War and Peace: What it means for the international community to intervene in the Ukrainian conflict
By Amelia Utting
In February, the world watched Russia invade Ukraine after weeks of tension. That same day, both Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Foreign minister Nanaia Mahuta “strongly condemned” the move, and two weeks later Parliament passed the Russia Sanctions Bill allowing sanctions to be imposed on Russia and Russian individuals connected with the invasion. I, for one, have been confused over Aotearoa’s role in this particular theatre—are we obligated by international law to provide aid to Ukraine? Why would we involve ourselves in events taking place so far away from our shores? What could be the consequences of the government’s choice whether or not to intervene?
Aotearoa does not have very sturdy human rights commitments. We’re party to seven treaties formed upon the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as to the Geneva Conventions and the larger principles of international humanitarian law such as those related to the Red Cross and their work. Despite this, not many of these commitments are legally binding. This means that, although these documents can be considered morally binding, there is very little which would legally force Aotearoa to adhere to them. However, we are bound by decisions made by the United Nations Security Council, and it’s a criminal offence for us not to comply, such as in the case of sanctions imposed upon Russia.
Sanctions are not the only way for nations to intervene in the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine. Aotearoa has, for example, committed to providing humanitarian aid to support people in Ukraine, while some are calling for us to use our ability to provide the Ukrainian military with lethal weaponry. But are we obligated to commit to either of these within the realm of international law? The answer appears to be no.
Aotearoa's intervention in the ongoing crisis is not free of consequences. Our decision to follow other nations in imposing sanctions was met by Russia with a ‘blacklist’ banning all of our members of Parliament from entering Russia, and we’re likely to suffer from an indirect economic impact on the prices of fuel and other commodities, an impact which has already been seen across the country.
That isn’t to say, however, that our intervention couldn’t also have positive consequences for our relationships with our international allies. While we all like to think that the government’s motivations for intervening in Ukraine or offering aid would be purely benevolent, it is difficult to separate any intervention from politics. There are always numerous consequences to consider. Here, there are two main relationships of concern; our relationship with the European Union, and our relationship with our other partners within the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.
Our understanding in the “West” of Russia’s war in Ukraine has been shaped largely by intelligence from the United States and the United Kingdom. This is important for Aotearoa’s evolving position on the conflict as both nations are also our partners in the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance, and the stances taken by our Five Eyes allies—which also includes Canada and Australia—are more than likely to have a significant influence on our own response.
Another alliance for Aotearoa of particularly timely importance is our relationship with the EU. It just so happens that, at the same time Russian soldiers entered Ukraine’s Donbas region, Aotearoa was in the final stages of negotiating a free-trade agreement with the EU. This agreement would require the sign-off of all 27 member states, and as was made clear by the EU’s ambassador to New Zealand Nina Obermaier, Aotearoa’s open and early condemnation of Russia’s invasion is important to the EU’s decision. This makes it clear that Aotearoa is on the EU’s side in the conflict.
When we are thinking about Aotearoa’s options for intervention in Ukraine and our obligations within international law, it is also reasonable to consider the positions of other nations—whether they are also offering aid, whether they are choosing to whistle a tune and look the other way, and why nations might be influenced to make those choices.
For many nations, Russia’s threatening behaviour has been effective in swaying them against taking a clear stance. Russia has shown willingness to intimidate its neighbouring countries through threatening Finland and Sweden with the deployment of nuclear weapons and hypersonic missiles to strengthen Russia’s defence of the Baltic Sea should either country choose to join NATO, and has been accused of blackmail following their refusal to provide Poland or Bulgaria with oil. Further, many African nations abstained from the vote in the UN General Assembly to suspend Russia from the Human Rights Council, not necessarily out of fear, but out of sharing close ties with Russia as as a result of the impact of Western colonialism on nations such as Zimbabwe and Mali, and Russia’s support for their liberation. But why have some nations been affected by Russia’s intimidation and not others? Because many of them are economically vulnerable, particularly to Russian oil; from the outside looking in, the question facing those countries who have not openly declared for each side is “if they’re willing to intimidate them, what does that mean for us?”
On the face of it, the reason for nations such as the US and the UK to choose to condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine and provide aid seems to be respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence. The UK for example, was a signatory of the Budapest memorandum which promised to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”, and the US’ Department of State has echoed this sentiment while also pointing out the ways in which Russia’s actions have undermined international principles of peace and security.
But much like Aotearoa’s own ulterior motives in this conflict, the British and American governments also have their own vested interests in choosing to step their foot in these volatile waters. In the US, the threat of Russian expansion has reignited echoes of the Cold War. By contributing more military, financial and humanitarian aid to Ukraine than any other nation since the war began, it is becoming clear that there are fears for Russia’s plans for Ukraine’s fellow post-Soviet nations such as Moldova, and what it would mean for American security if Russia continues to move outside its borders.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the UK, their swift and large show of support for Ukraine is an opportunity to prove their worth in Europe post-Brexit, especially in regards to security. Not only have British troops been sent to Estonia to keep an eye on their own border with Russia, but the UK is continuing to funnel military equipment and weapons into Ukraine, despite ongoing reported issues and criticisms—from both civilians and MPs alike—with the schemes they’ve introduced for Ukrainian refugees seeking asylum. The significance of the UK’s military focus in comparison with their humanitarian aid also has the danger of not only prolonging conflict and damaging attempts at reaching peace, but of endangering the very people the weapons are intended to protect.
Whether we’re talking about Aotearoa’s legal or moral obligations, or the actions of our allies, the global response to this crisis should not only focus on weaponry and finances. While Ukrainian and Russian forces continue to face one another and sanctions grow, civilians unable to flee are continuing to suffer. While we have the chance, now is the best time for the world to collectively commit to humanitarian aid and helping those who are being affected the most despite contributing the least.
The truth may be that war is impossible to predict with any real accuracy. The global strategy at this point seems to be an attempt to keep any intervention limited and indirect in an effort to avoid a larger conflict. There isn’t, however, any real right answer. This isn’t a simple decision between war and peace, or a war concerned with the effects on the lives of citizens. Regardless of the nation, this is a war of pride, and one that everyday people can’t afford to be lost to Russia’s machinations. If we stand by and do nothing, what’s to stop other countries from following their lead?
The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.
Featured image source: Flickr