Europe and the US at one with the people of Ukraine. Disgust and indignation as Yanukovich orders brutal dispersal of peaceful demonstrators

The European Union and the United States have condemned in strong terms attempts by Ukrainian police overnight to break up peaceful protests that have gripped the Ukrainian Capital Kiev for the last weeks.

An unusually toughly worded statement was issued by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, as events were unfolding throughout the night. Kerry said,

"The United States expresses its disgust with the decision of Ukrainian authorities to meet the peaceful protest in Kyiv's Maidan Square with riot police, bulldozers, and batons, rather than with respect for democratic rights and human dignity. This response is neither acceptable nor does it befit a democracy.

Last week in Brussels and Moldova, I underscored publicly the importance of all sides avoiding violence and called on President Yanukovych to fulfill the aspirations of the Ukranian people. We put the government on notice about our concern.

As Vice President Biden made clear to President Yanukovych during their phone call yesterday, respect for democractic principles, including freedom of assembly, is fundamental to the United States' approach to Ukraine. This is a universal value not just an American one. For weeks, we have called on President Yanukovych and his government to listen to the voices of his people who want peace, justice and a European future. Instead, Ukraine's leaders appear tonight to have made a very different choice.

We call for utmost restraint. Human life must be protected. Ukrainian authorities bear full responsibility for the security of the Ukrainian people.

As church bells ring tonight amidst the smoke in the streets of Kyiv, the United States stands with the people of Ukraine. They deserve better."

On behalf of the European Union, Lithuania, which has the current Presidency, has issued a statement calling the Ukrainian authorities to account. The statement by Foreign Minister Linas Linkevičius  said,

"Tonight's events in the Independence Square in Kiev have shown the conscious choice that the Ukrainian authorities appear to have taken against the European path, the choice which is opposite to what the President of Ukraine has been saying publicly.

Freedom of expression and right to peaceful assembly are fundamental European values and no government that claims to have taken the European path can act against them in such manner that we have been witnessing in Kiev tonight.

The actions of the police against peaceful protesters show not only disrespect to these values but also complete lack of will to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the representatives of the civil society and the opposition who have a clear vision for the European future.

The authorities have also shown publicly that they ignore the calls of the EU and US representatives, now visiting Kiev, not to take any further steps which would aggravate the situation. Actions of the authorities undermine the duties and responsibilities that Ukraine has undertaken as the Chairman in Office of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe.

I repeat my call to the Ukrainian authorities stop any violent actions and provocations immediately, to investigate all cases of violence and to punish those responsible.

The Ukrainian authorities have over a short period of time, especially over this night, lost a lot of credibility. Only by taking the immediate steps to abide by the European values can they start a long way towards reestablishing trust.

We are impressed by the peaceful expression and strong spirit that we have seen in the Independence Square and trust that the European aspirations of the Ukrainian citizens will be fulfilled."

EU High Representative Catherine Ashton had earlier in the day met with the Ukrainian President Yanukovich in an attempt to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. Ashton later visited protestors on the streets of Kiev.

Commonspace.eu political editor said in a comment:

"What we are seeing now is not only an escalation in the stand-off between demonstrators and Yanukovich's security forces on the streets of Kiev, but also a much sharper reaction by the international community. If Yanukovich thought that this was a storm in a tea cup and could be cleared away and forgotten quickly it is now evident that it has turned into a major crisis. The man that everybody whether publicly or privately, is holding ultimately responsible for events in Ukraine is Russia's President Vladimir Putin, whose pressure on Yanokovich to abandon plans for an Association Agreement with the EU sparked off the protests. Putin's has always been nostalgic about the Soviet Union and his grand plan for a Eurasian Economic Union and Customs Union are seen by many in the former Soviet Republics as a thinly veiled attempt to restore it, even if devoid of the ideology of the past. Having got away with making Armenia change its choice to join in Association with the EU in September, Putin used the same heavy-handed tactics with Ukraine, unleashing a tumultuous reaction amongst the Ukrainian people, and huge resentment in Europe.

Last week at the OSCE Ministerial meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described European reaction to events in Ukraine as hysterical. It is clear that the Russian authorities have misjudged the mood both in Ukraine and in Europe. In doing so they have done a great disservice to themselves and to Russia for much goodwill towards Russia has evaporated overnight. Mr Putin may soon realise he has a problem that he was not expecting."


The independent Ukrainian web portal and newspaper, Kyiv Post, is providing round the clock updated coverage of events in Kiev as they unfold.

source: commonspace.eu

photo: EU High Representative Catherine Ashton on the streets of the Ukrainian capital on Tuesday evening, hours before protestors were attacked by security forces provoking a sharp international reaction (picture courtesy of the European External Action Service).

 

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)