In November 2013, Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was weighing competing aid and affiliation packages from the EU and Russia. The total value of the Russian package was over 20 times more generous: $15 to 20 billion in loans, aid, and discounted fuel, all largely unconditional. The EU package contained fewer than $1 billion in loans, conditioned on extraordinary government reforms and, onerously, a promise to reject a partnership with Russia.

Yanukovych’s decision to choose the Russian deal and spurn the EU – which set off the Euromaidan protests, and led ultimately to his ouster – was entirely reasonable. The EU has been miserly in its policies toward poorer member countries, such as Greece, Spain and Portugal. It’s lack of generosity toward Ukraine was typical. And countries like Ukraine – lacking established state or private institutions, and with economies rife with corruption and inefficiency – would do better over the short- and medium-term with closer economic ties to Russia instead. (Ukrainian exports are not likely to thrive on EU markets compared to the Russian market; EU capital is less likely to be invested in Ukraine than is Russian capital.)

The legality of Yanukovych’s removal from office is also fairly questioned. At a minimum, Russia’s refusal to recognize the newly constituted Ukrainian government is reasonable, self-serving though it may be. And compared to 20th century US dealings in Latin America, Russian aggression in Crimea and eastern Ukraine has been restrained. Within its own hemisphere, the US has overthrown numerous governments – directly or through proxies – simply because the “wrong” leadership came to power. The US only came to tolerate the likes of Chavez after the USSR was vanquished. Recent US restraint is not well attributed to a newfound pluralism – rather, antagonistic governments in the Americas no longer threaten US security. Russia, by comparison, fairly perceives its own security to be worse now than it has been for more than 20 years.

These observations are not offered to justify Russian aggression in Ukraine, but rather to show how it fits into a larger pattern, common to both Russia and the US. During the Cold War, the US was careful not to push its sphere too far east – Austria and Finland didnt even join the EU until after the USSR broke up; and neither have joined NATO. Undeniably, the Cold War reduced Russia to a regional power – however Russia and the US differ on the extent of Russia’s sphere today. The US, by its actions, would seem to regard Russia’s sphere as extending no farther than its own borders – particularly after Russia remained (weirdly) quiet through the accession into NATO of the Baltics, which were once part of the USSR.

There is, however, a big difference between the Baltics and Ukraine, and the conflict today is in part attributable to a US failure to recognize as much. Not only is Ukraine seven times more populous, but its economy is far more integrated with Russia’s, and their histories are much more closely intertwined.

From the standpoint of liberalism, people have a right to choose their government, and so Russia can fairly question the legality of Yanukyovich’s removal from office, and the legitimacy of his successor. However borders must be respected, and thus Russia’s incursion into Ukraine cannot be tolerated by the West, particularly under the terms of the Budapest Memorandum (excerpted below). Unfortunately, the US lacks the moral standing to make this argument, because, by its own actions, it has legitimized subversion and outright invasion of nearby states to advance its own security.

Appendix

After the USSR broke up, its nuclear weapons apparatus was strewn across several of the newly independent states that emerged. Ukraine, which declared independence in 1989, “inherited” perhaps one-third of the arsenal, including warheads and ICBMs, as well as development and assembly plants. In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine agreed to transfer all nuclear weapons and technology to Russia, and joined the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, in exchange for the certain security assurances. Here’s an excerpt from that agreement (emphasis supplied):

A nation’s genesis is rarely pretty. Nations commonly emerge through violence, and the establishment of Israel has all the usual ugliness, protracted now over 75 years, heightened beneath the lens of modern media, amidst modern sensibilities. And it is ongoing. Just before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting with US President Barack Obama, and his speech before the UN, Israel released plans for it’s latest land-grab: a brand new 2600 unit housing development in East Jerusalem, part of the occupied West Bank.

We at the Field Guide beat up on Israel quite often, and for good reason. They are an exemplar of a democracy gone so horribly wrong that it is as tyrannically illiberal as any dictatorship to many of its subjects. The fact that we have to use the term subjects says it all. Millions of Arabs – across several generations and almost half a century – have been living subject to Israeli authority without ever having been granted citizenship, nor even a modicum of civil or political liberties. Israel has literally made them foreigners in their own land.

Israel invaded and occupied the West Bank in 1967, and has been colonizing it ever since, stealing land from Arabs a little bit at a time. The pace of their theft has only accelerated, despite Israel’s supposed participation in the “peace process.” Since the Oslo Accords 20 years ago, when Israel ostensibly agreed with the Palestinian Authority on a framework to resolve their differences, Israel’s colonial population in the West Bank has tripled. This latest housing development is yet another Israeli betrayal of that framework, lending support to the belief that Israelis cannot be negotiated with – that they only respond to violence.

At the UN last week, Netanyahu took aim at Hamas, and one can readily see why. Hamas helped make Gaza an exceptionally unpleasant place to colonize. Among the nastier groups in restive Gaza, Hamas was a factor in Israel’s unilateral withdrawal of its colonies and army in 2005. It is all but irresistible to compare Gaza’s success in driving out their colonizers with the West Bank’s failure – leaving one to wonder at the efficacy of the peaceful tactics of the Palestinian Authority.

One recalls Bush Duh’s analogous blunders with his proclaimed axis-of-evil. In the inimitable Bush Duh style, he managed to invade the one country out of three that did not have a WMD program! The lesson North Korea and Iran must surely have learned is the great value of having a nuclear arsenal – specifically to prevent a US invasion. Arabs in the West Bank cannot but wonder whether, analogously, Hamas’ rockets and mortars are a viable formula; and may yet recognize that Israelis have rewarded the West Bank’s pacifism as richly as Saddam Hussein was rewarded for cooperating with UN weapons inspectors.

Hamas and Netanyahu are both enemies of peace. It’s not merely the case that they deserve one another – they mutually reinforce one another. If Israel insists on demonstrating at every opportunity its unwillingness to work peaceably and in good faith toward bestowing human, civil and political rights on more than 2 million Arabs living subject to their rule in the West Bank, they succeed only in validating groups inclined to seize those rights by any and all means necessary. Despite Netanyahu’s condemnations, he remains Hamas’ unwitting advocate and ally.

As a population grows in affluence, it tends naturally toward democracy. This has been true the world over, and China is no exception. That’s why China’s ruling Communist Party suspended economic reforms in the wake of 1989’s Tiananmen Square Massacre, which communist hardliners considered to be the consequence of increasing wealth, which was in turn attributed to Deng Xiaoping’s market reforms. China’s oligarchs saw a wealthier population as a threat to their hold on power – and it took several years for Deng to get his pro-market movement back on track, facilitating China’s extraordinary economic development over the past twenty years.

Not two months ago, the Field Guide observed that

…liberalism begets wealth, and a wealthy populace comes naturally to demand a political voice commensurate with its material well-being. This is the dynamic that brought democracy to much of Europe, and to countries all along the Pacific Rim – and, of course, to the US as well. One hopes the same will happen in China, where an increasingly wealthy class of industrialists should – if history teaches us – also come to demand a role in their own governance.

It took no great prescience to grasp that the time is ripe for democracy in Hong Kong. If indeed the forces that move a polity toward democracy become more and more acute as a population grows wealthier, then in no place in the world is democracy more overdue than Hong Kong, by far the richest undemocratic place in the world.* By comparison, Beijing in 1989 was a poor backwater. Though Beijing’s per capita GDP has since increased by a factor of 10, it remains a relatively poor city, with incomes comparable to those of Rio. Meanwhile Hong Kong today is similar in size, population and per capita income to New York City – seven times wealthier than Beijing.

In recent years, American neo-cons learned (painfully) that democracy cant be installed on a whim like a dishwasher. As the Field Guide noted back in August, “it seems constructive for liberalism to precede democracy – for a population to first learn respect for procedural fairness, before taking on self-governance.” It takes decades for many other institutions, public and private, to mature; and, above all, for liberal principles to become embedded in courts and property rights regimes. Once this foundation is laid, the transition to democracy occurs far more readily, and the government that results is far more stable. And by this measure, also, is Hong Kong’s democratic movement long overdue.

While one would be foolish to underestimate the brutality of China’s ruling party, especially on what they would be willing to do to hold onto power, now is a time for optimism. Protestors in Hong Kong have a real chance to succeed in wringing pro-democratic concessions from Beijing; and the scenes we see there today may unfold one day soon in Macao or Shanghai – and in coming years, in Beijing as well.

Refs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_administrative_divisions_by_GDP_per_capita#Historical_GDP_per_capita_figures_in_main_years

https://liberalfieldguide.org/2014/08/11/liberalism-v-democracy-round-2/

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-quiet-american-city-has-the-highest-per-capita-gdp-in-the-world-2012-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

* While Qatar and Brunei have higher per capita income than Hong Kong, and are even less democratic, their wealth is derived from oil – neither have anything like the diverse, modern economy of Hong Kong. As has been previously observed, dictatorships with mineral wealth can persist far longer before democratic pressures build.

Whether Scots choose to go it alone or remain in the UK, Thursday’s vote will serve as an exemplar of liberalism and civility. Never mind what voters actually choose – the process here is what matters most: this is the right way to do things. Irish independence, by comparison, was won through war, and fighting over Northern Ireland persisted for decades. Scotland seems poised to stay or go without a shot fired or a life lost – and that is spectacular progress. The outcome – yea or nay – will be no big deal.

Europe used to be a dangerous place. Just looking at the two most populous countries in Western Europe, Germany invaded France 3 times in 70 years. Areas with distinct languages, cultures and-or histories used to band together for their collective security. This logic factored into England and Scotland’s 1707 union, and has since produced such amalgams as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary, and indeed even the European Coal and Steel Community (predecessor to the EU).

But the facts on the ground have changed, and it would be surprising if the lines on the map did not shift to reflect that change. Europe is now a far safer place than it has been in centuries. Tiny countries are no longer threatened by larger ones. Policy is no longer set by inbred land-grabbing hereditary dictators, but by middle class voters, who have a far greater affinity for peace and freedom.

One must also acknowledge the omnipresence of NATO, and fairly wonder whether this trend would hold in the absence of a massive military force safeguarding security, backed by the world’s sole superpower. The US, ranked first in military spending worldwide, presently outspends the countries ranked second through tenth combined.

The expansion of the European Union and the concomitant rise of smaller states is no contradiction – the two movements are driven by the same forces. There is more comity among states and peoples in Europe than ever before, and this bonhomie allows states to split amicably, but also facilitates their banding together on the supra-national level. Common defense is simply not an EU priority.

Impressive hay bales are being made over the potential repercussions of Scottish independence. They should be politely ignored. Scotland comprises barely 8% of the UK’s total population; and Scots pay a bit more into London’s treasury than they receive back in expenditures. Scotland and England’s economies are deeply integrated – and will continue to be. The UK will find another place to park its nuclear submarines, or will simply lease a harbor, as the US does all around the world.

That this referendum may fuel independence movements elsewhere should only be of concern to the illiberal. If the Catalan desire their own independent state, they should have it – as should Corsicans, Flemish, and any other group within a discrete, identifiable geographic space, that wants to go it alone. The existence of San Marino, Andorra, Monaco, the Vatican, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg is hardly troublesome to their larger neighbors.

The notion that India will take the diminution of the UK – from 0.83% of world population to 0.76% – as a pretext to more forcefully demand a permanent seat on the UN Security Council is, frankly, silly. India, home to 17% of the world’s population, should have a permanent seat, whether Scotland and England are united or not. The anachronistic fictions that secure to the UK and France (0.9%) their permanent seats can be discussed at any time.

There are several wealthy, successful countries of comparable size to Scotland: Finland, Denmark, Ireland and Norway – the latter of which is ranked first in the world in living standards. There is every reason to believe that an independent Scotland would be as prosperous as these countries. The issue of greatest importance facing an independent Scotland will be its choice of currency. While Scots favor sticking with the British Pound, creating its own currency would be a better bet. (The Euro, under the hegemony of Germany, is not a good option.) But even this is an issue upon which rational minds can differ – it will not be a disaster in any case.

And so we wait – not holding our collective breath, nor ready to gasp at the result – but rather, marveling that western civilization has come so far, that two nations could so painlessly dissolve their centuries-old political union, via a process so eminently reasonable and liberal, that, no matter what the Scots choose to do, we will all be better off for their example.