by Eze Eluchie
Often times, relationships
between States can be likened to that between persons. Strategies that will
work to build better relationships between individuals will suffice to foster
and sustain inter-State relationships; and likewise, what will serve as precursor
for estrangement between persons will in most cases lead to feelings of
ill-will and mutual suspicion amongst countries.
If one truly seeks amity,
refraining from use of degenerative language in addressing those one seeks
friendship with, mutual respect for the sanctity of each other’s space, and
generally being of good conduct regarding the affairs of others serves to
engender mutual goodwill and trust and friendship amongst States. Under such
environments, issues of mutual benefit to the entities concerned can then be
dialogued over with better results.
Bearing the foregoing in
mind, one is a bit perplexed at the pattern which seems to have been adopted by
Western States in their dealings with Russia over events in breakaway Eastern
parts of Ukraine.
Firstly, sequel to the
decision of the people of Crimea to join the Russian State, all manners of foul
and vile language was used to describe Russia and its leadership with different
Western media outlets leading the campaign of calumny. Unbecoming language was
casually thrown about, throwing caution to the winds. Some went as low as to
describe imagined ailments afflicting the Russian President, Vladimir Putin,
which serve to impair Putin’s mental abilities.
Secondly, when that failed
to undo the unification referendum and resolution of the peoples of Crimea and
the conflict in Eastern Ukraine intensified, debilitating sanctions, in total
disregard of international trade laws, such as the World Trade Organization
protocols and conventions, were imposed against Russia, leading to a near
collapse of the Russian currency and economy.
And then, with the failure of sanctions, spirited efforts, led by German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, are
now being focused on what should have been from the very onset, the first line
of action: dialogue.
How is this approach
supposed to succeed? You abuse first, try out crushing sanctions, then you come
to dialogue? And you wish to be listened to with any measure of good faith?
Good gracious!
To compound matters, in a
recent interview with Vox.com, the US President, Barrack Obama reveals what
everyone had long known: that the US “occasionally
have to twist the arms of countries that wouldn’t do what we need them to do if
it weren’t for the various economic or diplomatic or, in some cases, military
leverage that we had – if we didn’t have that dose of realism, we wouldn’t
get anything done, either.” And we expect these other countries to continue to
dialogue in good faith?
Well the
‘carrot-and-stick’ approach only applies if the entity being dealt with is
herbivorous/vegetarian and does not have a stick of its own. If the entity
against whom the carrot-and-stick approach is applied is carnivorous (does not
really like carrots) and also has several sticks of its own, in this case a
nuclear-powered behemoth, strategies simply have to change!
The crisis
is, unfortunately, resulting from poor approaches adopted in resolving it, swiftly
getting to the point of no return.
Picture: Defective foreign policy approaches escalating violence in Eastern Ukraine
