Crimea sets dangerous precedent for Asia

[unhappycamper]

http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-270314.html



Crimea sets dangerous precedent for Asia
By Victor Cha
Mar 27, '14

Russian President Vladimir Putin is a threat to Asia. Let me explain why. His invasion of Georgia in 2008 and now Ukraine are blatant acts of aggression. Placing troops in Crimea is a violation of the sovereignty of another nation and reflects a desire on the part of Putin to re-establish some sense of preeminence enjoyed by the Soviet Union before its breakup. Of course, the referendum in Crimea last weekend dresses up Russian actions in the language of self-determination, but this is a blatant violation of international rules and norms.

What is most frustrating is that there is little that the United States can do to counter these actions. Washington can condemn Russia. It can refuse to recognize the referendum in Crimea. The United States can push for sanctions. It can invite Ukrainian leaders to the White House and take pictures with them. But in the end, Russia gets what it wants, largely because it has a higher level of commitment to the issue, while the United States does not. The United States is not going to go to war with Russia over Crimea.

So why should this matter for Asia? After all, Crimea is a distant place of marginal interest to most Asians. However, if Putin is able to pull off a fait accompli against Crimea based on the perception of a lack of US resolve or commitment, then what is to stop others from thinking the same way? Why shouldn't Xi Jinping think the same way regarding the claim of another air defense identification zone (ADIZ)? Or why shouldn't Kim Jong-eun feel that a fait accompli action in the West Sea would work to his advantage?

Crimea shows that power matters less than commitment. And as powerful as the United States is, it is not as committed to Crimea as Russia. The danger of Putin's actions is the "demonstration effect" - it sets a bad precedent for others to follow.