Ukrainians Need Humanitarian Aid And Peace, Not Weapons And More War.

by Jerry Alatalo

mountain11Alphabet When first becoming aware of  protests in Ukraine in the fall of 2013, like most Americans there was no idea where Ukraine was on a map. After reading a few articles it became apparent that Ukrainians were in a struggle between western Ukrainians over joining the European Union, developing a western-style society, and leaving the eastern/Russian sphere of influence, and the eastern Ukrainian view to stay close to Russia. What was puzzling was how it came to be that Ukrainians had seemingly become forced to decide between Europe and Russia, one or the other, and that possibly simply dealing with both Europe and Russia wasn’t an option.

Unfortunately, Yanukovych wasn’t born in the dead-center of Ukraine but in the eastern region, so the mostly Russian-speaking people there reacted strongly to the overthrow of “one of their own”. Also puzzling was how, after an agreement became signed days before the coup by representatives from Europe, leaders of the Maidan protests, and Yanukovych on reforms, power-sharing and elections, everything went to hell hours later when nearly 100 protesters and police were victims shot dead by snipers.

Nobody has been prosecuted and imprisoned for the sniper killings; the result was Yanukovych fled for his life to Russia, and a new government was established in his place. Why didn’t those in the Ukraine government who wanted the elected president out for corruption initiate impeachment of Yanukovych, but extreme violence replaced a legal constitutional process to remove a leader?

What is puzzling as well is the lack of focus and detail, in especially western mainstream media, on exactly what the problems/disagreements are in Ukraine which have led to over 5,400 Ukrainians perishing and near one million refugees and internally displaced. Is it oil and gas geopolitical strategy at the highest level, control of Ukraine’s immense agricultural sector, the rise of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) alliance of nations as a previously absent option for nations instead of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the largest international banks?

Are eastern Ukrainians very concerned about the dangers of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and planting of GMOs in Ukraine, known as the “breadbasket of Europe” for its ideal black, rich soils and massive acreage of farmlands.

How does Russia’s only warm water naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea factor into the crisis – Russia’s only southern sea access to the Mediterranean? Or the factor pointed out by experts of Ukraine joining NATO? Can the extremely odd developments surrounding the downing of Malaysian Flight MH17 be placed on the peace dialogue agenda, or Joe Biden’s son becoming involved with Burisma Holdings – Ukraine’s largest private energy firm, along with every concern of every serious party?

These questions and many more need to become seriously addressed to prevent any more bloodshed of Ukrainian citizens, or God forbid beyond. The real causes of differences must become placed on the table for/of discussion, followed by the working out of possible compromises and mutually agreeable solutions – not more war, violence, human suffering and destruction, and effectively solving the crisis. Conflict resolution, although often described as a very complex endeavor, is fundamentally simple – but successful peace efforts must be founded on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

This was the proposal from the Russian side after the February 2014 coup which chased Viktor Yanukovych out of power; a “tripartite” model, reforms, and addressing the concerns of the Ukrainians in the south and east region nearer the Russian border. Hopefully peace talks will result in a situation where Europe, Russia and Ukraine trade and conduct business like all other nations sharing borders.

Escalation of violence in Ukraine will harm men, women and children whose only fault, the same as innocent victims of war for centuries, was being born in a region of the Earth where powerful people see possibilities for increasing their wealth and power. A for-as-long-as-it-takes peace conference among all “sides” to the Ukrainian conflict, inviting the world’s experts, academics and spiritual leaders, where there is a rational, patient dealing with every last one of the concerns and differences of opinion of all serious Ukrainians, can set an extremely positive example of conflict resolution for humanity, and could forever change – for the better – humanity’s perceptions on war and peace.

While distressing, disturbing, worrying and heartbreaking, the Ukraine crisis can at the same time be seen as an enormous, historic opportunity. There exists a real opportunity to construct a model for creating peace which will become replicated in the future time and time and time again. In 2015, such a model would represent a truly beneficial, positive advance and evolution of civilization.

And isn’t now as good a time as any? 

****

(Thank you to TheRealNews at YouTube)

Advertisements

Ukraine: President Olga Bogomolets?

Posted on May 11, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

“In Aristotelian terms, the good leader must have ethos, pathos and logos. The ethos is his moral character, the source of his ability to persuade. The pathos is his ability to touch feelings, to move people emotionally. The logos is his ability to give solid reasons for an action, to move people intellectually.”

– MORTIMER J. ADLER American philosopher, educator

393-1To readers who are unfamiliar with the name Olga Bogomolets, she is running for President of Ukraine. She is a doctor who was in Kiev treating victims of sniper fire during the large protests on the Maidan leading to Viktor Yanukovych leaving Ukraine and a change of government. Observers may or may not hold the opinion that the murder of over 100 police officers and civilian protesters in Kiev on and around February 20, 2014 is perhaps the most significant world event since the year 2000.

The major impetus of this article is to request help in getting Dr. Olga Bogomolets’ message to all Americans. Those who are familiar with this blog know that each article/post usually includes video from YouTube. Today, after viewing perhaps over 20 videos with Olga Bogomolets either being interviewed or giving a talk to the press, what I discovered was that it is literally impossible to find an understandable English-translated example of her messages after February 26, 2014 on YouTube.

Before going further, let me share another experience about videos that give viewers a translation option inside the video. In a previous post, “Who Is Vladimir Putin?”, a woman who has conducted a form of citizen diplomacy with USSR/Russia for over 30 years – Sharon Tennison – wrote an article about demonization of Vladimir Putin recently in the west by media organizations and politicians, in her attempt to correct erroneous perceptions.

Now, wanting to find out more about Sharon Tennison, a search quickly found two YouTube videos of her addressing a Russian audience with help from a woman interpreter. Ms. Tennison was talking about her book, “The Power of Impossible Ideas”, and her book tour in America. Now, choosing translated captions on those videos was probably unnecessary because Ms. Tennison spoke in English and the woman interpreting to the Russian audience was speaking the same message to the audience – but I took the English-translated option never-the-less.

What I discovered, and this relates directly to my asking for help in getting Dr. Olga Bogomolets’ message in English to Americans, was that nothing Ms. Tennison actually said, which I perfectly understood during her speaking, came across in the translated captions at the bottom of the screen. In other words, every bit and word Ms. Tennison spoke, in the translated interpreter’s captioned “English”, was wrong. To drive this point home, if the interpreter was by herself speaking Russian, and the option to have her words translated to English was chosen, every word she spoke would be translated wrong.

There are dozens of YouTube videos with Dr. Bogomolets speaking in them – in her foreign language (Ukrainian) – for various lengths of time, from one-minute to a half-hour to over an hour. For an English-speaking American, it is impossible to get her messages because the caption-translation YouTube option delivers incomprehensible gibberish.

Why is it important that Americans receive Ukrainian Dr. Olga Bogomolets’ messages in English?

  1. Dr. Bogomolets was treating sniper victims in Kiev and noticed the wounds entering from behind as well as the fact that wounds were found near the eyes, neck, and heart – not to the arms or legs, but to kill.
  2. Dr. Bogomolets’ name was brought up in the now world-known intercepted March 5 phone call between Eurpean Union high official Catherine Ashton and Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet. Paet told Ashton that snipers were controlled by the “new coalition” not Viktor Yanukovych, that the snipers were killing both police and civilians, that the “new coalition” was unwilling to investigate, and that some of what he was saying to Ashton came from discussions with Olga Bogomolets.
  3. Dr. Bogomolets declined an appointment as Ukraine’s top medical/health officer, because she “didn’t know any of these people.”
  4. And because Dr. Olga Bogomolets, based on what she has experienced, made the life-changing decision to run for the top office – president – of Ukraine.

What I observed from correctly translated comments about incomprehensible-for-English-speakers videos of Olga Bogomolets is that a large percentage of those comments from Ukrainian people express the most positive wish to have Olga Bogomolets elected Ukraine’s next president. The reason Americans need to hear what she says stems from the fact that Ukrainians have been overwhelmed by the sheer spiritual and moral power coming from this woman doctor. The words used by Ukrainians in these comments express such a respect, honor, and profound admiration for Dr. Bogomolets’ political philosophy at this pivotal moment for Ukraine that Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone comes to mind.

It is apparent that Olga Bogomolets shares with Paul Wellstone that very rare quality of men and women involved in governing of a real and mutual love between a leader and the people. For that reason, Dr. Bogomolets is a person who has a message that is universal and needs to become known by people around the world.

In summary, I believe Dr. Olga Bogomolets’ story, message, and profound decision to seek the approval of the Ukrainian people to become their leader represents perhaps the most important, consequential, single news event now present on this Earth.

If you know men or women living in Ukraine please contact them to discuss creative ways of contacting Dr. Bogomolets to arrange for English-language translations or English-language communications. At this time there are three websites – two related to her candidacy for president in Ukrainian, and her personal site in English.

You can send Dr. Olga Bogomolets an English-language email message at> bogomolets.com.

****

The following is the only English-language communication of Dr. Bogomolets available. This was from on or around February 20, 2014 discussing the “Maidan Massacre.” There are other videos posted at YouTube from as recently as May 2, 2014 (including televised in Ukraine presidential debates) but, as explained, they are incomprehensible to English speakers.

(Thank you to Verfassung1871 @ YouTube)

United Nations Security Council Summary / May 2, 2014

Posted May 2, 2014

Summary of statements from United Nations Security Council emergency meeting held May 2, 2014.

Diplomatic Solution Only Way Out, as Situation in Ukraine Deteriorates,

 

Under-Secretary-General Tells Security Council

 

The situation in parts of eastern and southern Ukraine had seen “further severe deterioration”, with fresh events — including the downing of two helicopters — threatening to destabilize the country and the region, the Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs told the Security Council today.

Jeffrey Feltman, briefing the Council three days after his most recent update, said that in more than a dozen cities in Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk, armed groups had taken over a growing number of buildings.  The situation in the eastern city of Slovyansk, occupied by armed insurgents since 12 April, was of most immediate concern.

According to Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence, he said, two helicopters had been shot down overnight during operations by the authorities, with at least one pilot killed.  Other casualties had been reported on both sides.  In Donetsk Oblast and in the city itself, self-declared separatists had seized the regional prosecutor’s office on 1 May.  Other reports cited clashes during a pro-unity protest in the southern city of Odessa.

He understood that the President of the Russian Federation had dispatched a special envoy to help free the seven military monitors from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and accompanying Ukrainian staff being held by gunmen in Slovyansk.  A diplomatic solution was the only way out of the crisis and all sides must redouble efforts to revive the spirit of compromise shown during the 17 April Geneva talks.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he had called today’s meeting because of the punitive operations being conducted in south-east Ukraine by the Kyiv Government, which was using military helicopters, striking at protestors and entrenching fighters.  Unless its criminal misadventures were stopped, dire consequences would be unavoidable.  Ukraine’s measures against its own people showed it had no desire to comply with the Geneva Statement.

While the Russian Federation was making efforts to de-escalate the crisis, Ukraine had started full-scale use of military force, annihilating any hope of agreement, he said.  Urging an end to outside interference in Ukraine’s affairs, he said that by supporting those who had perpetrated a coup d’état in Kyiv, the United States and the European Union were destroying the path to a peaceful solution.

The representative of Ukraine said his country was committed to implementing the Geneva Statement, noting that free and fair presidential elections on 25 May were a top priority.  The Russian Federation had made no effort to implement the Geneva accords.  Instead, it supported illegal militants in eastern Ukraine and had created an atmosphere of violence.

He said the counter-terrorist operation, renewed in Slovyansk, sought to isolate militants from civilians in the city.  Illegal militants were using heavy weapons against Ukrainian Special Forces, having shot down two helicopters and used the local population as shields.  Earlier today, Russian saboteurs had attempted to cross the border.  He urged the Russian Federation to stop supporting illegal militants.  Russian claims of English-speaking foreigner involvement were “cynical” and “false”, as only Russian saboteurs and mercenaries were involved.

Also speaking in today’s debate were the representatives of France, United Kingdom, United States, Luxembourg, Argentina, Australia, China, Chad, Lithuania, Nigeria, Jordan, Chile, Rwanda and the Republic of Korea.

The meeting began at 12:03 p.m. and ended at 1:50 p.m.

Background

Meeting this afternoon to consider the situation in Ukraine, members of the Security Council had before them a letter from the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation (document S/2014/264) addressed to the Council President.  Dated 13 April, it requests a meeting to consider “alarming” developments in Ukraine.

Briefing

JEFFREY FELTMAN, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, said that since the Council’s last meeting on 29 April, there had been a further, severe deterioration of the situation in parts of eastern and southern Ukraine.  Recent developments in those areas threatened a serious further destabilization of the country and the region, as well as Ukraine’s unity.  In more than a dozen cities in Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk, an increasing number of buildings were being taken over by armed groups, he said, emphasizing that the situation in the eastern city of Slovyansk, occupied by armed insurgents since 12 April, was of most immediate concern.

According to Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence, he continued, two helicopters had been shot down overnight during ongoing operations by the authorities, with at least one pilot killed.  A number of other casualties had been reported on both sides, but the total could not be verified.  The acting Interior Minister had stated that a number of roadblocks had been removed from around the city, but it was understood from the media that tense standoffs continued, at least in parts of the city and around it.

At the same time, he continued, the seven military monitors from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) accompanying Ukrainian military staff and held by gunmen in Slovyansk remained in detention amid repeated calls for their release.  To that end, it was understood that the President of the Russian Federation had dispatched a special envoy to help free the hostages, he said, reiterating the Secretary-General’s call to those responsible to release them immediately, unconditionally and unharmed.

The crisis had also escalated in the Donetsk Oblast region and in Donetsk itself, where self-declared separatists had seized the regional prosecutor’s office on 1 May, he said.  Other reports stated that the Ukrainian authorities had banned Russian passenger planes from flying to Donetsk and Kharkiv, while still others reported clashes during a pro-unity demonstration in the southern city of Odessa.  Reiterating elements of the Secretary-General’s statement today, in which he expressed his grave concern over the situation, he said the escalating violence and reported further loss of life in Slovyansk were a stark reminder of how dangerous the situation had become.  A diplomatic solution was the only way out of the crisis and all sides must redouble efforts to revive the spirit of compromise demonstrated during the 17 April Geneva talks, Mr. Feltman stressed, adding that during his meetings in Kyiv and Moscow next week, he would continue to reiterate a message of restraint and an immediate return to dialogue.

Statements

VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation) said he had called for today’s meeting because of the resumed punitive operations being conducted in south-east Ukraine by the Kyiv Government, which was using military helicopters, striking at protestors and entrenching fighters, leading to casualties.  Unless the criminal misadventures of the Kyiv clique were stopped, dire consequences would be unavoidable, he warned, adding that the Ukrainian Government’s criminal measures against its own people showed that it had no desire to comply with the 17 April Joint Geneva Statement.  It was now clear that the Kyiv Government’s many declarations in favour of dialogue were nothing less than hypocrisy.

At a time when the Russian Federation was making efforts to de-escalate the crisis, Ukraine had started full-scale use of military force, annihilating any hope of agreement, he continued.  On the radio waves, one could hear English-speaking foreigners among those carrying out assaults in Slovyansk.  Calling for an end to outside interference in Ukraine’s affairs, he urged the United States to end its double standards, adding that by supporting those who had perpetrated a coup d’état in Kyiv, that country and the European Union were in effect destroying the path to a peaceful solution.  He called upon signatories to the Geneva Statement not to commit a fatal error, and on the West to stop its destructive policy concerning Ukraine and halt its operations there.  An authentic political dialogue was needed, he emphasized.

GÉRARD ARAUD (France) said that the armed groups involved in progressively taking over cities in eastern Ukraine were being manipulated by Russian forces and refusing to implement the Geneva Statement.  Ukraine, which had shown great restraint all along, had now decided to use its army and police against armed groups creating a climate of insecurity, he said, emphasizing that the latter were not spontaneous local demonstrators, who would be incapable of shooting down a helicopter with surface-to-air missiles.  The Russian Federation had invoked the 21 February agreement, which it had not endorsed, while waiving the Geneva Agreement, to which it had consented but had made no effort to implement.  He described as “comical” the Russian Federation’s accusation blaming the European Union for the violence, emphasizing that the Russian Federation had opened a Pandora’s box and unleashed the demon of nationalism.  “We have a pyromaniac situation,” he said, stressing that the Russian Federation must disarm the groups that it had armed, free the OSCE monitors and negotiate with Ukraine.

MARK LYALL GRANT (United Kingdom) said the Russian Federation’s description of events in Ukraine as a punitive military operation against activists was a gross distortion of facts.  Ukraine had a duty to uphold the rule of law and to protect its territory, and should carry it out in a proportionate, measured way, he emphasized.  Its actions in and around Slovyansk were meant to relieve that city from armed groups sponsored by the Russian Federation who were terrorizing the population.  No Council member would allow its towns to be overrun by armed militants, he pointed out, stressing that the Russian Federation’s claims about “peaceful activists” were not credible given the use of sophisticated weapons against Ukrainian forces, including by professionals funded and equipped by the Russian Federation.  He urged the Russian Federation to refrain from inflammatory propaganda, throw its full weight behind the 17 April accord and rein in the armed groups that it supported.

SAMANTHA POWER (United States) described as false the Russian Federation’s claims that Ukraine was carrying out a large-scale attack on unarmed civilians, emphasizing that the latter’s actions were intended to contain Russian paramilitaries and protect Ukrainian citizens.  Russian-directed agents and paramilitaries were the source of the violence, she stressed.  Another falsehood was that the Russian Federation was concerned about instability in the east, while it was itself behind the instability.  With Russian troops massing along its border, Ukraine had shown “remarkable, almost unimaginable” restraint, implementing international agreements, refraining from military responses to aggression and committing to direct dialogue with Moscow.  Ukraine’s efforts to reclaim its cities were the same as any country would have made in the face of threats, she said, adding that 32 buildings in 17 eastern Ukraine towns were occupied by pro-Russian separatists.  The Council had heard the Russian Federation build its case for outright intervention, but there was no evidence that Ukraine had threatened the Russian Federation in any way, she said.  Ukraine’s steps to restore order were justified, but the fact that the Russian Federation had chosen to call an emergency Council meeting was another sign that it was trying to replicate the Crimea charade, she said, urging the latter to pull back its troops, stop its campaign of instability, and work to release international observers and journalists.

SYLVIE LUCAS (Luxembourg) expressed concern over the actions of pro-Russian, militant separatists intent on destabilizing Ukraine and preventing it from holding elections on 25 May.  Confronted with violations against its sovereignty, Ukrainian authorities had shown restraint.  Until Thursday, their response to the illegal seizure of public offices and the growing number of attacks and violence by armed groups against peaceful protests had been moderate.  The presence of impartial United Nations and OSCE monitors across Ukraine was vital to establish the facts and put an end to bellicose propaganda.  She condemned the taking of OSCE monitors as hostages and called on the pro-separatists to free them as soon as possible.

MARÍA CRISTINA PERCEVAL (Argentina) said that the spirit of compromise reached in Geneva must be restored.  Hate speech and incitement to violence had only lead to rising tensions, undermining the international community’s efforts.  All actors must work towards constructive diplomacy so the Geneva Statement could be implemented.  The Council’s calls for a de-escalation of tensions had not been consistent.  “It is not too late.  It is still possible to avoid the worst,” she said, calling on the Council to assume its responsibility to maintain international peace and security.

GARY QUINLAN (Australia) said the planned, coordinated destabilization of Ukraine could not happen without external support, as seen with the downing of two helicopters.  Armed groups had consolidated control in Donetsk and Kharkiv and had orchestrated violence which had spread to Odessa.  The actions of pro-Russian groups were not legitimate protests, but rather calculated, highly provocative actions intended to undermine Ukrainian authority.  They made a mockery of what the Russian Federation had committed to in the Geneva agreement.  The Ukraine Government was implementing its Geneva obligations and was committed to holding public debate on constitutional change.  In response to extreme provocation, Ukrainian authorities had a responsibility to restore public order.  It must take measures to ensure security and protect its citizens in its territory.  “We are at a very dangerous, manipulated moment,” he said, urging the Russian Federation to implement the Geneva Statement and demonstrate it had no further territorial ambitions in Ukraine.

LIU JIEYI (China), stressing that the situation in parts of eastern and southern Ukraine was of deep concern, urged parties to safeguard ethnic groups, keep calm, exercise restraint and avoid a further deterioration of conditions.  A political solution was the only way out of the crisis.  Ukraine must consider the full situation and accommodate the aspirations of various regions and ethnic groups in order to achieve a balance.  Noting his Government’s efforts towards promoting peace and facilitating negotiations, he expressed hope that the parties would pursue dialogue, implement the agreements reached, start a political settlement process and realize the stability of Ukraine.  China would continue to support good offices with the aim of promoting a political settlement.

MAHAMAT ZENE CHERIF (Chad) said that, despite repeated calls for restraint and calm, the situation continued to deteriorate, politically and in terms of security.  There was a risk of a war that carried incalculable consequences.  While a number of efforts had been made to open the way for dialogue, the results had been far from expectations.  Reiterating the call for an immediate halt to combat, he urged non-violence by the authorities and separatists alike, as well as for the release of the seven OSCE observers.  The solution must be political, sought in full respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.  Further, countries with influence should use all means possible to help establish direct dialogue.  He also encouraged the Secretary-General to step up efforts to bring about a rapprochement.

RAIMONDA MURMOKAITĖ (Lithuania) said Ukraine could not be blamed for taking steps against those trying to carve it up and parcel it out.  It had a right to protect its sovereignty.  The Russian Federation so far had not condemned the Syrian regime’s missile and bomb attacks this week in Aleppo or similar previous acts.  Today, two Ukrainian helicopters were downed by mobile air defence systems.  Militants, not protestors, had opened fire.  Had the separatists carried out the Geneva Statement or had the Russian Federation called on the separatists to enter into peace talks with the Ukrainian Government, such attacks, and today’s deadly provocations in Odessa, would not be happening.  The Russian Federation continued to blame Ukraine, the only side taking steps to implement the Geneva Statement.  She rejected all Russian attempts to validate its intentions or send Russian “peacekeeping” forces to Ukraine.  She noted that OSCE observers must be able to carry out their tasks.

U. JOY OGWU (Nigeria) expressed concern over the downing of a military helicopter and the seizure of Slovyansk.  All sides must refrain from violence, intimidation and provocative action, and all armed groups must vacate buildings they had seized.  Territorial integrity must be respected.  The alternative would be “falling dominoes” in Eastern Europe and every region of the world.  “The scenario is simply mortifying.  It is our collective responsibility to prevent the domino theory from being replayed in our times,” she said.

MAHMOUD DAIFALLAH MAHMOUD HMOUD (Jordan), expressing deep concern over events in Ukraine, called on all hostages held by rebels in Slovyansk to be released, including OSCE monitors.  An unfolding mutiny in eastern Ukraine, as rebels seized public and Government buildings and threatened civilians, had contravened both international law and the Geneva agreement.  Ukraine had a right to take appropriate measures to retain its unity and sovereignty, as well as uphold the constitutional and legal order.  It must work towards a peaceful resolution of the crisis, within international criteria, sparing no effort to engage in dialogue with all stakeholders.  He urged implementing the Geneva Statement and exerting pressure on the rebels to end the crisis.  Further, all stakeholders should refrain from racist or hate speech, he said, underscoring the importance of respecting Ukrainians’ aspirations, notably by ensuring that elections were held in May.

CRISTIÁN BARROS MELET (Chile), emphasizing that the crisis was quickly entering an unpredictable phase, expressed concern over events in Slovyansk and urged the Council to again call for all means to pursue a peaceful settlement through dialogue.  Parties must refrain from acting unilaterally and must support international mediation efforts, he said, condemning the kidnapping of OSCE observers and reiterating the call for their release.  It was vital to work in a spirit of compromise, he said, urging the disarmament of armed groups and returning illegally occupied buildings.  He reiterated the need to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, supporting both the Secretary-General’s efforts and visit to the Russian Federation by the Under-Secretary-General.

EUGÈNE-RICHARD GASANA (Rwanda) said the situation in Ukraine had escalated.  Pro-separatist forces had continued to occupy buildings and they had shot down helicopters.  OSCE observers had been detained.  He condemned the armed methods used by militants and called for a proportionate response by Ukraine’s armed forces.  He called on all Council members to give the Under-Secretary-General the meaningful backing necessary, and noted that only a genuine dialogue by the Ukrainian parties and a strong commitment by those with influence could resolve the crisis.  Otherwise, the conflict would become regional or worse, and the Council would continue holding emergency meetings on that matter.  “We need here to scale down the rhetoric,” he said.

OH JOON (Republic of Korea) expressed concern over continuing tensions in Ukraine, particularly over the violence in Slovyansk, which had included an attack on a military helicopter.  Dialogue among all parties was the only way to achieve a peaceful solution, and he called on all parties to the Geneva Statement to implement it.  With elections scheduled for May, it was all the more important to ensure an environment conducive to free and fair elections and without any outside interference.  He expressed hope for a transparent, Ukraine-led process.

OLEKSANDR PAVLICHENKO (Ukraine) said his country remained committed to implementing the 17 April Geneva Statement, adding that free and fair presidential elections on 25 May were a top priority.  The Russian Federation had made no effort to de-escalate the situation and implement the Geneva Statement, and had instead supported illegal militants in eastern Ukraine and created an atmosphere of violence.  Security for all Ukrainians was another top priority, and the purpose of the counter-terrorist operation renewed in Slovyansk was to isolate militants from civilians in the city, he said, adding that its commander required the militants to free all hostages and captured administration buildings, and to stop the violence.  Ukrainian authorities were ready to grant amnesty to all militant group members who had not committed serious crimes, he said.  Describing the Russian Federation’s claims that English-speaking foreigners were involved in the crisis as “cynical” and “false”, he said only Russian saboteurs and mercenaries were present.

He went on to note that the Russian Federation’s embassy in Kyiv had not been notified about the arrival of Special Presidential Envoy Vladimir Lukin.  Nonetheless, Ukraine was prepared to discuss with him practical contributions to resolving problems.  Due to the situation in Slovyansk, the National Security and Defence Council had launched a counter-terrorist operation, the active phase of which had been renewed in that city and elsewhere, he said.  The operation had taken control of nine terrorist checkpoints in Slovyansk.  Illegal militants were using heavy weapons against Ukrainian special forces, and had shot down two helicopters with man-portable air defence systems, killing two people and wounding seven others, he said, adding that they had not hesitated to use the local people as shields.  Russian saboteurs had tried to break through the border today but they had been stopped by Ukrainian guards, he said, calling upon the Russian Federation to stop supporting illegal militants and other actions that undermined his country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, including the use of military threat as a form of pressure.

The representative of the Russian Federation took the floor a second time to refute the claim by his counterpart from France that his country had not endorsed the 21 February agreement.  On the contrary, it looked forward to implementing the accord and had helped to conclude the 17 April Geneva Statement, which, while simple, would pave the way out of the crisis.  People in eastern Ukraine merely wanted their rights guaranteed, he said.  Since the signing of the Geneva Statement, no one had taken up weapons, but there had never been a reasonable response from Kyiv.  The Council had heard that on 25 May Ukrainian officials would unveil some sort of decentralization process, he said, noting that his Western colleagues seemed to know about all the operations currently being carried out by the Kyiv Government.  He asked why the United States did not want OSCE efforts for dialogue, pointing out that the Russian Federation had suggested different formats for dialogue on several occasions during the course of the crisis, and suggested convening a constitutional assembly, while they had said they were not ready to organize such forums.  He also denied claims that his country was refusing to implement the Geneva Statement.

The representative of the United States also took the floor again, saying that for the Russian Federation to blame Ukraine for defending its own actions on Ukrainian territory was like the story of the boy who told his mother that a fight between him and another boy had started when the other had hit him back.  “We must be clear about cause and effect here,” she emphasized.  It was not true that the United States had never called on the Maidan protestors to leave buildings and renounce violence, and that it was exercising double standards.  On 10 January, it had condemned the actions of rioters outside Government buildings, and later that month it had condemned targeted attacks against journalists and called on all protestors to refrain from violence and destruction of property.  Those were among the many public statements by the United States Government aimed at ending the fighting.  The future was more important, she said, asking whether the Russian Federation would publicly urge the separatists to end their siege of public buildings.  It had repeatedly taken aim at the so-called illegitimate Government in Kyiv while refusing to acknowledge its failure to embrace the 21 February agreement after it had been negotiated.  Furthermore, the Russian Federation would not come out in support of the 25 May elections, she said, stressing that doing so would be best way to ensure that rights were more autonomous in eastern Ukraine.

The representative of the Russian Federation, responding to a question by the Council President about a possible presidential statement from today’s meeting, first addressed comments made by his United States counterpart.  He said that what had been heard from the United States, and the way that message had been delivered, showed everyone that it approved of the forceful change of power in Ukraine, which, in the end, did not serve Ukrainian interests.  As for a presidential statement, he said it would be good to end today’s meeting with a statement calling for a swift end to violence and serious implementation of the Geneva Statement.

OH JOON (Republic of Korea), Council President, said he would ask the coordinators to take up the matter.

OH JOON adjourned the meeting.

****

Former Australian Leader Shares Wisdom On Ukraine.

Posted March 26, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

“They detest war as a very brutal thing; and which, to the reproach of human nature is more practiced by men than any sort of beasts; and they, against the custom of almost all other nations, think that there is nothing more inglorious than that glory which is gained by war. They should be both troubled and ashamed of bloody victory over their enemies; and in no victory do they glory so much, as in that which is gained by dexterity and good conduct without bloodshed.”

– Sir Thomas More (1478-beheaded 1535) Utopia (1516)

sun1Elder statesman Malcolm Fraser is an ex-Prime Minister of Australia. He is a guest on a recent Worlds Apart with Oksana Boyko, where he shares his views on the current situation in Ukraine. After listening to this interesting interview, the thought of Mr. Fraser joining together with former world leaders like Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, Thabo Mbeki, Mary Robinson and other elder retirees from around the Earth came forward.

It would be a good thing if a conference/meeting of elder men and women who share being their nation’s elected leader took place soon, with discussions on Ukraine the central focus. The world would benefit greatly from the wisdom that comes forward from such a meeting, open to any man or woman former national leader – from any region on Earth – who wished to help with their ideas.

Mr. Fraser has developed the wisdom that comes from many years of living on Earth, so his words illustrate that wisdom in this interview. He begins by noting that Mikhail Gorbachev thought he had reached agreement after the fall of the Berlin Wall with NATO not to expand East toward Russia’s borders, but that the agreement was not held together by the west. Bill Clinton thought that NATO expansion was a “democratizing move” and went ahead with it. Mr. Fraser believes that after the collapse of the USSR, the west should have focused on working with the Russians.

In 2014, he thinks the European Union (EU), United States, NATO, and Russia need to do a type of “restart” to build more trust between their respective leaders and people. He thinks the leaders of Ukraine need to become persuaded by the west to engage in the fine art of compromise, that the west needs to recognize its past mistakes, and that “…one of the problems of the world, where are the great leaders – the great statesmen”. This is a profound point by Mr. Fraser, yet all he needs to do is look in the mirror – then call his men and women colleagues around the world to arrange a meeting to discuss solutions.

He goes on to mention World War II, after which most people realized that humanity had almost destroyed itself, then decided to build a more peaceful world. Ms. Boyko shared a quote from the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith to describe the current situation of Ukraine, “politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable”. Malcolm Fraser believes that what the west and Russia need to attempt to do for the maintenance of peace is persuade the parties in Ukraine to focus on compromising.

He thinks that Ukraine needs to be free to deal with any nation – including EU countries, the USA, and Russia – and that Ukraine should not join the NATO military alliance. He frankly states his view that the USA feels it can break international law, and that rules are for other people. America is right because America does it; the great powers interpret international law according to what is in their best interest. Mr. Fraser advises the EU and USA to absolutely not intervene militarily in Ukraine.

He responds to Ms. Boyko’s observation that he has a slightly different view of events than most political leaders, and Mr. Fraser points out that there are other retired elders like himself who have similar big-picture, balanced ways of analyzing the situation in Ukraine and the region. He points out that western politicians have contributed to the unfortunate situation and been very short-sighted – incapable of looking at the larger picture. He stresses that all nations must get on together in joined efforts to build a more peaceful world, without saying things that create distrust.

“We’ve got to try and build a better world.”

Mr. Fraser admits regret for the events that occurred in East Timor and Indonesia while he was Australia’s Prime Minister. Finally, Malcolm Fraser says to Oksana Boyko, “…USA has yet to understand that good political outcomes are not going to come through military power.” He notes that the USA accounts for 42% of the world’s military spending compared to China’s 8%.

This was the first time I’ve listened to Malcolm Fraser of Australia, so there is no background or history of his years as Australia’s leader that I can share with you at this time.  Evidently it’s been over 30 years since he left office. The reason his interview has been posted is because of his status as an elder statesman, and the hope that his wisdom can get into the public consciousness.

Rational dialogue, especially from the world’s wise elders, offers the greatest gift to guarantee peace for the men, women, and children of Ukraine.

****

(Thank you to WorldsApaRT at YouTube)