A plebiscite for Ukraine? Looks like it’s up to us.

An article I wrote a some months back posed the question, “A plebiscite for Ukraine — anyone got a better idea?” So far as I can tell, the answer is no. A couple of people responded dismissing the idea, in both cases because the other side could not be trusted (although they disagreed as to which side it was that couldn’t be trusted) — but considering an enemy less than honorable is pretty much a prerequisite for war. Otherwise, if any government or Non Governmental Organization has come forward with a better proposal in the interim, I missed it. So I’d say it’s pretty much up to us to put forward the best available long run solution to the current conflict, however improbable its acceptance may be.

And really, while we might have hoped that some combination of governments could facilitate a ceasefire to put an end to the carnage, could we realistically have expected any of them to make a proposal that got to the root of the problem? While it may be widely understood that significant numbers of people in the pre-war Ukraine/Russia border regions would have preferred living in the other country following the break-up of the Soviet Union (although precious few would likely have considered what has transpired an acceptable means to that end) — was there ever really any reason to imagine a government suggesting that the residents of a disputed area should make the determination as to which country they should be part of? After all, the relationship between nations rests on the presumption that their borders are sacrosanct.

Were Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to suggest a plebiscite that might result in the reduction of some of his nation’s current territory he would likely be run out of office posthaste, much as his predecessor Viktor Yanukovych was in 2014 (with the approval of the US government and the direct involvement of recently retired Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland). And were American President Joe Biden to do so, he would undermine the US commitment to internationally recognized borders, which is firm (except where it’s not, as in the case of Kosovo’s secession from Serbia). And even the supra-national United Nations, while often the source of reports telling truths that member states may not wish to hear, is ultimately a collection of governments all generally professing the same steadfast adherence to the principle of unquestioned borders.

The reasons for the silence of NGO’s are likely more complex, proabably including the fear of appearing to advocate the rewarding of aggression in the form of Russia’s full scale assault upon Ukraine that far exceeded the scale of the previous conflicts in the Crimea and Donbass regions both of which had previously been part of the multi-national Soviet Union and, in the case of Crimea, part of Russia. as well.

Unfortunately, the suffering of the affected Ukrainians and Russians in what is ultimately a borderline dispute is not a new phenomenon, the best known recent precedent being the wars that followed the dissolution of Yugoslavia as former Yugoslavians found themselves no longer citizens of newly formed ethnically-based nations replacing the multi-national state they had once lived in. Untold numbers of Africans have also suffered in lesser-known wars fought over borderlines that did not match the allegiances of the populace. The history of wars over borders pretty much coincides with the history of borders themselves.

But while such situations seldom come to a reasonable and humane conclusion, there is the rare exception — one being the 1999 plebiscite through which the occupied territory of East Timor ultimately achieved its independence from Indonesia.

(There is even some precedent within the history of the current conflict. The 2014–5 Minsk Agreements proposed creation of a special limited autonomy status for two breakaway Ukrainian regions. The transfer of land from Ukraine to Russia (or the reverse) resulting from a plebiscite would represent a solution with impact potentially both more and less radical than that proposed in the Agreements. More, in the sense that territory would be ceded from one government to another; less in that such territories whose primary allegiance lay elsewhere would no longer have a say in the governance of the country they chose to leave.)

So the question I wish to pose to anyone reading these words is: Do we think it worth our while to make the effort to spread the idea of allowing the Ukrainian and Russian peoples to make the decision as to which nation they will live in via an internationally supervised plebiscite, slim as we may think the chances of success may be? I’m thinking of a grass roots campaign of letter writing to newspapers, seeking organizational endorsements, contacting elected officials, etc. You may have better ideas.

Please let me know if you’re interested and we can decide where to go from there.

Tom Gallagher

P.S. Just to be clear as to where I’m coming from, I believe:

1. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is indefensible.

2. NATO, and the US in particular, has a history of acting provocatively toward Russia in the years leading up to the war.

3. We need to find a solution better than funding a effort to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.

Agreement with all or any of these points is not required, but I thought it useful to explain where I’m coming from.