrisis #ukrainewar
#ukrainerussiawar #ukraineconflict #ukrainerussiaconflict #russiasanctions
#russiaukrainewar
