Western nations scramble to contain fallout of Ukraine crisis

EU leaders worry about country fracturing into pro and anti-Russian factions in aftermath of Viktor Yanukovych's ousting
Anti government protest in Ukraine
A portrait of Ukrainian opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko is seen during a rally on Independence Square in Kiev on Sunday. Photograph: Maxim Shipenkov/EPA
Ian Traynor in Brussels and Shaun Walker in Kiev

Western governments are scrambling to contain the fallout from Ukraine's weekend revolution, pledging money, support and possible EU membership, while anxiously eyeing the response of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, whose protégé has effectively been ousted.

As the big international loser of the three-month drama's denouement, the Kremlin has the potential to create the most mischief because of Ukraine's closeness, its pro-Russian affinities in the east and south, and the country's dependence on Russian energy supplies.

With the whereabouts of President Viktor Yanukovych still uncertain, the Ukrainian parliament on Sunday went about legalizing his downfall, giving interim presidential powers to an ally of Yulia Tymoshenko, the former prime minister who was released from jail on Saturday. Oleksandr Turchinov said the parliament should work to elect a government of national unity by Tuesday, ahead of elections that are planned for 25 May.

Yanukovych appeared on television from an undisclosed location on Saturday night, claiming he was still president and comparing the protesters to Nazis, but he continued to haemorrhage support on Sunday; even the leader of his parliamentary faction said he had "betrayed" Ukraine, and given "criminal orders".

A woman pays her respects at a memorial to anti-government protesters in Kiev, Ukraine
 A woman pays her respects at a memorial to killed anti-government protesters in Kiev.

Western leaders, while welcoming the unexpected turn of events in Kiev, are worried about the country fracturing into a pro-Russian and pro-western conflict. They are certain to push for a new government that is as inclusive as possible to replace the collapsed and discredited administration of Yanukovych, who vanished within hours of signing EU-mediated settlement terms with opposition leaders on Friday.

Maintaining the fragile country's territorial integrity swiftly emerged as the paramount concern in the west. "France, together with its European partners, calls for the preservation of the country's unity and integrity and for people to refrain from violence," said Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, echoing the key western worry that Kiev and western Ukraine could be pitted against the Russophone east and south.

Putin, busy at the closing ceremony of the Sochi Olympics, has not yet commented publicly on the violence of the last week and Yanukovych's flight from the capital. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany phoned him on Sunday to press for assurances on Russia's reaction. Susan Rice, national security adviser to the US president, Barack Obama, warned that Moscow would be making a "grave mistake" if it sent military aid to Ukraine.

"There are many dangers," said William Hague, the UK foreign secretary. "We don't know, of course, what Russia's next reaction will be. Any external duress on Ukraine, any more than we've seen in recent weeks … it really would not be in the interests of Russia to do any such thing."

Whether such nightmares are realized will hinge largely on the Kremlin's position and policies. Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister, has called the protesters on Independence Square "pogromists", but it appears that Moscow is grudgingly coming to terms with the new reality. In a phone call with the US secretary of state John Kerry on Sunday, he accused the opposition of seizing power and failing to abide by the peace deal thrashed out on Friday.

People and protesters roam the garden in front of the mansion of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych
 Protesters roam the garden in front of the mansion of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych's home in Mezhygirya, near Kiev.
Analysts say Yanukovych, disgraced as he is, no longer holds any use for the Kremlin, but how the Russians will react on the ground is still an open question. This also partly depends on how the new Ukrainian government behaves. One of the first issues the parliament tackled this weekend was that of the language, annulling a bill that provided for Russian to be used as a second official language in regions with large Russian-speaking populations. If the new government also looks to end the lease of a Black Sea naval base by the Russian military, the response from Moscow could be more aggressive.

"It will definitely depend on how the new government behaves," said Vladimir Zharikin, a Moscow-based analyst. "If they continue with these revolutionary excesses then certainly, that could push other parts of the country towards separatist feelings. Let's hope that doesn't happen."

In Kiev, the barricades around Independence Square remained in place, though the lines of riot police facing off against them had long evaporated. Thousands of people of all ages came to the barricades to pay their respects to the 77 people who died last week, in the bloody clashes that eventually led to Yanukovych fleeing.

As the third of three official days of mourning came to an end, priests continued to sing laments from the stage in the square. Between the soot-black pavements and the slate-grey sky, there were splashes of bright colour as thousands brought bunches of flowers to lay at makeshift memorials to the dead.

At Yanukovych's residence outside Kiev, a team of investigative journalists went to work on a trove of documents fished from the water; the president's minders had apparently tried unsuccessfully to destroy them before fleeing. Thousands of people again came to see the vast, luxurious compound with their own eyes.

Tymoshenko, who has her eyes on the presidency, met the US and EU ambassadors in Kiev. She was released from prison on Saturday and went straight to Independence Square, where she promised to fight for a free Ukraine. Nonetheless, there was ambivalence about the former prime minister among the protesters, with many feeling that she represents the divisive and corrupt politics of the past.

There was no clear central authority in Kiev on Sunday, with the city patrolled by a self-proclaimed "defence force", comprised of groups of men wearing helmets and carrying baseball bats. Nevertheless, the mood is orderly and peaceful, and the protest representatives have been meeting with the police and security services in an attempt to restore a feeling of normality to the capital.

With the country about to turn a new leaf in its history, for the first time since the crisis erupted in November, senior EU officials spoke of the possibility of Ukraine joining the European Union which, if serious, would represent a major policy shift.

"We are at a historical juncture and Europe needs to live up to its historical moment and be able to provide Ukraine with an accession perspective in the medium-to-long term – if Ukraine can meet the conditions of accession," said the economics commissioner, Olli Rehn, at a G-20 meeting in Australia.

Until now, Brussels' policy towards Ukraine and other post-Soviet states, known as the eastern partnership, has been expressly intended as a substitute for rather than a step towards EU membership. It was the EU deal, Yanukovych's rejection of political and trade pacts with the bloc in favor of cheap loans and energy from Russia, that sparked the conflict and crisis in November.

With the likelihood of Russia's $15bn (£9bn) lifeline also dissolving, the EU was under pressure to come up with funding to shore up an economy on the brink of bankruptcy. "We are ready to engage in substantial financial assistance for Ukraine once a political solution, based on democratic principles, is finalized and once there is a new government which is genuinely and seriously engaged in institutional and economic reforms," said Rehn.

The EU said its foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, would travel to Ukraine on Monday. "In Kiev she is expected to meet key stakeholders and discuss the support of the European Union for a lasting solution to the political crisis and measures to stabilize the economic situation," an EU statement said.

The likelihood was of an International Monetary Fund programme, supported by the US and the EU, although EU officials partly blame the IMF for the November fiasco by attaching strict terms to loans and prodding Yanukovych towards Moscow.

"We will be ready to engage, ready to help," said Christine Lagarde, the IMF chief who is also being tipped as a contender for a job at the top of the EU this year. But the IMF will insist on major reforms and steps to arrest the routine plunder of the country by Ukraine's oligarchs in cahoots with the politicians.

This blog is sponsored by: http://visitwebpages.info/paypalchecks

United Nations Disregards Vatican

The international “smart set” regularly chastises the United States for not ratifying the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). One need only look to a recent report by the CRC’s treaty committee for full justification of U.S. reticence.
Human-rights “experts” on U.N. treaty bodies like the Committee on the Rights of the Child often take liberties with international law and make demands for policy changes that go well beyond any reasonable interpretation of the treaty text. But the new report establishes a new standard by criticizing the Holy See for its attitudes toward homosexuality, gender stereotyping, contraception, and abortion, urging it to “undertake a comprehensive review of its normative framework, in particular Canon Law, with a view to ensuring its full compliance with the Convention.”
In essence, the Committee members are demanding that the Catholic Church abandon its fundamental religious doctrine to satisfy their interpretation of the CRC. Bear in mind that, when it ratified the CRC, the Holy See specifically included several reservations and declarations, including one stating clearly that it “interprets the phrase ‘family planning education and services’ . . . to mean only those methods of family planning which it considers morally acceptable, that is, the natural methods of family planning.” Unsurprisingly, the Committee takes issue with this and “recommends that the Holy See undertake the necessary steps to withdraw all its reservations and to ensure the Convention’s precedence over internal laws and regulations.”
The official response to the report is a model of moderation. After expressing regret over the Committee’s “attempt to interfere with Catholic Church teaching on the dignity of [the] human person and in the exercise of religious freedom,” the Holy See “reiterates its commitment to defending and protecting the rights of the child, in line with the principles promoted by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and according to the moral and religious values offered by Catholic doctrine.”
Commentators have justifiably lambasted the report. Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) noted that, in making “political statements about Catholic doctrine on abortion, contraception, and marriage, issues at the core of the Church’s teachings about human rights and the dignity of life,” the report tramples on the religious-freedom principles outlined in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Particularly outrageous is the Committee’s urging the Church to abandon its moral opposition to abortion. From the Catholic Church’s perspective, what greater violation of a child’s rights can there be than to deprive it of life?
The situation is ripe for mockery. For starters, the members of the Committee supposed experts on children’s rights include representatives from Bahrain, Egypt, Ethiopia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Sri Lanka. The U.S. State Department reports numerous violations of children’s rights in these nations. A few lowlights:
Bahrain: “Children were also subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . Authorities detained children . . . and subjected them to various forms of mistreatment, including beating, slapping, kicking, lashing with rubber hoses, threats of sexual assault, burning with cigarettes, and verbal abuse.”
Egypt: “Abuse of children and discrimination against persons with disabilities remained problems . . . and child labor remained a serious problem.”
Ethiopia: “Other human rights problems included . . . violence and societal discrimination against women and abuse of children; . . . exploitation of children for economic and sexual purposes; . . . and child labor, including forced child labor.”
Russia: “Children, particularly the homeless and orphans, were exploited for child pornography. . . . The law does not define child pornography, criminalize its possession, or provide for effective investigation and prosecution of cases of child pornography. . . . Law enforcement officials reportedly abused street children, blamed them for unsolved crimes, and committed illegal acts against them, including extortion, detention, and psychological and sexual violence.”
Saudi Arabia: “There were reports during the year of child marriage. . . . According to some senior religious leaders, girls as young as age 10 may be married,” and “forced labor occurred, especially among migrant workers, domestic servants, and children.”
Sri Lanka: “Violence and discrimination against women were problems, as were abuse of children and trafficking in persons. . . . Limits on workers’ rights and child labor remained problems.”
These nations are passing judgment on others regarding children’s rights?
The U.N. itself has a long history of problems with sexual abuse and a decidedly checkered record of holding those responsible to account. The Catholic Church’s problems with sexual abuse and transparency are widely known and must not be ignored, but this is clearly a case of the pots judging the kettle.
Ultimately, the Holy See shares blame for the CRC report after all, it made the mistake of ratifying the CRC in 1990. As a state party to the Convention, the Holy See has no choice but to periodically submit itself to the Committee for judgment.
The treatment of the Holy See in this matter has direct relevance for the U.S., which is routinely criticized for being one of only a few nations (Somalia and South Sudan being the others) that have not ratified the CRC. The Clinton administration signed the CRC in 1995, but successive presidential administrations have never sent the treaty to the Senate, owing to concerns expressed by a number of senators that the treaty body would abuse its mandate and that U.S. courts could apply the treaty to U.S. domestic law in unforeseen ways.
Clearly, the Committee regards its authority expansively. In its report it insists that, by ratifying the CRC, the Holy See “has committed itself to implementing the Convention not only on the territory of the Vatican City State but also as the supreme power of the Catholic Church through individuals and institutions placed under its authority.”
Given this statement and the CRC Committee’s disregard for and disapproval of the Holy See’s reservations and declarations, is it reasonable to believe that the Committee would respect U.S. reservations, declarations, and understandings particularly those relating to federalism and the U.S. Constitution should it be so foolish as to ratify the CRC?

Source: Heritage
This blog is sponsored by: http://8070132083.acnshop.eu