MH17 disaster foretells a more dangerous world

Patrick M. Cronin and Kelley Sayler
CNN | July 24, 2014

Editor’s note: Patrick M. Cronin is senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security. Kelley Sayler is a research associate at the center, focusing on U.S. defense policy and the intersection of technology and national security. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors.

(CNN) — The Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 disaster is a poignant reminder of the randomness of fortune and misfortune. But it also serves as a prelude to an emerging security environment marked by irregular warfare, proliferated high-end technology and complex economic and energy dependencies that will complicate decision-making among allied nations and confound coherent approaches to grand strategy.

Indeed, the tragedy has underscored the challenges of a new era in which the line between state and nonstate actors is increasingly blurred. From Syria to Iraq, Gaza to Ukraine, nonstate militias and separatists wage shadow wars using sophisticated technologies that were formerly the monopoly of states.

This new era is particularly apparent in the case of Flight 17, allegedly downed by a Russian SA-11 surface-to-air missile fired by Ukrainian rebels. The downing, which killed all 298 people aboard, is a reminder that small groups — often exhibiting less restraint than state actors — can acquire high-tech weaponry of great lethality and precision, which can be deployed so quickly people may not have time to make measured decisions.

As technology continues to progress and spread, this challenge will become even more acute. With the proliferation of unmanned and, particularly, autonomous systems that will reduce the role of human input, it will be even easier to imagine senseless acts of irreversible killing, either to achieve a political cause (terrorism or insurgency) or out of sheer happenstance and miscalculation. Once missiles and armed drones strike their target, neither the casualties nor the consequences can be undone.

The blurring of state and nonstate actors may also increase the difficulty of determining who is responsible, as can be seen in the ongoing Flight 17 investigation. Ironically, in the era of big data, governments may find it harder to identify — or at least to prove with a sufficient degree of confidence — who actually pulled the trigger in a given act of armed aggression or political violence.

Recent events in East Asia provide further evidence of these developments. While most observers believe that North Korea used a mini-submarine to sink a South Korean corvette, the Cheonan, in March 2010, some were unwilling to be convinced even by an exhaustive international forensic investigation. (North Korea denied responsibility.) Conspiracies and propaganda — disseminated across ever-expanding social media platforms — fill the void, leaving people to believe what they want.

Escalation may be more likely and deterrence may be more susceptible to failure under such conditions. One chilling possibility is that a future attack, perhaps involving a nuclear device, might trigger an interstate war without definitive proof of who really instigated the fateful first blow.

In an instant war, moreover, once conflict appears to have started, there may well be an incentive for some actors to "use it or lose it," particularly in the absence of an existential threat of mutual assured destruction.

In addition to the challenges highlighted by the Malaysian jet downing, the emerging security environment will be characterized by an unprecedented level of globalization and connectivity. And while the dark side of globalization has long been identified, the connectivity that fuels our century also threatens us.

In an era of increasingly capable cyberwarfare capabilities that can be executed by nonstate actors and individuals, malicious and potentially lethal attacks may be facilitated through the Internet. Many of these may be difficult or even impossible to trace back to specific entities, and even when attribution is possible, the political costs of a response may be high.

The recent controversial move by the United States to indict five members of China’s military on charges of cyber-espionage demonstrates the challenges of imposing costs on a subset of actors without upsetting other and often larger goals, such as cooperative China-U.S. relations.

The convergence of these factors will complicate the difficulty of alliance decision-making in the years to come, as differing threat assessments, dependencies, interests and standards for international involvement lead states to pursue competing policies, as in France’s decision to deliver Mistral warships to Russia despite broader European calls for an arms embargo.

There are many lessons to be learned from Flight 17’s tragic end over Ukraine. But perhaps one central takeaway is that we are witnessing the end of an era of traditional state power, and entering a new era that could place us only a few short missteps away from cascading into more lethal and disruptive conflicts.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/24/opinion/cronin-security-after-mh17-dangers/index.html

Statement of the Government of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (CRI) on the Latest Events in Ukraine

ChechenCenter | Monday, 21 July 2014

The Government of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria expresses with deep sorrow its condolences to the Government and people of Malaysia and to the Governments and people of Holland, Australia, Indonesia, the UK, Germany, Belgium, the Philippines, Canada and the United States, whose citizens were on a passenger plane which was shot down by terrorist groups which are supported and armed by the Russian leadership in Eastern Ukraine. We would like to express special words of sympathy and compassion to the families and relatives of the victims of this heinous crime.

We also are addressing our condolences to the Government of Ukraine and to the brotherly Ukrainian people and express our unconditional solidarity with fair democratic aspirations of Ukraine to build their future freely and regardless of imperial plans of aggressive eastern neighbor. At the same time, based on our bitter experience, we urge the the Government of Ukraine not to be limited only by the investigation of aircraft crash and terrorist essence of what is happening in the east. We are witnessing a direct aggression of Russia against the independent state by the annexation of the territory of Ukraine and the escalation of violence in the eastern border areas of the country.

The whole world witnessed the mass extermination of the people of the Chechen Republic Ichkeria Russian militarists. We have lost 300,000 people in less than 10 years of resistance. We knew and are still convinced that military action against our people were a prelude of larger and more aggressive actions of Russian politics. And on this basis, to sober the heads of the people, planning similar bloody deeds, we urged the world to punish war criminals. However, the world ignored us, and we have the consequences of recurrence of war crimes. Our nation became a hostage of the international protection system only because of the fact that the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria was not recognized as an independent country. (Explanation from translator to foreigners: ChRI became independent country according to laws of USSR, Russian Federation and United Nation, however to please Yeltsin, world community decided to ignore it.) 

But Ukraine is a free and independent country, member of international political institutions. We urge the Government of Ukraine to demand from the UN Security Council  the establishment of the Military Tribunal because of crimes in Ukraine.

Prime Minister of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria,
Akhmed Zakayev

http://chechencenter.info/n/44-european-news/2187-1.html

Is Putin Worse Than Stalin?
Patrick J. Buchanan
CNSNews | July 25, 2014

In 1933, the Holodomor was playing out in Ukraine.

After the "kulaks," the independent farmers, had been liquidated in the forced collectivization of Soviet agriculture, a genocidal famine was imposed on Ukraine through seizure of her food production.

Estimates of the dead range from two to nine million souls.

Walter Duranty of the New York Times, who called reports of the famine "malignant propaganda," won a Pulitzer for his mendacity.

In November 1933, during the Holodomor, the greatest liberal of them all, FDR, invited Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov to receive official U.S. recognition of his master Stalin’s murderous regime.

On August 1, 1991, just four months before Ukraine declared its independence of Russia, George H. W. Bush warned Kiev’s legislature:

"Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred."

In short, Ukraine’s independence was never part of America’s agenda. From 1933 to 1991, it was never a U.S. vital interest. Bush I was against it.

When then did this issue of whose flag flies over Donetsk or Crimea become so crucial that we would arm Ukrainians to fight Russian-backed rebels and consider giving a NATO war guarantee to Kiev, potentially bringing us to war with a nuclear-armed Russia?

From FDR on, U.S. presidents have felt that America could not remain isolated from the rulers of the world’s largest nation.

Ike invited Khrushchev to tour the USA after he had drowned the Hungarian Revolution in blood. After Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba, JFK was soon calling for a new detente at American University.

Within weeks of Warsaw Pact armies crushing the Prague Spring in August 1968, LBJ was seeking a summit with Premier Alexei Kosygin.

After excoriating Moscow for the downing of KAL 007 in 1983, that old Cold Warrior Ronald Reagan was fishing for a summit meeting.

The point: Every president from FDR through George H. W. Bush, even after collisions with Moscow far more serious than this clash over Ukraine, sought to re-engage the men in the Kremlin.

Whatever we thought of the Soviet dictators who blockaded Berlin, enslaved Eastern Europe, put rockets in Cuba and armed Arabs to attack Israel, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush 1 all sought to engage Russia’s rulers.

Avoidance of a catastrophic war demanded engagement.

How then can we explain the clamor of today’s U.S. foreign policy elite to confront, isolate, and cripple Russia, and make of Putin a moral and political leper with whom honorable statesmen can never deal?

What has Putin done to rival the forced famine in Ukraine that starved to death millions, the slaughter of the Hungarian rebels or the Warsaw Pact’s crushing of Czechoslovakia?

In Ukraine, Putin responded to a U.S.-backed coup, which ousted a democratically elected political ally of Russia, with a bloodless seizure of the pro-Russian Crimea where Moscow has berthed its Black Sea fleet since the 18th century. This is routine Big Power geopolitics.

And though Putin put an army on Ukraine’s border, he did not order it to invade or occupy Luhansk or Donetsk. Does this really look like a drive to reassemble either the Russian Empire of the Romanovs or the Soviet Empire of Stalin that reached to the Elbe?

As for the downing of the Malaysian airliner, Putin did not order that. Sen. John Cornyn says U.S. intelligence has not yet provided any "smoking gun" that ties the missile-firing to Russia.

Intel intercepts seem to indicate that Ukrainian rebels thought they had hit an Antonov military transport plane.

Yet, today, the leading foreign policy voice of the Republican Party, Sen. John McCain, calls Obama’s White House "cowardly" for not arming the Ukrainians to fight the Russian-backed separatists.

But suppose Putin responded to the arrival of U.S. weapons in Kiev by occupying Eastern Ukraine. What would we do then?

John Bolton has the answer: Bring Ukraine into NATO.

Translation: The U.S. and NATO should go to war with Russia, if necessary, over Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea, though no U.S. president has ever thought Ukraine itself was worth a war with Russia.

What motivates Putin seems simple and understandable. He wants the respect due a world power. He sees himself as protector of the Russians left behind in his "near abroad." He relishes playing Big Power politics. History is full of such men.

He allows U.S. overflights to Afghanistan, cooperates in the P5+1 on Iran, helped us rid Syria of chemical weapons, launches our astronauts into orbit, collaborates in the war on terror and disagrees on Crimea and Syria.

But what motivates those on our side who seek every opportunity to restart the Cold War?

Is it not a desperate desire to appear once again Churchillian, once again heroic, once again relevant, as they saw themselves in the Cold War that ended so long ago?

Who is the real problem here?

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/patrick-j-buchanan/putin-worse-stalin

 

Kadyrov places photo proof of Umarov’s death in social network

Caucasian Knot | 19 July 2014

The head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov has posted a photo of Doku Umarov’s body, who was killed, according to various versions of power agents, in a special operation in the period from late 2013 – early 2014, in his profile on the Instagram social network.

The "Caucasian Knot" has reported that on December 18, 2013, Kadyrov said that Doku Umarov, the leader of "Imarat Kavkaz" "had been long dead"; and on January 16, 2014, he specified that Umarov was killed "during one of the operations." The Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said on January 22 that intelligence services should consider Umarov alive as long as the evidence of his death was presented. On April 8 this year, the FSB boss Alexander Bortnikov stated that "the activities of Umarov, the leader of the terrorist organization ‘Imarat Kavkaz’, had been neutralized in the first quarter of 2014."

Earlier, on February 18, the Israeli analyst Avrom Shmulevich wrote on his page on the "LiveJournal" that Doku Umarov had been poisoned. According to his version, Umarov was poisoned when inspecting one of the winter bases of illegal armed formations (IAFs) in Chechnya, while four militants, accused of poisoning him, had already been shot dead.

Let us note here that North-Caucasian militants confirmed the preliminary information on Umarov’s death on January 16, 2014, and finally – on March 18. Abu Mukhammad (Aliaskhab Kebekov) became a new leader of "Imarat Kavkaz".

http://eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/28764/

 

 

Insurgency Commanders Divulge Details Of Umarov’s Death
RFE/RL Caucasus Report | July 23, 2014

An 11-minute video clip was posted on YouTube last week showing the burial of self-proclaimed Caucasus Emirate head Doku Umarov. Two senior Chechen insurgency commanders, Khamzat (Aslan Byutukayev) and  Makhran (Saidov), describe (in Chechen) how Umarov was poisoned in early August 2013 when sharing food with younger fighters, and died one month later. A Russian translation of their statements was posted 24 hours later on the insurgency website Kavkazcenter.com. Chechen Republic head Ramzan Kadyrov promptly posted a screen grab from the footage on his Instagram account as definitive proof that Umarov is dead.

Byutukayev explained that Umarov consumed a small amount of food that younger fighters had obtained from an Ingush on the highway leading to Djeyrakh (in southern Ingushetia, bordering on the south-westernmost part of Chechnya. Four other fighters died of poisoning; Umarov survived for a month before succumbing, at dawn on September 7.

Makhran dismissed the possibility that the poisoning was the result of a deliberate attempt by either Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chechen Republic head Ramzan Kadyrov to kill Umarov. He said that, on the contrary, Umarov’s death was purely fortuitous. Makhran disclosed that Umarov had summoned his senior commanders, and Makhran himself had arrived the evening before Umarov’s death.

The video clip shows six fighters helping to place Umarov’s body in the grave prepared for him and cover it over. The two other most senior commanders, Aslambek Vadalov and Tarkhan Gaziyev, are apparently not present. It was in the summer of 2013 that Gaziyev appealed to the Chechen Republic Ichkeria Shari’a Court in exile to rule on whether Umarov’s proclamation in late 2007 of the Caucasus Emirate was justified under Shari’a law.

The first, unsubstantiated reports of Umarov’s death had surfaced  in January when an audio tape was posted on YouTube in which a speaker tentatively identified as Caucasus Emirate qadi (supreme religious authority) Abu Mukhammad (Aliaskhab Kebekov) related how he had learned of Umarov’s death and that he had been proposed as his successor. The audio tape did not give any details of when or how Umarov died.

Kebekov formally confirmed in mid-March that Umarov was dead and he had been chosen to succeed him. But he did not divulge the date or circumstances of Umarov’s death.

The revelation that Umarov died in early September means that his last video address, which was superscribed Autumn 2013, must have been filmed in August or the first few days of September. In that clip, Umarov, apparently in good health, pays homage to the Gakayev brothers, who were killed in January 2013, and to Jamaleyl Mutaliyev (aka Amir Adam), a commander of the Ingushetia insurgency wing who was killed in May 2013.  The clip was uploaded to the web on December 19, just hours after Kadyrov announced (not for the first time) that Umarov had been killed in a counter-terror operation, but his body had not been recovered.

The reason for the delay between Kebekov’s confirmation in mid-March that Umarov was indeed dead and the posting of the video clip showing his burial can only be guessed at.

— Liz Fuller

http://www.rferl.org/content/insurgency-commanders-divulge-of-umarovs-death/25467747.html

 

 

North-Caucasian militants released video evidence of Umarov’s death
Caucasian Knot | 21 July 2014

A video record of the burial of Doku Umarov, who was killed, according to various versions of power agents, during a special operation in late 2013 – early 2014, was posted on July 19 on the websites, which support the militants of Northern Caucasus.

The "Caucasian Knot" has reported that on April 8 the FSB boss Alexander Bortnikov said that "the activities of Doku Umarov, the leader of the terrorist organization ‘Imarat Kavkaz’, were stopped in the first quarter of the year." Earlier, on December 18, 2013, and January 16, 2014, Umarov’s murder was reported by the head of Chechnya Ramzan Kadyrov.

According to the video, released by militants, Umarov was buried in summer or early autumn, as green leaves and grass are clearly seen at the background.

The video shows a man, specified in the captions as "Amir Khamzat", who reports that the leader of "Imarat Kavkaz" Doku Umarov died in the morning on September 7, 2013, as a result of poisoning. According to "Emir Khamzat", Umarov got poisoned on August 6, 2013, by eating foodstuffs received by members of the armed underground from an Ingush resident.

http://eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/28784/

A U.S.-Russia proxy war in Ukraine would be an unwelcome echo of the Cold War

Editorial
Los Angeles Times | July 24, 2014

International outrage over the downing of a Malaysian passenger plane over Ukraine on July 17 does not appear to have affected either the actions of pro-Russia forces in that country or the material support Russia is offering the rebels. On Wednesday, the separatists apparently shot down two Ukrainian warplanes flying near the border with Russia. On Thursday, the U.S. accused Russia of firing artillery from its territory into Ukraine.

If Russia continues to abet the Ukrainian armed resistance, it must pay a price, as even European nations previously reluctant to impose significant sanctions are beginning to realize. This week the Europeans moved toward expanding sanctions directed at Russian officials and organizations linked to the rebellion in eastern Ukraine, and they are considering following the lead of the U.S. and imposing sanctions against sectors of the Russian economy, including defense and energy.

But some American politicians and policymakers would go beyond economic and diplomatic efforts and provide the Ukrainian government with military support. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has implored the Obama administration "to give the Ukrainians weapons with which to defend themselves." That would be a mistake.

It’s not clear that the Obama administration is seriously considering McCain’s advice. The U.S. has provided food, body armor and uniforms to Ukraine and has promised to deliver medical supplies and night-vision goggles as well. This week the Washington Times quoted a Pentagon spokesman as saying that the U.S. also planned "to support the Ukrainian military through subject-matter expert teams and long-term advisors."

If by "advisors" the administration means computer experts and payroll managers, that’s one thing. But deploying "advisors" who are military strategists or uniformed soldiers would be reckless and provocative. So would providing Ukraine with lethal weapons.

A proxy war between the United States and Russia would be dangerous even if it didn’t lead to a direct military confrontation between the two nuclear powers. It also would undermine President Obama’s insistence that the U.S., while it supports Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence, doesn’t regard it as part of a Cold War chess game with Russia.

Finally, although it obviously continues to encounter resistance, Ukraine is gradually gaining military control of rebel-held areas on its own. Russia could help end the fighting if it stopped its interference and incitement. As long as it refuses to do so, the U.S. and its allies should keep up the pressure — but stay off the battlefield.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-ukraine-20140725-story.html

 

 

Putin has a new headache in Ukraine: Now Europe is watching
Doyle McManus
Los Angeles Times | July 22, 2014

It’s neither pleasant nor polite to say it, but the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 may have been the best thing to happen to President Obama’s policy on Ukraine in weeks.

Until the plane went down with 298 passengers and crew last week, the nasty little war in eastern Ukraine had almost dropped from public view. Obama’s strategy of nudging Europe to escalate economic sanctions against Russia was getting nowhere, a victim of Europeans’ desire to protect their business with Moscow. Ukraine’s armed forces were making little progress on the ground against Russian-armed separatists. And Russia’s Vladimir Putin was pressing for a cease-fire that would have given the rebels a long-term foothold on the ground, securing Putin a long-term chokehold over the government in Kiev.

In short, Putin appeared to be slowly winning.

Now the picture has changed, thanks to whoever fired the sophisticated Russian-made antiaircraft missile that, mounting evidence suggests, brought the Malaysian airliner down. We may never know for sure whether the culprits were Ukrainian separatists, Russian officers operating under the guise of Ukrainian separatists or (implausibly) someone else entirely. But the behavior of the rebels and the Russian government in the aftermath — blocking access to the bodies, tampering with the evidence and spinning ludicrous conspiracy theories — didn’t inspire faith in their protestations of innocence.

By the beginning of this week even Putin was hurriedly making conciliatory noises, promising that "everything possible" would be done to make an international investigation possible. "Rather than dividing us, tragedies of this sort should bring us together," he said. "No one has the right to use this tragedy to pursue their own political goals."

Too late for that. Russia’s critics were entirely justified in using the tragedy to point out that the ill-disciplined rebels swarming over the crash site were funded and equipped by Putin’s government, which — until this week, at least — had publicly cast them as freedom fighters. Ukraine’s government took advantage of the moment to launch a new military offensive against the rebels in Donetsk, only 50 miles from the crash site.

And the European Union agreed Tuesday to impose new targeted economic sanctions against individual Russian officials and to actively consider broader economic sanctions against entire sectors of the Russian economy.

The new EU sanctions weren’t massive; they basically just matched the new round of U.S. sanctions that Obama announced this month. But the EU also decided to draw up options for broader measures that would block Russia’s access to Europe’s capital markets and limit sales of military technology if Putin doesn’t stop the flow of weapons, equipment and militants into eastern Ukraine. That was a step the European foreign ministers had staunchly resisted until now.

So Putin has a problem he didn’t have a week ago: Europe’s politicians and public are watching. And his chosen instrument for meddling in Ukraine — the separatist forces — suddenly looks like a liability as well as an asset.

"In our view, something fundamental changed last Thursday," Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said. Now, he says, there is a desire across the EU for a unified approach that will "put pressure on Russia to do more."

The EU is still divided over the exact nature of the sanctions. Germany wants to protect its Russian natural gas supplies; Britain wants to keep Russian capital flowing into London’s financial markets; France wants to protect its arms deals with Putin. But in one measure of the changing climate, French President Francois Hollande said for the first time this week that Russia shouldn’t count on getting both of the helicopter assault ships it has bought from his country. The first ship will be delivered in October, he said, but the second "depends on the attitude of Russia."

None of this adds up to a turning point in the battle for Ukraine just yet. The sanctions announced so far are enough to worry Russian economic planners, who were already looking at a growth rate near zero, but not enough to force Putin’s hand. "One difference between Americans and Europeans is that you think the Russians will behave better if you apply sanctions," German politician Karsten Voigt told me recently. "We don’t."

But until the crash of Flight 17, Putin was quietly waiting for the West to lose interest in the conflict and expecting the sanctions to gradually erode. That calculation has changed.

The EU is now demanding more clearly that Russia cut off supplies to the rebels in eastern Ukraine; Putin is unlikely to comply, but not doing so comes with more risk now. And more Western attention and support can only help the Ukrainian government in Kiev as it struggles to build its army and take back some of the territory the rebels have seized.

Economic sanctions alone won’t end the war in eastern Ukraine; Europe is too divided and Putin too resilient for that.

But if the tragedy of Flight 17 buys time for Ukraine’s new government to get organized, bolsters Western support for economic aid to Kiev and increases the cost of Putin’s Ukrainian adventure to Russia, it could be a turning point for the region.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-column-ukraine-putin-plane-crash-20140723-column.html

Amb. Baer’s Response to Russia on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

United States Mission to the OSCE
As delivered by Ambassador Daniel B. Baer
to the Permanent Council, Vienna
July 24, 2014

Response to Russian Federation on Crash of MH17 in Ukraine

I just wanted to respond to a couple of points raised by our distinguished Russian colleague.

First, he said, “We will not engage in our own accusations or assessments.” So far, the state-controlled media organs of the Russian Federation have not only engaged in one assessment, they have engaged in a series of assessments — each one more preposterous than the last — in a desperate effort to cover up the truth.

First the story was that the Ukrainians had shot down the plane, because they had confused it for President Putin’s plane. When that was deemed implausible, there was the story put out by Russian media that the passengers were all dead when the plane took off. (What kind of sick minds are behind this Russian propaganda, I have no idea.)

And then there was the story that this was in fact not Malaysian flight 17, this was Malaysian flight 370, the one that disappeared several months ago – a story that disgustingly played with the tormented fears of families from that plane. It was said that that the flight had actually gone to Diego Garcia, and had been waiting there, the blood was drained out of the bodies of the people on the plane, and then they were refilled and took off from Amsterdam with a live pilot who parachuted out.

Then there was the suggestion that it was shot down by a Ukrainian SU-25, a ground attack airplane whose Russian manufacturer says on its website that it can only go up to 5000 meters’ altitude. Having realized the folly of this latest accusation, which came from Russian government sources, someone in Russia altered the SU-25’s Wikipedia page to double its maximum altitude.

If this weren’t about the death of nearly 300 people, it would be tragic comedy; instead, it is just cynical, sick manipulation.

Second, I will not sit here and listen to the self-righteous and sanctimonious statements by the Russian Federation that somehow they are uniquely committed to an international investigation. Their proxies, the Russian-supported fighters, were literally walking over the remains of the crash. When the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission showed up on the scene, they found a drunken horde. It took four days for President Putin to come out and make a statement about an international investigation. He then spent the afternoon touring sites for the World Cup, in callous disregard for the people who had died. The Russian Federation says it is against tampering with the crash site — so are the rest of us, but it is not our proxies who are responsible for the tampering.

Finally, as a point of fact, which the Chairmanship will be able to corroborate (as will many of our colleagues, including the Ambassador of the European Union, the Ambassador of the Netherlands, the Ambassador of Canada, and our distinguished Russian colleague’s own boss, the Russian Ambassador), that on Friday morning, when I spoke with the Russian Ambassador, I said we should have a declaration that includes a call for ICAO to be involved — an international investigation. So the assertion that somehow the Americans are getting in the way of an international investigation, blocking ICAO, is ridiculous — it was, in fact, we who suggested including ICAO in the OSCE Declaration—it was our idea.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2014/07/20140725304486.html?CP.rss=true#ixzz38VVnk1E8

 

 

German Foreign Minister: ‘Further Escalation Not Out of the Question’ in Ukraine
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier calls the downing of the Malaysian Airlines passenger jet over Ukraine "appalling" in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. He also discusses the flare-up in the Middle East and US espionage in Germany.
Interview Conducted by Roland Nelles and Severin Weiland
SPIEGEL ONLINE | July 18, 2014

The news that a passenger plane had possibly been shot down over eastern Ukraine on Thursday reached German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier as he was on his way to Mexico. "The circumstances and cause of the crash must be cleared up as quickly as possible," Steinmeier said in a subsequent interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE.

The Ukraine crisis, the Middle East conflict, US espionage: Several significant issues have cropped up in recent months. And this month, the senior-most US secret service representative in Germany was forced to leave the country after alleged cases of American espionage in the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, and the German Defense Ministry were uncovered.

---

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Steinmeier, a Malaysian Airlines passenger jet was presumably shot down over eastern Ukraine on Thursday. Could the situation there spin completely out of control?

Steinmeier: It is appalling that hundreds of people who were completely uninvolved lost their lives in such a horrible way. Rescue and security personnel must immediately be granted access to the crash site. The circumstances and cause of the crash must be cleared up as quickly as possible, and an independent international investigation should be created to do so.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The fighting in Ukraine has continued without abatement. Do you still believe that a peaceful solution is possible?

Steinmeier: In the last two weeks, I haven’t taken my eye off the Ukraine crisis for a single second. The foreign ministers of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany reached agreement on the path to a ceasefire at the beginning of July in Berlin. Unfortunately, we still aren’t there. Currently, there is a dispute about the site of a meeting between the contact group and the separatists. We will continue to stay true to our course: Clear statements to the conflict parties combined, as necessary, with pressure and also a mindful of maintaining negotiation possibilities. To reach a solution, there is no way around a ceasefire. I will continue working towards an end to the violence. Only then can the path be cleared for the political solution that we need.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Has the danger of a Russian intervention passed?

Steinmeier: A further escalation is not out of the question, the situation continues to be extremely dangerous. The fighting in Donbass has continued with unmitigated severity. People are dying every day.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: In the Ukraine crisis, you took on a leading role among European foreign ministers, but in the current Middle East conflict between Hamas and Israel, you have stayed in the background. Why?

Steinmeier: I just returned from a trip to the Middle East, so there has been no restraint. But I am an advocate of realism. In the Middle East, Europeans cannot act as though we can replace the US. We can make a contribution to discussion with people there about the necessary conditions for a ceasefire and, hopefully, a return at some point to negotiations over a two-state solution. But the US and the Arab neighbors remain central actors in all peace efforts. We will support them according to our possibilities. Even if the first efforts toward a ceasefire have not yet been successful, the focus is still on breaking through the military logic.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What does that mean?

Steinmeier: Three wars in five years show that the status quo in the Gaza Strip is not tenable. I am convinced that a lasting solution requires two elements. The Gaza Strip cannot remain a massive weapons depot for Hamas and other groups. But the people in Gaza need the opportunity for improved living conditions. To do that, the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas must be strengthened. Israel must play a role here too.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Let’s move to another issue, the US espionage affair. As former Chancellery chief of staff under Gerhard Schröder, you were the one responsible for German intelligence agencies. How surprised were you to learn that the US recruits spies in Germany to monitor the government?

Steinmeier: That an allied country uses secret service methods to recruit employees of German agencies to discover German government positions — I didn’t expect that.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The German government demanded that the senior-most US intelligence representative in Germany leave the country. That is a strong response. Are you expecting countermeasures from Washington?

Steinmeier: The political message sent by that step has been received. You could also read and hear that in the US media. In the final analysis, we now have to focus on improving the relationship and combatting the erosion of trust. Lost trust cannot be reestablished overnight, nor can it simply be decreed. We are not quarreling about the necessity of intelligence agencies as such: In a world with new dangers and growing risks, we need them for our security. But there are differences between us when it comes to the orientation and reach of intelligence activities. A change in attitude is necessary.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Will there be new revelations of additional US agents in Germany?

Steinmeier: I don’t know. I don’t have any information about that.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Fellow cabinet members Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière and Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, both from Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, have sought to play down the discovery of two suspected spies in the BND and the Defense Ministry, portraying them as insignificant. Is that the correct way of handling the affair?

Steinmeier: No one is trying to play it down. But I do find the political rationale behind the Americans’ actions to be totally incomprehensible — the potential insights an intelligence source like that might be able to provide are incommensurate to the risk of angering friends in the event they are uncovered. We speak constantly with the Americans and we have the closest of contacts and relations at all levels. I certainly call (Secretary of State) John Kerry several times each month; we see each other regularly, most recently on Sunday in Vienna. We speak openly and honestly with each other.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But there must be a reason when friends spy on friends like this. What motivated the Americans to do such a thing?

Steinmeier: That’s a question you’ll have to ask those responsible in Washington. It is difficult for us to judge whether there is a real motive behind this policy. I am not even sure whether the collection of information is even part of any broader-based strategy or whether the intelligence activities just went unchecked and became the norm. I think the latter is very possible. Either way, damage to the bilateral relationship has been done.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier: "It is appalling that hundreds of people who were completely uninvolved lost their lives in such a horrible way."

SPIEGEL ONLINE: While in Vienna recently, you discussed the spying scandal with Secretary of State Kerry. How did he react?

Steinmeier: The American secretary of state knows there are strains in our relationship. He also feels that an explanation for the intelligence activities is urgently needed. As is the case with me, John Kerry is not responsible for the intelligence agencies and their activities. At the same time, we have to be committed to trans-Atlantic relations. That’s why I share the criticism of US intelligence activities in Germany, but also warn against considering our close relationship with America to be replaceable. A look at Ukraine, the Middle East, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan shows that we need each other. Many conflicts can only be addressed through close trans-Atlantic cooperation. At the same time, this must be conducted with mutual respect and trust.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What would you like to see America do now in concrete terms?

Steinmeier: For a start, the US has been asked to help provide a full clarification of the latest incidents. But in order to create a new foundation for German-American relations, even more needs to happen.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: For example?

Steinmeier: I believe it is absolutely imperative that the domestic debate in America about the work and necessity of spying activities not be dominated by the agencies alone. The agencies have their own internal views, but the foreign policy implications of their actions are of secondary importance to them. Politicians have to set boundaries for intelligence activities. I also spoke to John Kerry about this.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Will there be a no-spying agreement?

Steinmeier: It won’t accomplish anything if we continually focus on this issue. The real issue is of considerably greater importance — that of finding the balance between freedom and security, one that is defined differently in the USA, also because of 9/11, than it is in a country that has not been subjected to similar disasters. Despite the different experiences, we still have to ask ourselves the question of how, in the digital age of the 21st century, we can ensure the "Right to Privacy" from increased snooping on the part of governments and the private sector. That is the subject of the trans-Atlantic Cyber Dialogue that we began a few weeks ago in Berlin and must continue to carry out with patience and tenacity.

Translated from the German by Charles Hawley and Daryl Lindsey

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-on-ukraine-and-middle-east-with-foreign-minister-steinmeier-a-981761.html