Museo del Prado
Madrid, Spain
2015 Edition
Group of 7
Crisis in the Ukraine
In March, 2013, Ukrainian rioters removed president Yushenko from office. Since then, pro-Russian supporters have
rioted around the country while the Ukrainian government has tried to reassert control. In March of 2013 Russia
annexed Crimea, a region in Eastern Ukraine in response to a referendum in Crimea that supported incorporation
into Russia. This move has been met by international outrage and prompted the Group of 7 – formerly known as the
“Group of 8” – to expel Russia from its membership. As violence in Eastern Ukraine continues, often fueled by
Russia the question becomes “How will the Group of 7 respond?” How will it balance providing a voice for Ukraine
with its mission of promoting economic development?
Shane Macedonio
[email protected]
Harvard Model Congress Europe 2015
www.hmceurope.org
CRISIS IN UKRAINE
By Gabriel Rosen
INTRODUCTION
These flags portray the
member states of the G7.
From left: France,
Canada, United States,
Italy, Japan, Germany,
the United Kingdom.
globalpressclub.org
In 1975, the G6 was formed by officials and representatives of the six
largest economies in the world: France, Western Germany, Italy, Japan, the
United Kingdom, and the United States. The G6 was designed to monitor
developments in the global economy and improve the economic policies of
its members, as well as those of less-developed nations. In response to oil
shortages in the early 1970’s and the economic crisis that resulted, the G6
intended to harness the coordinated power of the largest economies in the
world to prevent similar collapses and ensure peace and stability. Canada
was added as the seventh member the following year, enlarging the G6 to
the G7.
The G7 maintained the same member state composition all the way
until 1998, when, seven years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the G7
finally admitted Russia into its ranks to become the G8. Although not
granted a formal vote, it should be noted that the European Union and the
European Commission were both represented at meetings of the G8 and
continue to be represented at the G7.
However, recent events surrounding the crisis in Ukraine resulted in a
change in the composition of the G8. Due to Russia’s intervention in
Crimea, the countries of the G8, with the exception of Russia, decided to
bar Russia from attending their meetings. On March 25th, 2014, US
President Barack Obama and the leaders of Germany, France, Britain,
Italy, Japan and Canada gathered in The Hague and branded as “illegal” the
referendum by which Crimean people voted overwhelmingly to join Russia
in response to the fascist-led coup in Kiev. In particular, the remaining
members of the G8 decided not to attend the G8 conference slated to take
place in Sochi in the late summer and instead chose to “convene a G7
summit in Brussels and suspend all G8 participation until Russia changes
course.”
The political implications of this decision cannot be overstated. Originally,
the transformation of the G7 into the G8 was seen by the world as an end of
Cold War-era politics and the opening of a new chapter in bilateral relations
between Russia and the West. It was thought by many that the “Russia
problem” had been solved, and it would quickly transition to adopt the
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
political and diplomatic practices of other nations. While this narrative has
had some truth to it, it has increasingly seemed not to be the case over the
past five years.
These tensions reached a peak during what has become known as the
“Crimean Crisis” in March of 2014. In the face of strong condemnation
from the international community, Russia annexed Crimea and supported
the demonstration of Pro-Russian separatists, many of which were violent,
in the Eastern portion of Ukraine.
Although the primary purpose of the G7 is to deal with economic
issues, it is important to recognize that the role of the G7 has evolved into a
political one as well. It has become a forum where world leaders are able to
discuss and attempt to reach coordination and consensus on political as well
as economic issues- ranging from a coordinated approach to relief and aid
to Africa to trade and economic agreements. It is because of this political
dimension of the G7 that many took Russia’s membership to be a sign that
Russia had embarked on a “Western trajectory” in its politics, something
that many critics have deemed to be unrealistic and unfair.
Thus, it is primarily on these political grounds- those of violations of
sovereignty, use of violence, support of insurrection and the suppression of
democracy that the G7 has acted to condemn Russia. It should be noted
that, the G7 was the first international body to take any concrete steps in
response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, choosing to oust Russia as a
member of the G8 before the US, the UN, or even the EU took any similar
actions. This related to another important consideration of the G7- its small
size and flexibility. Because the G7 is so compact, it is able to act and
convene much more quickly and easily, and with far less red tape than
larger organizations like the UN. Furthermore, because its members are
those with relative prosperity and security, they are able to act with greater
independence than other groups whose members are hampered by political
and economic insecurities.
In fact, the G7’s very structure contributes to its efficiency and potency
as an international actor. Unlike the UN or the EU, which are often
hampered by limitless bureaucracy, meet year-round, and have strict
constitutions, rules, and procedures, the G7 is far more streamlined. It is
the highest levels of leadership in a country, with the authority and the
influence to speak for their countries, are the ones involved in the G7
meetings. Thus, the measures that are decided upon in these meetings are
able to be implemented easily and swiftly. An excellent example of this is
the success the G8 had in countering the crippling oil policies of OPEC in
the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. It was a coordinated agreement not to
underbid and undercut each other that allowed the G8 nations to force
OPEC to lower its oil prices, ending the high inflation that was crippling
many Western economies.
EUROPE 2015
Crisis in Ukraine
2
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
However, as always, there is a strong interplay between the worlds of
politics and of economics. In particular, Russia’s close trading ties with the
four European members of the G7 (Germany, Italy, France and the UK),
which collectively represent the largest economy in the world, represent an
important factor in the G7’s interactions with Russia. In particular, the
dependence of European nations on oil imports from Russia creates a
strong motivation among G7 nations to avoid regional instability and avoid
overly antagonizing statements and policies.
EXPLANATION OF THE PROBLEM
Historical Background
Oligarch– a person who
belongs to a small group
of people who govern or
control a country,
business, etc.
After gaining independence in 1992, Ukraine found itself positioned
between the two major powers in Europe: the EU to its west and Russia to
its east. As Ukraine struggled to determine its position in the world, it also
faced a number of obstacles in its development. For twenty years, Ukraine
has had weak governance, preventing it from addressing the major obstacles
it faced: an ailing economy dominated by oligarchs, a defunct political
system, and a decaying infrastructure. When the government is seen to be
only catering to the interests of the few, people lose confidence not only in
their government but in their ability to effect real change through the
peaceful tools of democracy provided to them. These critical issues were
further complicated by tremendous internal division within the country that
hampered the ability of politicians to adequately address them. Ukraine’s
eastern and western halves are ethnically, linguistically, and religiously quite
distinct from one another.
This internal instability has led to continued dependence on Russian
support on the part of the Ukrainian government. In particular, as Ukraine
continued to privatize its public industries, enriching a smaller elite, there
was much resistance from the public. Workers used strikes, riots and
refusals to cooperate with the government as means of protest. However,
supplies, food and military support from Russia enabled the government to
continue many of these policies that otherwise may have crippled them.
Demographics
In order to understand the political and economic situation in Ukraine,
it is important to take note of the demographics of Ukraine. Ukraine is a
country with 45 million people. The western 2/3 of the country is
considered to be ethnically Ukrainian and speaks Ukrainian as a primary
language. However, the eastern third of the country is predominantly
ethnically Russian. The population of this region maintains Russian as their
mother tongue.
EUROPE 2015
Crisis in Ukraine
3
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Percent Russian-speakers
by region of Ukraine.
Darker shades indicate
higher percentages.
ukrainecensus.org
How did so many Russians end up in Ukraine? Before the dissolution
of the Soviet Union, when all of the soviet satellite countries were taking
their orders from Moscow, the designation of Ukraine as being separate
from Russia was mostly nominal in nature. Thus, as a show of goodwill,
Russia gave Ukraine a very generously drawn national border, which
included territory that was mostly populated by ethnic Russians. This
border included Crimea as well as other areas in Eastern Ukraine.
However, when the Soviet Union dissolved, the portions that would
become Russia and Ukraine were partitioned based on these borders, and
the lines that had previously been meaningless turned out to be very
significant.
---------------------Slow Recovery
As successive presidents have focused their efforts on repressing
political opposition, oligarchs have been able to increase their control over
the fragile Ukrainian economy. Consequently, even those presidents and
legislators who do try to combat corruption and implement much- needed
economic reform have found it difficult to compete with the highly
entrenched oligarchs with tremendous resources at their disposal. These
oligarchs have recently used their wealth and clout to become more
involved in politics, lobbying and even fielding their own candidates for
prestigious government positions. Thus, with many politicians have been
cowed into continuing to support policies that favor these oligarchs, further
enriching them and perpetuating the cycle. To put the wealth disparity into
perspective, the fifty wealthiest Ukrainians, in a country of 50 million
people, controlled over 50% of the country’s wealth. Currently, Ukraine’s
GDP per capita is $8,364, less than half of Russia’s GDP per capita.
Russian is the native
language of 33% of
Ukrainians.
EUROPE 2015
Orange Revolution
The Orange Revolution was a series of riots and political
demonstrations from late November 2004 to January 2005. This movement
occurred on the heels of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, which
many claimed to be corrupted by massive electoral fraud. The results of the
election had placed Viktor Yanukovych in power in place of his opponent,
Viktor Yushchenko. However, following mass protests, general strikes, and
other acts of civil disobedience, the Supreme Court called for a second
runoff. The runoff indicated a clear victory for Viktor Yushchenko, who
assumed the presidency soon after.
The Orange Revolution led to closer ties with Europe. Yushchenko
implemented a four-part plan that would establish Ukraine as a market
economy, lead to acceptance into the World Trade Organization, associate
membership in the EU, and finally, full membership in the EU. The EU
Crisis in Ukraine
4
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
passed unanimously in 2005 a motion stating that it wished to pursue closer
ties with Kiev with the view that they would join the EU in the future.
Economic Crisis
Over 500,000 people
demonstrate in Kiev in
favor of the Association
Agreements with the EU.
kyivpost.com
The lofty plans of Yushchenko were put on hold during the economic
crisis of 2008. Many of the slow gains made by Ukraine were undone in the
2008 economic crisis. This crisis decimated the EU and Western Europe
economies while leaving Russia’s economy relatively intact. In an effort to
reassure the public of the country’s economic health and vigor, Yanukovych
explained that the source of economic hardship was simply Ukraine’s
forced efforts to forge closer ties with the EU. Thus, in 2010, Yanukovych
ran for president on a platform of closer ties with Russia, beating Yulia
Tymoshenko, who promised to continue the policies of former president
Yushchenko.
However, after his victory, Yanukovych performed no better than his
predecessors, resorting to corruption and cronyism. His family embezzled
as much as $30 billion over the three years of his presidency. Additionally,
he imprisoned his opponent from the 2010 election, Yulia Tymoshenko,
on trumped up charges of abuse of power.
A series of agreements that would have liberalized trade and opened
transport between Ukraine and the EU were put on hold when opposition
leader Yulia Tymoshenko was imprisoned by President Yanukovych. A
statement made by the European Foreign Affair Commission about the
stalled economic liberalization sums up the prevailing attitude in Europe
towards Ukraine’s status in the EU: "The European Foreign Affairs council
reaffirms its commitment to the signing of the already initialed Association
Agreement, including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, as
soon as the Ukrainian authorities demonstrate determined action and
tangible progress in three areas… electoral, judiciary and constitutional
reforms (in line with international standards are commonly agreed upon
priorities)". In other words, Europe refused to allow Ukraine to progress
any further in the process of economic integration until they made major
political changes.
Recent Developments
In 2013, after years of work, Ukraine was on the cusp of a trade
agreement with the EU that President Viktor Yanukovych promised to sign.
However, under pressure from Russia, Yanukovych reneged on his
decision, refusing to sign the agreement. He claimed that he did so because
competition from the EU would harm Ukrainian industries. However, it is
widely speculated that it was in fact Russian industry that stood to lose from
Ukraine’s economic liberalization. Some say that a Russian threat to stop oil
imports to Ukraine was behind this sudden 180 in Yanukovych’s position.
While some say that threats of military force or warnings of fomenting
unrest may have been the cause, it is likely that Yanukovych was likely
EUROPE 2015
Crisis in Ukraine
5
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
looking for an excuse to refuse to sign this agreement and making it seem as
though his hand were forced by Russian threat was a calculated part of his
plan.
Over the summer, an airliner, MH17, was shot down over Eastern
Ukraine in the area held by Pro-Russian separatists. Although they deny
responsibility for this action, it is widely believed that they were responsible,
but that they likely did not intend to hit a civilian airliner. This incident
further brought attention to the use of Russian made equipment by many
rebels with the West accusing Russia of intentionally supplying the rebels
with weapons to destabilize Ukraine.
The marching of Russian soldiers and Russian supplies into Ukrainian
territory, even under the guise of supplying relief supplies, has drawn strong
condemnation from the West for its violation of Ukrainian sovereignty.
Euromaidan Protests
President Yanukovych’s decision not to sign the trade agreement with
the EU provoked demonstrations against corruption and in favor of closer
ties with Europe in Kiev. These protests were known as the Euromaidan
Protests. Although the protests were large, they were not qualitatively
different from the numerous protests that had already occurred in prior
years. What was different, however, was the severity of the crackdown by
Yanukovych’s government. Scores were killed after protests had continued
for about three months. This in turn, sparked reprisal attacks by
demonstrators, which encouraged further crackdowns by the Ukranian
government.
Yanukovych Ousted
In February of 2014, protestors managed to oust President Yanukovych
and seize control of the Ukrainian government. This sowed new tensions
between the eastern and western halves of the country because Yanukovych
remained quite popular in the pro-Russian eastern half. Despite this, a
group of transitional leaders was instated and promised to form a nationally
unified government based on elections they meant to hold on May 25th of
2014.
Crimean Annexation
Crimea’s strategic
location on the black sea.
worldfact.com
EUROPE 2015
While Russia criticized the ousting of Yanukovych as illegal and accused
the West of fostering the riots and protests, the new government attempted
to consolidate control over the country. However, many pro-Russian areas
in the South and East of the country resisted this. Additionally, pro-Russian
separatists, either sensing an opportunity to secede or because they didn’t
like the direction of the country under the new leadership, began seizing
government buildings and calling for independence. These forces clashed
with the new central government, as, once again, riots and demonstrations
turned violent. Then, on February 26, citing concern over the safety of
Crisis in Ukraine
6
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Referendum– a direct
vote in which the entire
electorate is asked to
either accept or reject a
particular proposal.
Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine, Russian forces began to gradually
assert control over the Crimean peninsula. Disguised Russian personnel
infiltrated Crimea, seized key government and military bases (where a
Russian base had already been stationed), and prevented the Ukrainian
government from accessing this area without threat of confrontation. During
this time, the semi-autonomous Crimean parliament voted to dismiss the
current Crimean government and to call a referendum on Crimean
independence and whether or not to join Russia. With an 83% turnout, the
referendum on joining Russia allegedly garnered 96.77% support. The
referendum was condemned by the EU, the G7, and the United Nations.
Although many claim that that election results may have been inflated,
without a doubt, a strong majority of Crimeans were in fact in favor of
joining Russia. On March 17th, the Crimean Parliament declared
independence from Ukraine and submitted an official petition to join the
Russian Federation. The following day, Russia accepted the petition and
Crimea was officially annexed to Russia.
International Response
Annexation – the
permanent acquisition
and incorporation of
some territorial entity
into another geo-political
entity.
EUROPE 2015
Most of the global community remained largely silent with regards to
the Ukranian crisis during the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych. Many in the
west were secretly pleased by this occurrence, which represented a serious
blow to Russian interests in the region.
However, although many feared Russian intervention in Ukraine, the
sudden deployment of Russian troops in Crimea caught much of the world
off guard. It was met by strong rhetoric of condemnation by most of the
western world as well as threats of economic and political sanctions should
Russia attempt to take Crimea.
When Russia did annex Crimea, the EU, the UN, and the United States
were slow to act. The first official measure taken by the G7 was to make a
statement on March 22, 2014 condemning the official annexation of Crimea
by Russia as a “clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial
integrity by acts of aggression by the Russian armed forces”. The G7, at that
time still in operation as the G8, was the first body to take any action
following the annexation. After a quick meeting of G8 leaders (sans Russia),
Russia was expelled from its ranks as a member of the G8 within a week.
The EU met on March 29, 2014 to discuss possible further actions.
While the US threatened economic sanctions, the EU stopped short of
issuing any concrete threats. It is widely believed that this is because of the
dependence of many countries in western Europe on the oil and natural gas
resources of Russia.
In response to the annexation, the UN passed a non-binding resolution
stating that the results of the referendum were invalid and that Russia’s
annexation had been illegal.
Crisis in Ukraine
7
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Aftermath
Both opportunism and dissatisfaction with the new rebellion and the
overthrow of the government caused pro-Russian separatists began to resist
the control of the new government, often seizing control of government
buildings. Many advocated for complete independence, while others
pushed for annexation of eastern Ukraine to Russia.
G7 Actions
Ousting Russia
The G7 ousted Russia on March 25, 2014. Russia’s exclusion from the
largest and most powerful economic organization on the planet could prove
to be politically and economically costly. With upcoming important votes
looming about new trade agreements as well as the lowering of tariffs on
certain goods, Russia’s absence could prove quite expensive. In particular,
items whose supply chains cross borders multiple times are likely to see a
major tariff reduction in coming months. This would lead to technologically
intensive goods, like the iphone, to be much more expensive than Russia
than in neighboring countries.
The ousting of Russia is also mostly a symbolic act, meant to humiliate
Russia and symbolize its status as a pariah in the international community. It
may also serve to make the current Russian government less popular, which
may lead to a change in policy or ultimately, in leadership. However, that
seems unlikely, as the response within Russia to Crimean annexation as well
as for the subsequent handling of Crimea has been overwhelmingly positive.
"Non-participation in the G8 will hurt Russia," said British NDP leader
Tom Mulcair. "Having the international community condemn as one this
totally illegal invasion of a sovereign country will help send a signal even to
the most obtuse regime like the Putin regime."
Sanctions
On April 3, 2014, following the lead of the US, the G7 froze the assets
of Russian leaders and businessmen they deemed responsible for the unrest
in Ukraine. Additionally, during the violence leading up to the May 25
Ukrainian elections, the G7 threatened further sanctions against certain
Russian assets and institutions.
The G7 moved forward with targeted sanctions in late April of 2014 in
response to what they called “continued aggression by Russian forces”.
They also accused Russia of further attempts to destabilize eastern Ukraine
as well as of supplying pro-Russian separatist rebels with ammunition and
supplies to destabilize the Ukranian government.
These sanctions specifically target wealthy Russians as well as Putin’s
inner circle of friends. They include frozen bank accounts, travel bans as
EUROPE 2015
Crisis in Ukraine
8
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
well as limitations to their ability to store money off-shore or invest in more
secure and more lucrative assets.
Financial Impact
As investors panic about the future of Russia’s international status, many
are withdrawing money they had invested in Russian companies and moving
it elsewhere. In January and February of 2014, over $35 billion of capital
was taken out from Russia. This was coupled with a 13% drop in one of
Russia’s most important stock indices as well as by a growth in GDP of only
.3 percent, less than half of what it was the year before.
Energy
There are two issues the G7 faces regarding energy independence. One
is the use of Europe’s energy dependence by Moscow as a negotiating tool
and as an economic threat. The other issue is Ukraine’s energy
dependence on Russia. Whereas western Europe depends on Russia for
30% of its oil and natural gas, Ukraine receives a full 50% of its oil and
natural gas from Russian pipelines. So far, the G7’s response to the current
crisis has addressed two time horizons. The first is dealing with Ukraine’s
energy dependence in the short run. Namely, this initiative has entailed
coming up with provisions to supply Ukraine with natural gas and oil should
Russia decide to abruptly restrict its supply. However, the larger issue facing
the G7 is to eliminate Europe’s reliance on Russian oil and gas over the
longer term and prevent energy security from being used as political
bargaining chip by the Kremlin.
The G7 proposals aim to accomplish this energy independence in a
number of different ways. One proposal seeks to bolster domestic
production of energy in Europe- by building liquefied natural gas (LNG)
terminals in Germany, Poland, Ukraine, and Switzerland. Additionally, the
measures also seek to support other sources of energy, with the US
promising to lift restrictions on the export of shale gas- adding another
tremendously large source of energy into the equation.
Additionally, the EU hopes to strengthen its existing supply
networks of conventional oil. It hopes to increase the supply of oil coming
from North Africa. Somewhat more controversial are its hopes to extend
and in some cases- re-start- the use of nuclear power plants. The use of
nuclear power plants is increasingly unpopular following the high profile
nuclear disaster in Fukushima Japan. Nuclear power plants are still seen to
be environmentally damaging as well as dangerous to people’s health.
Financial Support
One of the most important things the G7 has done is simply reassure
Ukraine that it need not fear financial retribution from Russia should it
EUROPE 2015
Crisis in Ukraine
9
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
continue fighting the Pro-Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine. Many felt
that Ukraine was reluctant to further alienate Russia out of fear that they
would freeze their oil imports and that this fear was preventing the
restoration of stability in Ukraine. The G7 however has given its
unequivocal support to Ukraine, assuring them of continued financial and
material support. However, they did still insist that Ukraine undertake a
number of financial reforms to become compliant with IMF regulations to
ensure continued stability. They stressed however that their motivation for
this was not to push their own political and economic in Ukraine, but was
rather to ensure that they were able to get continued support from other
sources as well. In making these changes to banking and debt regulations,
they can unlock IMF support, money from the World Bank, from the EU,
as well as numerous other financial institutions.
FOCUS OF THE DEBATE
Central Perspectives
Precedence
The issue of when a region, like Crimea, can declare independence
from a larger country looms large on the consciousness of the G7. The G7’s
formal policy regarding the founding of new countries from existing
countries is that the entire country must be involved in a referendum
proposing the region’s independence. Namely, it is not enough for the
region alone to conduct a referendum, as its decision to leave would affect
the entire country. There are many countries in the G7 that face similar
movements for regional independence. However, these regions are denied
independence because the majority of the entire country would not vote for
the region’s independence in a referendum. Northern Italy and Scotland
are just two of the various sub-regions that have voted to separate from Italy
and Britain, respectively. Most recently, in April of 2014, the region of
Veneto, containing Venice as well as a few other large cities, voted to form
its own Republic. 98% of people in voters in Veneto voted to form its own
republic. One of the main reasons that these regions haven’t broken off is
the G7’s insistence that it would not recognize any such countries and would
boycott trade in the face of any such unilateral actions. If the G7 recognizes
Russia’s annexation, or even does not act decisively enough to punish it,
many fear that similar referenda may occur in nations all over Europe.
EUROPE 2015
Crisis in Ukraine
10
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Energy Dependence
One consideration hindering the G7 in their response to Russia is their
dependence on Russian oil and natural gas. In particular, Germany, France
and Italy are especially vulnerable threats of Russian oil stoppage. Germany
receives over 80% of its supply of natural gas comes from Russian pipelines.
In the words of Italy’s energy minister Giacomo Ferelli, any cessation of
Russian oil would effectively paralyze growth in much of western Europe.
Of course, Russia’s economy would be severely damaged as well, as oil
exports represent over ¼ of their countries’ GDP. However, Russia’s
continued ability to sell to China and other countries in the region would
make this measure far less damaging for Russia than for the rest of Europe.
For these reasons, the response of continental European countries to
Russian aggression has been much more reserved than one might expect.
Instead it has been the UK, and the United States who have been the
strongest vocal supporters of tougher measures against Russia.
Political Strength and Changing Dynamics
Another crucial factor influencing the United States reaction to the crisis
in Russia is the perception among Americans that the United States must
react strongly to aggression and assert its position as the dominant power in
the world. Obama in particular is under a lot of scrutiny for what right wing
critics are quick to call indecisive and weak responses to external threats.
These issues have especially strong resonance among those who remember
the days of the Cold War and view anything less than the success of the
American agenda to be a sign of weakness and allowing the Russians to win.
On the flip side, this way of seeing the current conflict is also how the
conflict is seen by many in Russia. They see the desires and restrictions
being imposed on Russia to be a hypocritical effort of the West to impose
its arbitrary standards on Russian interests. In refusing to cooperate, they
see themselves as asserting their freedom, independence and willingness to
be a modern country, simply not one that cows to the demands of the
West.
Special Focus
Russia’s top trading
partners
BBC
EUROPE 2015
The G7 meets every year by design. However, each year the rotating
president gets to choose the “special focus” of that year’s meeting. This
year, the special focus will be on energy independence.
At the conclusion of its 2014 meeting in Brussels, the G7
announced that in response to this crisis, it is seeking to develop its use of
alternative energies such as wind and solar power in order to engender its
economic and energy security and independence. This has long-since been
Crisis in Ukraine
11
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
a stated goal of the G7; however, the current crisis in Ukraine has brought
this issue to the forefront of world politics for the first time in many years.
Emerging Perspectives
A number of other players have emerged in recent months with a wide
range of opinions on the unfolding situation in Ukraine. India has been very
moderate in its response, recognizing that Russia does have legitimate
interests in the region. While this is partly due to India’s strategic
dependence on Russia in its effort to modernize its military, there is likely
also an element of admiration for Russia’s ability to stand up to the West
and asserts its territorial interests, something that India feels it too can do in
a number of its own disputes with China and Pakistan.
However, it is China’s stance on the current crisis that is currently under
the most scrutiny. That is because Russia’s response to threats of reduced
trade with the West is to offset this with increase ties with China. In other
words, it is very difficult to make a serious economic impact on Russia
without the consent and cooperation of the Chinese. However, China’s
stance in this crisis is far from clear-cut.
On the one hand, China has been attempting to cultivate closer ties
with Russia for economic and strategic reasons, especially because of what
both countries see as the United States effort to contain both countries
power. In addition to this mutual distrust of the United States, China could
see this annexation as opening the door for a number of land grabs it hopes
to achieve in Asia. However, despite this, there is one large thing preventing
a full-hearted recognition of Russia’s action. That is the fact that China
wholly rejects the concept that a nation’s territorial integrity can be broken
even with a unanimous vote of one of its regions. It sets the dangerous
precedent that would allow Taiwan, Tibet or Xinjiang to declare
independence from China.
As of yet, while they have criticized many of the aggressive actions taken
by Russia they have refrained from implementing any economic or political
sanctions of their own.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
There are a number of courses of action under consideration regarding
the current Ukrainian crisis. The G7 formed a Ukrainian Action Task
Force on May 13, 2014 tasked with achieving the following goals:
(1) Preventing further violence in Ukraine
EUROPE 2015
Crisis in Ukraine
12
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
(2) Ensuring the continued territorial integrity and sovereignty of
Ukraine and preventing further illegal acts of secession or
annexation
(3) Ensuring the stability of the new Ukrainian government as well as
deciding what agreements and negotiations to pursue
(4) Preventing further acts of aggression by Russia
(5) Punitive measures against Russia
(6) Fostering energy independence in G7 nations to allow free exercise
of foreign policy
Powers
The G7, by nature, is limited in the actions that it can undertake on its
own. It can impose sanctions and craft economic policy. However, the true
power of the G7 lies in the forum that it provides for the great powers of the
world to consider all forms of actions to address a problem.
An example from history will serve to illustrate this. As mentioned
earlier, the G6 was formed to help combat the oil crisis in the early 1970’s
that saw OPEC raise oil prices many times, leading to huge increases in
inflation, decreases in spending, and a faltering economy. At the first
meeting of the G6, the G6 resolved to take a tough stance on the OPEC
countries, imposing harsh penalties and sanctions and coordinating a
boycott of the oil until OPEC soon agreed to increase production and lower
oil prices.
Threats of economic sanctions made by the G8 were also instrumental
in dismantling apartheid, improving human rights in China and preventing
nuclear proliferation in South and Southeast Asia.
However, the plans of the G8 are not even limited to the realm of
economics. For example, the decision to intervene militarily in Iraq was first
discussed at a G8 summit in 2001.
Therefore, the options available in the current situation are nearly
limitless. Economic sanctions, programs of energy independence, and even
military pacts are options that are on the table.
Economic Sanctions
Because of the importance of the Russian economy it is unlikely that the
G7 would all agree to adopt a certain set of severe sanctions against Russia.
Instead, these measures would likely be discussed at G7 meetings and
implemented on a country by country basis, with countries like the United
States who are less vulnerable able to shoulder more of the impact. It is also
unlikely that the sanctions would encompass consumer goods or be aimed
at crippling the Russian economy at large. As of yet, they have only targeted
military supplies and the financial assets of the politicians viewed to be
involved in the current governments actions. However, there is always the
EUROPE 2015
Crisis in Ukraine
13
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
fear that any sanctions from the West will be met by Russia with a number
of sanctions of her own, some of which, like the ban on the import of
American food supplies, have had moderate impacts on the American
economy (on the order of $7billion a year).
Military Action
While it is unlikely that any of the G7 countries would engage directly
with Russia or Ukraine in any military operations, supplying the Ukrainian
government with military technology and even the possibility of carrying out
strategic strikes against Pro-Russian rebels have been discussed- although
the latter carries potentially catastrophic consequences.
What is important is simply to balance all the competing interests: the
intention to help Ukraine, the need to ensure economic stability, the desire
to achieve the geo-political aims of its member states today, and the hope to
foster energy independence in the future.
QUESTIONS FOR POLICYMAKERS
Russia’s nuclear arsenal
contains over 8,500
stockpiled weapons,
more than the rest of the
world combined.
EUROPE 2015
G7 policy makers face one of the most delicate diplomatic issues of
their time. The stakes could not be higher. The G7 must maintain its
stature in the international community by ensuring the economic and
political security of its own members while upholding its mandate to ensure
stability in the global economy. Although Russia may no longer be a
member, undoubtedly the G7 does not wish to antagonize Russia
unnecessarily and risk jeopardizing years of hard-won closer ties. The
leaders of each country must contend not only with what is best for the G7
and the world economy, but also with the particular economic, political, and
social realities of the countries they represent.
Another important question is how and under what circumstances to readmit Russia into the G8. If ostracism and sanctions prove ineffective, is it
prudent to continue to exclude Russia from the G8?
Ultimately, does the need for energy independence justify undertaking
expensive programs that may harm the economy? Will these actions
succeed in compelling other nations to comply?
All of these questions raise a much larger problem confronting the G7
as well. How important, and how feasible is it for the G7 to have common
foreign policy among its member states? As Council President Herman van
Rompuy said in a 2011 press conference; “the only hope for the G7 to
function as a truly serious international body is if we are able to act as a unit
not only economically but in foreign policy as well.” Difficult and
contentious issues like this one, that affect the economic and physical
welfare of the countries involved will test the G7’s resolve in this regard.
Crisis in Ukraine
14
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
CONCLUSION
While the G7 represents many lofty ideals and may even bear a
responsibility to the people of Ukraine; first and foremost, it is designed to
represent the interest of its current member states. It is, therefore, always
important to research the precise policies of the country you are
representing on the issues at hand and see what measures it is willing to
take. Each country can be affected by the outcome in numerous ways.
Those countries with historic ties to communism and Russia may have a
very different view than those with a strong capitalist past. Countries that are
more dependent on Russian oil reserves may not be willing to risk
antagonizing their economic partners. Those countries that fear Russia’s
aggression and military capabilities may also act differently than those with
strong militaries or membership in NATO. It is also crucial to consider the
feasibility and constraints faced by the G7 as a body. What does it have the
military, financial and political wherewithal to change? And how can it best
accomplish these changes?
Additionally, this is an issue that is developing and morphing in real
time. News, updates, and economic and political trends will continue to
mold the issues and affect policy decisions surrounding the Ukraine Crisis.
It is therefore of the utmost importance that you stay up to date on the latest
developments, in Ukraine, in G7 states, and in the countries you represent.
GUIDE TO FURTHER RESEARCH
Delegates are highly encouraged to pursue further research on any of the
topics discussed in this briefing.
1. For more information about the G7 and how it functions, I recommend
using the official website of the G7, as it provides detailed explanations of
the G7’s procedures:
http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/
2. To learn more about Europe’s energy dependence and its impact on the
current Ukrainian crisis, see this article from the economist:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21600111-reducing-europesdependence-russian-gas-possiblebut-it-will-take-time-money-and-sustained
3. To learn more about the geo-political causes of the crisis in Ukraine, take
a look at this article from National Geographic:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140224-ukraine-protestspresident-ousted-history-geography-background/
EUROPE 2015
Crisis in Ukraine
15
HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
4. Finally, for a detailed overview of the history of Ukraine’s interactions
with members of the G7 and the various agreements they were pursuing,
see the website of the Delegation of the European Union to Ukraine:
http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/ukraine/eu_ukraine/political_relations/ind
ex_en.htm
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lukov, V. B. The Group of Eight. Moskow: Nauchnaya Kniga, 2004.
Print.
Bell, Robin. How to Tell Lies: G8 Handbook. Portishead: Bluechrome,
2006. Print.
Redgwell, Catherine. Beyond the Carbon Economy. Oxford: Oxford UP,
2008. Print.
Wanner, Catherine. Burden of Dreams: History and Identity in Post-Soviet
Ukraine. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 1998. Print.
CRS Report for Congress: Europe’s Energy Security: Options and
Challenges to Natural Gas Supply Diversification. 2013.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42405.pdf
http://eeas.europa.eu/ukraine/index_en.htm
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Russia%
20and%20Eurasia/0713pp_sherr.pdf
http://thediplomat.com/tag/china-ukraine-relations/
http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/india-backs-russias-legitimate-interestsin-ukraine/
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/if-the-west-won-t-helpukraine-china-will/506160.html
http://www.theguardian.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17
EUROPE 2015
Crisis in Ukraine
16