News

What neutrality would mean for Ukraine, Russia and the war

Published

3 years ago

March 10, 2022

What neutrality would mean for Ukraine, Russia and the war

Might neutrality provide a approach out of the Ukrainian conflict?

Though a gathering between the Russian and Ukrainian overseas ministers led to failure on Thursday, there have been hints of a potential diplomatic path based mostly on the concept of neutrality.

Ukrainian officers have in current days advised that impartial standing with safety ensures might be a substitute for Nato membership, a crimson line for Moscow for years.

“Relating to [joining] Nato, I’ve cooled down relating to this query a very long time in the past, after we understood that Nato isn’t ready to just accept Ukraine,” President Volodymyr Zelensky mentioned in an interview with ABC Information this week.

His overseas minister Dmytro Kuleba mentioned on Thursday: “The actual difficulty for Ukraine is difficult safety ensures, much like those that members of Nato have.”

He added: “We’d like these ensures primarily from Russia, as a result of it’s the nation that dedicated an act of aggression towards us. But additionally from different international locations, together with everlasting members of the UN Safety Council.”

Sergei Lavrov, Russian overseas minister, mentioned: “We wish Ukraine to remain impartial . . . We’re prepared to speak about safety ensures for the Ukrainian state together with safety ensures for the European state and naturally for the safety of Russia. Judging from what President Zelensky is saying, he’s beginning to perceive this method; it makes us cautiously optimistic.”

What would neutrality imply for Ukraine?

The target of Nato membership is written into Ukraine’s structure. However the alliance has by no means put Kyiv on a agency path to membership. The nation’s recognition, in Kuleba’s phrases, that “regardless of all of our efforts, Nato isn’t able to combine us” doesn’t imply Ukraine is prepared to surrender its aspirations in return for nothing.

François Heisbourg, an adviser to the Paris-based Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique think-tank, mentioned there are principally two types of neutrality.

The primary is armed neutrality, the mannequin that has served international locations resembling Switzerland and Finland: they haven’t joined bigger pacts however bolstered their defences all the identical.

Some commentators this yr advised that Ukraine’s “Finlandisation” — giving up on its Nato aspirations and assuming a non-aligned standing — may have averted conflict. However Helsinki — which objects to the “Finlandisation” time period — has a robust and well-equipped armed forces that might be hardly appropriate with the demilitarisation Russia needs with Ukraine.

Heisbourg mentioned that two of Russia’s important targets for the conflict — so-called denazification, which he takes to imply regime change, and demilitarisation — “run counter to any capability to take care of neutrality”, supposedly the third of the Kremlin’s goals.

What about safety ensures?

The opposite mannequin referred to by Heisbourg is treaty-based neutrality, involving the type of safety ensures Kuleba referred to. One instance of that is the 1839 Treaty of London, which performed an enormous position within the begin of the primary world conflict, when Britain declared conflict after Germany invaded impartial Belgium.

Ukraine insists safety ensures must underpin neutrality. However its expertise of comparable commitments has hardly been a cheerful one. In 1994 it was given safety assurances by the US, UK, and Russia beneath the so-called Budapest Memorandum, in return for giving up the nuclear weapons left on its territory after the break-up of the Soviet Union.

Heisbourg mentioned the credibility of such a mannequin — the place neutrality is assured by a bunch of outsiders — “is actually zero, as a result of there was a three-power assure after independence . . . in return for Ukraine eliminating the nuclear weapons that occurred to be on its territory.” He added: “That didn’t go very properly” — a reference to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and this yr’s invasion.

With such a historical past, Ukrainians are hardly going to be reassured by Russian ensures and it’s onerous to see what sort of western defence dedication to Kyiv can be acceptable to Moscow.

What now?

The 2 warring international locations nonetheless appear to recommend that discuss of neutrality may assist silence the weapons.

“Russia isn’t able to make an settlement in the present day, it doesn’t imply they received’t be prepared to take action tomorrow,” mentioned Kuleba.

Zelensky advised on Tuesday he may be open to a compromise on the longer term standing of the Russian occupied areas of Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.

However Moscow’s wider navy goals — notably the substitute of a democratically elected authorities with one aligned with the Kremlin — seemingly depart little room for compromise.

Cliff Kupchan, chair of Eurasia group, a political threat consultancy, described the “widespread vocabulary” on neutrality and safety ensures as “a begin that’s higher than nothing” however cautioned: “Is [Russian President Vladimir] Putin actually able to reside with Zelensky?”

He added: “The Russians appear poised to regulate the Black Beach, they’re underperforming however nonetheless transferring — in the event that they suppose they’ll management extra territory within the east, encircle Kyiv and obtain the relative destruction of the Ukrainian navy, why would they reduce a deal?”

News

Tulsa Massacre Was a ‘Coordinated, Military-Style Attack,’ Federal Report Says

Published

8 hours ago

January 11, 2025

Press Room

Tulsa Massacre Was a ‘Coordinated, Military-Style Attack,’ Federal Report Says

The Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921, in which a prosperous Black neighborhood in Oklahoma was destroyed and up to 300 people were killed, was not committed by an uncontrolled mob but was the result of “a coordinated, military-style attack” by white citizens, the Justice Department said in a report released Friday.

The report, stemming from an investigation announced in September, is the first time that the federal government has given an official, comprehensive account of the events of May 31 and June 1, 1921, in the Tulsa neighborhood of Greenwood. Although it formally concluded that, more than a century later, no person alive could be prosecuted, it underscored the brutality of the atrocities committed.

“The Tulsa Race Massacre stands out as a civil rights crime unique in its magnitude, barbarity, racist hostility and its utter annihilation of a thriving Black community,” Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general for civil rights, said in a statement. “In 1921, white Tulsans murdered hundreds of residents of Greenwood, burned their homes and churches, looted their belongings and locked the survivors in internment camps.”

No one today could be held criminally responsible, she said, “but the historical reckoning for the massacre continues.”

The report’s legal findings noted that if contemporary civil rights laws were in effect in 1921, federal prosecutors could have pursued hate crime charges against both public officials and private citizens.

Though considered one of the worst episodes of racial terror in U.S. history, the massacre was relatively unknown for decades: City officials buried the story, and few survivors talked about the massacre.

The Justice Department began its investigation under the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, which allows the agency to examine such crimes resulting in death that occurred before 1980. Investigators spoke with survivors and their descendants, looked at firsthand accounts and examined an informal review by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Investigation, the precursor to the F.B.I. In that 1921 report, the agency asserted that the riot was not the result of “racial feeling,” and suggested that Black men were responsible for the massacre.

The new 123-page report corrects the record, while detailing the scale of destruction and its aftermath. The massacre began with an unfounded accusation. A young Black man, Dick Rowland, was being held in custody by local authorities after being accused of assaulting a young white woman.

According to the report, after a local newspaper sensationalized the story, an angry crowd gathered at the courthouse demanding that Mr. Rowland be lynched. The local sheriff asked Black men from Greenwood, including some who had recently returned from military service, to come to the courthouse to try to prevent the lynching. Other reports suggest the Black neighbors offered to help but were turned away by the sheriff.

The white mob viewed attempts to protect Mr. Rowland as “an unacceptable challenge to the social order,” the report said. The crowd grew and soon there was a confrontation. Hundreds of residents (some of whom had been drinking) were deputized by the Tulsa Police. Law enforcement officers helped organize these special deputies who, along with other residents, eventually descended on Greenwood, a neighborhood whose success inspired the name Black Wall Street.

The report described the initial attack as “opportunistic,” but by daybreak on June 1, “a whistle blew, and the violence and arsons that had been chaotic became systematic.” According to the report, up to 10,000 white Tulsans participated in the attack, burning or looting 35 city blocks. It was so “systematic and coordinated that it transcended mere mob violence,” the report said.

In the aftermath, the survivors were left to rebuild their lives with little or no help from the city. The massacre’s impact, historians say, is still felt generations later.

In the years since the attack, survivors and their descendants and community activists have fought for justice. Most recently, a lawsuit seeking reparations filed on behalf of the last two known centenarian survivors was dismissed by Oklahoma justices in June. In recent years, Tulsa has excavated sections of a city cemetery in search of the graves of massacre victims. And in 2024, the city created a commission to study the harms of the atrocity and recommend solutions. The results are expected in the coming weeks.

News

The strange world of the Euro-Gulf

Published

10 hours ago

January 11, 2025

Press Room

Stay informed with free updates

Waiting for the Tube, I see a poster for an upmarket gym chain. Locations? “City of London. High Street Kensington. Dubai.” What a shame to choose a setting that is so disfigured with bad taste and clueless expats. Still, the City and Dubai branches must be first-rate.

Soon after, I am in Doha, and again the Euro-Gulf linkage is inescapable. The emir of Qatar is back from a state visit to Britain, where the hosts were angling for a trade deal. Swiss-headquartered Fifa has just given the World Cup hosting rights to Saudi Arabia. Even in skyscraper-free Muscat, where alleys that might have been rationalised elsewhere in the Gulf twist freely behind the corniche, three restaurants in my hotel are outposts of Mayfair brands.

What a shame the word “Eurabia” is taken. And by such cranks. (It is a far-right term for a supposed plot to Islamise Europe.) Because we are going to need a word for this relationship. The Arabian peninsula has what Europe lacks: space, natural wealth and the resulting budget surpluses to invest in things. For its part, Europe has “soft” assets that Gulf states must acquire, host or emulate to carve out a post-oil role in the world. This isn’t the Gulf’s deepest external connection. Not while 38 per cent of people in the UAE and a quarter in Qatar are Indian. But it might be the most symbiotic, if I understand that word correctly.

True, the US has a defence presence in all six Gulf Cooperation Council states. This includes the Saudi footprint that Osama bin Laden wasn’t super-stoked about. But everyday contact? America is a 15-hour flight away. Its soft assets are either harder to buy or less coveted. Its citizens have little fiscal incentive to live in tax havens, as Uncle Sam charges them at least some of the difference.

In the 1970s, when Opec profits gushed through London, Anthony Burgess wrote a dystopia in which grand hotels became “al-Klaridges” and “al-Dorchester”. What a mental jolt it was for even the worldliest Europeans to see — we mustn’t pussyfoot around this — non-white people with more money than them. Still, they could condescend to the Gulf as being no place to live. Half a century on, their grandchildren would call that copium. In fact, their grandchildren might literally live there for economic opportunities. (Al-Dorado?) As a banker friend explains it, the time zones allow you to sleep late, trade the European markets, then dine late, so it is the young ones who do a Gulf stint, not the burnouts who are my age.

For how long, though? It is the sheer unlikelihood of this tryst, between a universal rights culture and monarchical absolutism, between a mostly secular continent and the home peninsula of an ancient faith, that distinguishes it from anything I can think of. A relationship can be both necessary and untenable. It wouldn’t take much — some intra-GCC violence, say, which seemed close in 2017 — for Europe’s exposure to the Gulf to age as badly as its former openness to Russia. If Abu Dhabi-owned Manchester City are found to have committed financial chicanery, a chunk of Premier League history will be tainted. Because it is “just” sport, I sense people are underprepared for the backlash.

And it is parochial to assume that the relationship could only ever break down on one end. It is the Gulf side that has to make the awkwardest cultural adjustments. Because Europeans associate 1979 with Iran and perhaps with Margaret Thatcher, they sometimes pass over the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by zealots who thought the House of Saud had grown soft on western habits. Governments in the region assuredly don’t forget.

How far a place can liberalise without tripping a cultural wire occupies (and is answered differently in) each state, or emirate. Everyone is very nice to “Mister Janan” in his Doha hotel. But the metal scanners that must be passed on each re-entry to the building stand as a reminder of the stakes here. I wonder if Europe and the Gulf throw so much into their liaison out of a niggling doubt that it can last.

Email Janan at janan.ganesh@ft.com

Find out about our latest stories first — follow FT Weekend on Instagram and X, and sign up to receive the FT Weekend newsletter every Saturday morning

News

Fox News headed for trial, again, over 2020 election fraud claims

Published

10 hours ago

January 11, 2025

Press Room

Fox News headed for trial, again, over 2020 election fraud claims

Fox News appears headed for trial over false election fraud claims made after the 2020 election, after a New York state appellate court chose not to dismiss a lawsuit brought by voting tech company Smartmatic.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images/Getty Images North America

hide caption

toggle caption

Spencer Platt/Getty Images/Getty Images North America

Fox News appears to be headed once more to court over the lies involving election fraud it aired about the 2020 presidential race. This time, it’s over the false claims that election tech company Smartmatic sabotaged the re-election of then-President Donald Trump.

In April 2023, on the eve of a trial in Delaware in which Fox founder Rupert Murdoch was set to testify, the network and its parent corporation agreed to pay $787.5 million to settle a defamation suit filed by Dominion Voting Systems.

Fox News settles blockbuster defamation lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems

A flood of revelations from the pre-trial process of discovery yielded damning internal communications. The judge found that network figures from junior producers to primetime hosts, network executives, Murdoch and his son Lachlan knew that Joe Biden had won the election fairly. Yet, they allowed guests to spread lies that Trump had been cheated of victory to win back Trump viewers. Some hosts amplified and even embraced the claims.

Now, an appellate court ruling in New York state is allowing Smartmatic’s parallel, $2.7 billion suit to press ahead. The same ruling also dismissed some counts against the network’s parent company, Fox Corp.

Pro-Trump Fox hosts including Maria Bartiromo and the late Lou Dobbs invited guests making unsubstantiated and wild claims about Smartmatic on the air, and at times appeared to endorse those allegations themselves.

Fox forced Dobbs off the air just a day after Smartmatic filed its suit in February 2021. Two weeks later, Fox News and Fox Business Network ran an awkward segment with a voting tech expert, Edward Perez, to present viewers with a rebuttal to those outlandish claims. Newsmax, a right-wing channel in competition with Fox for viewers who supported Trump, did much the same.

“Today, the New York Supreme Court rebuffed Fox Corporation’s latest attempt to escape responsibility for the defamation campaign it orchestrated against Smartmatic following the 2020 election,” Smartmatic’s lead attorney, Erik Connolly, said in a statement. “Fox Corporation attempted, and failed, to have this case dismissed, and it must now answer for its actions at trial. Smartmatic is seeking several billion in damages for the defamation campaign that Fox News and Fox Corporation are responsible for executing. We look forward to presenting our evidence at trial.”

Unlike Dominion, whose voting machines were used in two dozen states, Smartmatic says its technology was used only in Los Angeles County in 2020. Fox has sharply questioned the value of Smartmatic and the contracts it says were jeopardized and lost.

“We will be ready to defend this case surrounding extremely newsworthy events when it goes to trial,” a network spokesperson said in a statement. “As a report prepared by our financial expert shows, Smartmatic’s damages claims are implausible, disconnected from reality, and on their face intended to chill First Amendment freedoms.”

In the Dominion case, Fox also relied on arguments that its shows and hosts were simply relaying inherently newsworthy allegations from inherently newsworthy people — the then-president and his allies. The presiding judge in Delaware, Eric M. Davis, rejected that argument; he found that Fox’s executives, stars, and shows had broadcast false claims and defamed Dominion in doing so.

Fox has said that the New York case offers a new venue, with slightly different implications, although Davis applied New York defamation law in his Delaware proceedings.

Fox settled, as it has in many other cases, before opening arguments of the trial with Dominion. It maintains it will fight the allegations Smartmatic is making in court.