News:

The European Union and United States have agreed to impose sanctions against Russian and Ukrainian officials deemed responsible for a contested independence referendum in Crimea, officials have said. [Source: aljazeera]

Comment:

Rejecting the results of Crimea's referendum which showed that a large majority of Crimea's residents want to join the Russian federation the White House said the vote was held under "threats of violence and intimidation from a Russian military intervention".

Similar sentiments were expressed by the British Foreign Secretary William Hague who said, "Nothing in the way that the referendum has been conducted should convince anyone that it is a legitimate exercise". It is ironic and hypocritical that the West should reject the results of a referendum in Crimea held under occupation while it supports and upholds rather presents as a sign of progress, a very similar exercise, and the Presidential elections in Afghanistan due next month.  Crimea and Afghanistan are both under occupation. Elections in both areas are and would be held under occupation yet due to their divergent interests in both areas the West supports elections under its own occupation in Afghanistan and opposes elections under the Russian Federation in Crimea.

It is also important to note the scale and nature of Western response to Russia's occupation of Crimea and to West's response to Saddam Hussein's attempt to annex Kuwait in 1990. In the latter case the West mobilized militarily and was able to gather a broad coalition of countries to reverse the Iraqi action. In the case of Russia the West is mainly planning to deploy economic sanctions and employing similar policy tools to hurt Russia economically. The stark difference in approach and its reason is obvious. The West knows it cannot take on the Russians militarily while it was confident that with the help of pliant Muslim rulers of Iraq's neighbors it can deploy military force against Iraq.

The Ukrainian Crisis is a good lesson in international relations and international struggle. Firstly, there is practically no such thing as international law which can act as a constraining force against state behaviors. The idea of a law governing the relations of a comity of nations is a flawed one because for such a system to work a mechanism for enforcing the law when it is breached must be in place. Such a concept of accepting an enforcer of international law runs directly against the idea of sovereignty of countries which must accept an authority above them. No country which guards its sovereignty would accept such an authority. Iraq was not in a position to militarily defy the US when it was acting as a global enforcer of the so called international law, Russia was. Secondly as is evident from the different interpretations of electoral exercises in Afghanistan and Crimea under almost similar conditions, international law is actually a tool for major powers to shape global opinion and behavior in favor of their interests. Again the impossibility of a consensus amongst countries to agree to a global institution which would interpret international law dispassionately is one reason. The difference in values, cultures and interests of different countries constitute another problem.

The Crimean and Afghanistan examples show that the Muslim World cannot rely on international law and international institutions for protecting their interests. The international law as it exists today is nothing but a tool of the West which exploited the post World War 2 balance of power in its favor to develop a system which protects its interests. This does not mean that Muslims should not play an effective role at a global level rather how and through what institutions should they approach international relations is what needs to be debated. If history is any guide, it was through the institution of the caliphate that the Ummah had a strong and effective voice at the international level where it was able to muster enough economic, political and military might through the institution of the caliphate to shape global opinion and behavior to protect her interests.

Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by

Mueez Mubeen

Member of Hizb ut Tahrir in Pakistan

The women of Hizb ut Tahrir/ Tunisia held a symposium in the city of Sfax under the title, "Women's Committee & its Relation to the West." It focused on how these committees are a tragedy to women especially towards Muslim women due to the capitalistic system; which these women's committees serve the West's interests. These committees instill the ideas of liberating women by giving women their rights, but in reality it causes corruption. Many questions arose and from the questions that arose were how one contests these committees.

Saturday, 14 Jumada I 1435 Ah corresponding to 15 March 2014 CE

News:

The Crimea referendum offered voters the choice of seeking annexation with Russia or remaining in Ukraine with greater autonomy. After 50 percent of the ballots were counted, Mikhail Malishev, head of the referendum committee, said more than 95 percent of voters had approved joining Russia. Russian lawmaker Vladimir Zhirinovsky said the annexation could come in as soon as three days, according to Interfax. As soon as the polls closed, the White House again denounced the vote. "The international community will not recognize the results of a poll administered under threats of violence," it said in a statement. (AP 16/03/ 2014) Describing Russia's actions as "dangerous and destabilising", Jay Carney Obama's press secretary condemned the Kremlin for escalating the crisis from a military occupation of Crimea a fortnight ago to carrying out "threatening military exercises on Ukraine's eastern border". He warned its actions would result in "increasing costs". (The Guardian 17/03/2014)

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the referendum was conducted in "full accordance with international law and the U.N. charter."

Comment:

With the three major powers in a scramble over the high percentage of people favoring the secession from Ukraine to be annexed to Russia, they are searching for the illegal ground that the elections were based upon.  Many ethnic Russians in Crimea are elated at the idea of returning to the "Motherland". Whereas the Ukrainian prime minister announced the rejection of the elections.  US and Europe leaders are furious at Russia's complete disregard for the threats of sanctions and possible military action to halt any annexation into Russia.

While Russia has offered a tempting financial aid package as enticement to the people of Crimea, one has to speculate the living standards of Russia and its flailing economy. The US was keen to point that out to Putin. However the stakes are much higher for Putin realizing full well the great advantage Crimea offers to Russia from its vital strategic location, gas and oil pipelines transits, and most importantly the land power. Thus it set the tone for the election from the very start, mobilizing a heavy military presence in Crimea especially in critical areas.

But the focus is on Russia and its realization of its vision for a stronger more fortified Russia protecting its capital, strategic location and its vital pipelines from the creeping tentacles of Europe and the United States. The advantage will be for the nation with the highest stakes.  As Russian soldiers were armed openly in the streets of Crimea; it was a visible display of force and power depicting today's foreign policy of major powers. The nation with the stronger show of force gets its policies into play. Despite the cries of condemnation of high ranking officials worldwide, Putin dismissed them with a mere veto at the Security Council and claiming that Crimeans have the right to vote. Putin understands the vulnerable positions of the US and Europe, treating their threats as mere smoke as the two major powers are not in a position to intercede with military otherwise risk spreading themselves too thin. Therefore Russia proceeded to realize its goals taking advantage of the critical time period especially with the various conflicts worldwide. Putin asserted the election was fully legitimate and will start the annexation as quickly as three days.

Lastly the claims by Europe and the US on what is deemed legal versus illegal is an appalling claim as we bear witness to the countless crimes against humanity and complete trampling of nations' sovereignty. Its long rap sheet includes Syria, Central African Republic, Sudan, Pakistan and so on.

Sadly we live in a time of the strongest most brutal being in the position to dictate what is legal and acceptable as opposed to what is illegal and unacceptable all depending on what is at stake.

Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir

By Um Muhanad

Last night the Palestinian Authority's disgraceful security agency raided the town of Husan located in Area C according to the disastrous Oslo Accords, which prohibits the Palestinian Authority from entering it without prior authorization including reasons that satisfy the Jewish coordination officer, and carried out a campaign of arrests, raids and searches of the homes of members of Hizb ut Tahrir.