By Zachary Zeck - The
Diplomat
There’s been no shortage of reports and commentaries on the crisis in
Ukraine and Crimea, and Russia’s role in it. Yet one of the more notable recent
developments in the crisis has received surprisingly little attention.
Namely, the BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa)
has unanimously and, in many ways, forcefully backed Russia’s position on
Crimea. The Diplomat has reported on China’s cautious and India’s more
enthusiastic backing of Russia before. However, the BRICS grouping as a whole
has also stood by the Kremlin.
Indeed, they made this quite clear during a BRICS foreign minister meeting
that took place on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague
last week. Just prior to the meeting, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop
suggested that Australia might ban Russia’s participation in the G20 summit it
will be hosting later this year as a means of pressuring Vladimir Putin on
Ukraine.
The BRICS foreign ministers warned Australia against this course of action
in the statement they released following their meeting last week. “The Ministers
noted with concern the recent media statement on the forthcoming G20 Summit to
be held in Brisbane in November 2014,” the statement said. “The custodianship of
the G20 belongs to all Member States equally and no one Member State can
unilaterally determine its nature and character.”
The statement went on to say, “The escalation of hostile language,
sanctions and counter-sanctions, and force does not contribute to a sustainable
and peaceful solution, according to international law, including the principles
and purposes of the United Nations Charter.” As Oliver Stuenkel at Post Western
World noted, the statement as a whole, and in particular the G20 aspect of it,
was a “clear sign that [the] West will not succeed in bringing the entire
international community into line in its attempt to isolate Russia.”
This was further reinforced later in the week when China, Brazil, India and
South Africa (along with 54 other nations) all abstained from the UN General
Assembly resolution criticizing the Crimea referendum. Another ten states joined
Russia in voting against the non-binding resolution.
In some ways, the other BRICS countries’ support for Russia is entirely
predictable. The group has always been somewhat constrained by the animosities
that exist between certain members, as well as the general lack of shared
purpose among such different and geographically dispersed nations. BRICS has
often tried to overcome these internal challenges by unifying behind an
anti-Western or at least post-Western position. In that sense, it’s no surprise
that the group opposed Western attempts to isolate one of its own members.
At the same time, this anti-Western stance has usually taken the form of
BRICS opposition to Western attempts to place new limits on sovereignty. Since
many of its members are former Western colonies or quasi-colonies, the BRICS are
highly suspicious of Western claims that sovereignty can be trumped by so-called
universal principles of the humanitarian and anti-proliferation variety. Thus,
they have been highly critical of NATO’s decision to serve as the air wing of
the anti-Qaddafi opposition that overthrew the Libyan government in 2011, as
well as what they perceive as attempts by the West to now overthrow Bashar
al-Assad in Syria.
However, in the case of Ukraine, it was Russia that was violating the
sanctity of another state’s sovereignty. Still, the BRICS grouping has backed
Russia. It’s worth noting that the BRICS countries are supporting Russia at
potentially great cost to themselves, given that they all face at least one
potential secessionist movement within their own territories.
India, for example, has a long history of fluid borders and today struggles
with potential secessionist movements from Muslim populations as well as a
potent security threat from the Maoist insurgency. China suffers most notably
from Tibetans and Uyghurs aspiring to break away from the Han-dominated Chinese
state. Even among Han China, however, regional divisions have long challenged
central control in the vast country. Calls for secession from the Cape region in
South Africa have grown in recent years, and Brazil has long faced a
secessionist movement in its southern sub-region, which is dominated
demographically by European immigrants. Russia, of course, faces a host of
internal secessionist groups that may someday lead Moscow to regret its
annexation of Crimea.
The fact that BRICS supported Russia despite these concerns suggests that
its anti-Western leanings may be more strongly held than most previously
believed. Indeed, besides backing Russia in the foreign ministers’ statement,
the rising powers also took time to harshly criticize the U.S. (not by name) for
the cyber surveillance programs that were revealed by Edward Snowden.
The BRICS and other non-Western powers’ support for Russia also suggests
that forging anything like an international order will be extremely difficult,
given the lack of shared principles to act as a foundation. Although the West
generally celebrated the fact that the UN General Assembly approved the
resolution condemning the Crimea referendum, the fact that 69 countries either
abstained or voted against it should be a wake-up call. It increasingly appears
that the Western dominated post-Cold War era is over. But as of yet, no new
order exists to replace it.
Hakuna maoni:
Chapisha Maoni