̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - diplomacy

Russia-Ukraine ‘off-ramp’: potential plan drafted by Cambridge peace negotiator

fpjl2 — Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:27:02 +0000

Update (16 March): Prof Weller has now published a Possible Draft of a Framework Agreement on the Restoration of Peaceful Relations between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

Cambridge, 14 March – A “finely balanced formula” in which the disputed Donbas regions have increased self-governance but remain Ukrainian, and a tacit “status quo” for Crimea is agreed along with rights for minority groups, could help provide an “off-ramp” for both sides in Russia’s war on Ukraine.

This is according to a proposed settlement designed by Marc Weller, Professor of International Law at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and leading legal expert, who has mediated in a wide range of conflicts for the United Nations and others, including Kosovo, Syria, Yemen and Russian-occupied Transnistria.

Weller’s suggested deal would see NATO maintain its “open door” policy but grant Russia medium-term assurances on an effective moratorium for Ukraine, and possibly Moldova and Georgia, while allowing Sweden and Finland access if wished.

While nuclear arms controlled by the United States remain in Europe, the peace plan compels a return to negotiations on limitations of intermediate-range nuclear weapons on both sides, as part of several “confidence-building” steps.

Importantly, Weller argues that no agreement should intrude on pursuing Russian accountability for the horrific war crimes witnessed by the world in recent weeks, which may ultimately see demands for trillions of dollars in reparations to Ukraine.

His proposal is published by international law forum Opinio Juris in the form of a draft outline agreement.

“A settlement will only be possible when victory is unlikely, or when losses imposed upon either side by a continuation of conflict become truly unbearable,” said Weller. “That moment may come sooner or later, but in any event, we be must be ready to help establish peace.”

“ ̽��ֱ��sense of outrage and injustice on the part of Ukraine will be difficult to overcome. It is vital the Ukrainian government is not pressured into accepting outcomes that reward a war of aggression.”

Moscow demands recognition of the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk, the “states” in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region recognised by Russia at the outset of the conflict.

Their supposed independence was cynically used by Russia to argue a right of self-defence of these purportedly sovereign states, says Weller. He argues that these are “non-states”, and backing for purported statehood is not possible under international law.

Weller advocates a revised version of 2015’s Minsk II agreement that Russia has long complained was never fully implemented – one offering plenty of autonomy to both districts yet keeping them within Ukraine’s sovereign territory.

His proposed compromise, a form of “asymmetrical federation”, would see overall claims of statehood abandoned, but areas – or Oblasts – within the Donbas that have ethnic or linguistic majorities be given greatly enhanced local self-governance.

“Unless Donetsk and Luhansk walk back their unfeasible claims to statehood, they will remain trapped in the twilight of international isolation, even with Russia propping them up,” said Weller, a Fellow of Hughes Hall.

“A settlement that keeps them as Ukrainian provinces but in an environment of self-government – almost virtual statehood – will allow both Oblasts authority over all their territory, rather than just the third taken by force in 2014,” he said.

“This would be balanced by internationally guaranteed rights to genuine local elections and safeguards for the right of minority populations – whether Russian speaking or Ukrainian.”

International observers should be maintained throughout to reassure populations of all backgrounds, says Weller, as should the possibility of cross-border links to the Russian Federation to placate separatist groups.

While cease-fire and retreat of forces – along with full humanitarian access – are conditions that underpin the settlement, Russian withdrawal from the Donbas regions could be subject to a “transitional phase”. “However, Ukraine must not suffer de-facto division forever more as a consequence of turning the invasion into a frozen conflict,” Weller said.

Crimea cannot be formally recognised as part of Russia, Weller contends, regardless of Kremlin demands. However, both sides could pledge not to challenge the “territorial status quo” of the situation as of 23 February 2022 forcibly or perhaps in general terms, for the sake of hostility cessation.

This balancing act would require international cooperation to secure rights for Crimea’s non-Russian speakers, and see the region’s Tatars – a mainly Muslim population persecuted during the Soviet years – benefit from a restoration of the ethnic minority “special protection” they once had.

While NATO’s “open door” policy will remain unshakeable in principle, Washington has already floated possible moratoria on Ukraine membership. Any settlement could adapt this into a self-imposed limitation by Ukraine for a given period of time – expressed through a legally binding unilateral declaration. Weller argues that such commitments could extend to Georgia and Moldova if needed.

He also outlines “Cooperative European Security Architecture” strategies to help reassure eastern European states that will not join NATO in the medium-term.

This would draw on existing arrangements as well as establish further steps to build transparency and keep regional tensions in check: rules for military flights toward national borders; prior notice agreements for military manoeuvres; arms limitations in key areas, supported by third-party verification.

Read more about the proposed settlement from Marc Weller in the Scotsman.

An international law expert outlines terms for a possible agreement on Ukraine, including proposals for the Donbas and Crimea regions, and a 'Cooperative European Security Architecture'.

It is vital the Ukrainian government is not pressured into accepting outcomes that reward a war of aggression

Marc Weller

Ministry of Defence Ukraine

A Ukrainian soldier near the front lines in the Donbas region in 2015

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-ShareAlike

Opinion: Brexit and the importance of languages for Britain #4

ta385 — Wed, 19 Oct 2016 07:00:46 +0000

Cambridge, in partnership with the Universities of Edinburgh, Nottingham and Queen’s Belfast, has recently been awarded a major AHRC grant under the Open World Research Initiative to promote modern languages in the UK. ̽��ֱ��project, Multilingualism: Empowering Individuals, Transforming Societies, which will look not just at modern language learning but also at the role and value of the community and heritage languages of the UK, has a strong policy dimension.

Whereas questions of language policy have long been at the heart of French Government thinking, for instance, with legislation and policies to protect the French language at home and to promote it internationally, the UK lacks a coherent policy on languages and champions for languages either at ministerial level or within Whitehall. ̽��ֱ��Scottish Government is to be applauded for adopting the EU’s policy that everyone should speak their mother tongue plus two other languages, yet there are serious concerns about its implementation, not least in the light of severe shortages of trained modern languages teachers.

One of the major themes of the project will be the role of languages in social cohesion, a theme which has gained renewed urgency in the light of the Brexit vote. Multilingualism can clearly benefit individuals, enhance communities and enrich cultures. But there is a real danger that it can be perceived as diluting culture, dividing communities and fragmenting societies, as is evident in some of the areas we have chosen for our case studies: Catalonia, the Ukraine and Northern Ireland.

In Northern Ireland, for instance, language policy has been developed within the context of a fractured community, and the heritage languages of the two major ethnic communities are treated as a separate political issue to that of modern foreign languages. Yet, there are positive signs as to how language learning can promote social cohesion and peace-building.

̽��ֱ��team will be working with Co-Operation Ireland (the all-island peace-building charity) and particularly its LEGaSI project which seeks to develop leadership skills and confidence in disenfranchised loyalist communities. ̽��ֱ��alienation of these two communities from Irish language and culture is being tackled in two ways: first, through the study of place names. In showing that Irish is part of the shared ‘linguistic landscape’ of Northern Ireland, greater awareness of the rootedness of the linguistic traditions is promoted across the whole community. Empowerment of loyalist communities, including former paramilitaries, is also being facilitated through language training in Irish. This allows them to feel some ownership of the language as well as developing the soft diplomatic skills which will help them to negotiate respectfully across the community divide.

Learning modern languages, then, is not just about being able to order a coffee in a Parisian café. Languages are central to many of the key issues of our time, including national security, diplomacy and conflict resolution, community and social cohesion, migration and identity. Understanding linguistic and cultural diversity, which comes with learning modern languages, is important not just for individuals, but also for developing more effective and respectful policy.

Professor Ayres-Bennett is the co-author of the ̽��ֱ��’s 2016 report ̽��ֱ��Value of Languages which makes the case for a UK Government strategy on languages across a number of fronts including business, education and diplomacy. On 17th October 2016, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages welcomed the report's contribution and called on the Government to make language education a key policy issue.

In the fourth of a new series of comment pieces written by linguists at Cambridge, Wendy Ayres-Bennett, Professor of French Philology and Linguistics, argues that the UK Government needs a coherent policy on languages as the country prepares to leave the EU.

Languages are central to many of the key issues of our time, including national security, diplomacy and conflict resolution, community and social cohesion, migration and identity.

Professor Wendy Ayres-Bennett

Who wants to talk?

Studying languages at Cambridge

̽��ֱ�� ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge offers undergraduate courses in Modern and Medieval Languages; History and Modern Languages; Asian and Middle Eastern Studies;Linguistics; Classics and Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic.

Inspiring events for prospective students for these subjects are run by the ̽��ֱ�� and the Cambridge Colleges throughout the year:

More information and advice for prospective students and teachers of Modern Languages and Asian and Middle Eastern Studies

Upcoming events organised by ̽��ֱ�� ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Language Centre are listed here

More information about Cambridge's Widening Participation programmes is available here

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommerical

Thatcher Archive reveals deep divisions on the road to Falklands War

lw355 — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:01:01 +0000

Government tensions and widespread reluctance to wage war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, even as the conflict unfolded, are laid bare among the thousands of pages of Thatcher’s papers being opened to the public and made available online by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation at http://www.margaretthatcher.org/

Among the 40,000 pages of documents being released is Thatcher’s own copy of the note confirming the Argentine invasion of the Islands, and an emotionally-charged draft letter to President Reagan, eventually toned down, where she resolutely refuses American overtures to concede ground to Argentina’s military dictatorship.

A previously unseen 12-page record made by Ian Gow, Thatcher’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, following the appearance of Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington and Defence Secretary John Nott at the backbench 1922 committee, describes how the tenor of that tense exchange informed Carrington’s much-lamented decision to resign.

Thatcher’s attempts to dissuade him came to nought and the archive contains a warm letter of explanation from Carrington to Thatcher, and a touching letter by return from the Prime Minister on May 4, 1982, relating how much she and the Cabinet missed his presence.

But the papers released this year also contain evidence of less cordial relations and weak support at best from large sections of the Conservative Parliamentary Party in the build-up to war.

Critics of Government policy could be found inside Downing Street as well as outside. Some of Thatcher’s closest advisors were sceptical that the islands were worth the fight with John Hoskyns, David Wolfson and Alan Waters, all staunch Thatcherites, persistently lobbying her to strike for a diplomatic deal with Argentina.

Outside Number 10, junior ministers Tim Raison and Ken Clarke as well as Stephen Dorrell and Chris Patten were also expressing alarm; Dorrell for one saying he would only support the Task Force as a negotiating measure - and advocating a withdrawal if the military Junta in Argentina refused to negotiate.

All this only accentuated an important effect of the war, driving the Prime Minister ever deeper into the heart of the government machine where only a handful of her most senior ministers and officials could follow.

On Tuesday, April 6, four days after the Argentine invasion, Thatcher met with former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, seeking his advice on handling the looming conflict. While there was no official minute of the meeting, Thatcher’s own note survives. It references the now famous advice from Macmillan not to have Chancellor Geoffrey Howe in her War Cabinet so that money would not be an issue in making military decisions, and also details his counsel on handling war correspondents – essentially to restrict, if not censor them, as much as possible.

However, as the situation in the South Atlantic worsened in the face of Argentine intransigence and fighting began, wider Conservative and opposition support eventually began to fall in place behind the Prime Minister.

Critics remained, however, and the archive for 1982 contains sharp exchanges with Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Hume, who challenged the morality of the Government’s action, and even Astronomer Royal Martin Ryle, who described the occupation as a ‘relatively minor event’ – a view tersely rebutted by Thatcher.

̽��ֱ��personal sadness she felt at the loss of life during the Falklands War is reflected in the keeping of notes such as the slip of paper handed to her on June 12, relaying that HMS Glamorgan had been hit by an Exocet missile, with casualties at that point unknown. Elsewhere, the archive records instances of the Prime Minister anxiously awaiting news and reading long into the early hours of the morning as losses mounted and the British and Argentine forces traded heavy blows.

News that the Argentinians had surrendered came in a call from Fleet Command at Northwood at 9pm on Monday, June 14. ̽��ֱ��Thatcher Archives has her notes on the call, as well as her annotated copy of John Nott’s celebrated earlier statement announcing the recapture of South Georgia, nearly two months earlier on April 25.

̽��ֱ��‘Falklands Factor’ famously led to a huge post-war boost in the Prime Minister’s own popularity rating, as well as the Government’s. She connected the conflict to domestic issues, asking in a famous speech ‘why does it need a war to bring out our qualities and assert our pride?’.

Despite looming large over much of 1982, the Falklands were not the only overseas challenge to the Prime Minister. Thatcher’s first big visit after the Falklands War was to Japan, China and Hong Kong. ̽��ֱ��Chinese leg of the trop was particularly significant as it kicked off the long negotiation on the return of Hong Kong to China.

̽��ֱ��archives reveal something of the vast preparation she personally undertook for the visit to the Far East, especially China. She felt obliged to examine every detail of the trip, wary of the symbolism of each visit and determined to make a powerful impression at every point.

Among the papers at Churchill are a list of clothes she was planning to wear, meeting by meeting (all the outfits were given names such as Smoky, Fuchsia and Plum Stars), and the archive also contains details of her outright refusal to lay at wreath at the Monument to Revolutionary Martyrs in Tiananmen Square, despite being advised that many Western heads of government had recently done so. She simply scrawls ‘NO’ in capped letters next to the suggestion.

She also spent an astonishing amount of time planning the British return banquet (held in the Great Hall of the People) where she oversaw cutlery arrangements and the silver table settings supplied by the Royal Navy. Ever keen to cut costs, whether in the British economy or domestically, Thatcher also waded in on a ridiculous argument about the cost of the banquet; the PM favouring the cheaper 50 Yuan option but eventually being persuaded to accept the 75 Yuan menu which contained shark’s fin and sea slugs.

She also became embroiled in a heated dispute about the possibility of serving jam sandwiches for dessert (considered a treat for foreign visitors). Meriting official discussion with the Foreign Office, Thatcher opted for a fruit salad dessert instead.

Despite the care and attention put into seemingly every aspect of the Far East trip, the archive confirms her meetings with the Chinese leadership did not run smoothly. Papers released this year relate for the first time that Communist Party Chairman Deng Xiaoping threatened to move into Hong Kong before the expiry of the lease in 1997 if there were ‘very large and serious disturbances in the next fifteen years’, even going so far as to mention HSBC by name as a potential agent of such disturbances.

Away from the seriousness of war and international political wrangling, Thatcher also spent one evening in 1982 in the company of the man behind the world’s most famous drag queen – Dame Edna Everage. While not attending in full and glittering regalia, Barry Humphries did give Mrs Thatcher a Dame Edna cooking apron for ‘informal lunches at Chequers’. ̽��ֱ��archive also contains record of an amazing literary dinner at the home of Hugh Thomas where she sat down with Larkin, Spender, Stoppard, Berlin and the like. However, records note that Iris Murdoch and John Le Carre, a grudging admirer, were unable to attend.

For Christmas 1982, the archive also reveals she was sent tapes of Yes, Minister, by the Director-General of the BBC, Alisdair Milne.

̽��ֱ��Falklands War – the conflict that defined much of Margaret Thatcher’s political career and legacy – dominates the release of her personal papers for 1982 at the Churchill Archives Centre from Monday (March 25).

Among the 40,000 pages of documents being released is Thatcher’s own copy of the note confirming the Argentine invasion of the Islands

British Army official photographer Sgt Ronald Hudson

After landing at San Carlos, a heavily laden paratrooper of 2 Parachute Regiment heads south for Sussex Mountain on 21 May 1982. From there the Battalion attacked Goose Green.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommerical

Global politics on the agenda at Hay

bjb42 — Sun, 22 May 2011 12:40:28 +0000

How can global organisations be more representative of rising powers? It's one of the big issues of our times as we witness enormous shifts in the world's power dynamics, but it's not a new one.

Amrita Narlikar heads a new centre at Cambridge which uniquely attempts to look at the impact of rising global powers by placing it in a historical as well as political and economic context. She will talk about one aspect of this work – world trade – at the forthcoming Hay Festival [26 May to 5 June], where she joins 17 others ̽��ֱ�� speakers as part of the Cambridge series.

Dr Narlikar's talk will centre on the World Trade Organisation, but will broach wider questions of multilateral reform. “ ̽��ֱ��WTO is a fantastic example of attempts to accommodate the new powers like Brazil, China and India – the opportunities this presents and the unanticipated problems,” she says.

She adds that the WTO is quite distinctive as it has responded fairly well to the rise of new powers compared to other global institutions, such as the UN Security Council. It has given the new powers a major role in high table negotiations and decision-making. “It is one of the few organisations that has responded. You would expect this to make the balance of power fairer, but lots of unanticipated challenges have resulted,” she argues.

One of the positives is a greater diversity of players, but this has slowed down decision-making. Increasing the number of players coming to the table with different viewpoints has created a situation of recurrent deadlock. Trade rounds are taking longer to finish and, as a result, people are becoming more disengaged from the discussions, says Dr Narlikar.

Another problem is that, although there has been a broadening of the decision-makers at the WTO, the actual process of decision-making has not been reformed. It still relies on reaching a consensus on the issues being discussed. “That worked when the GATT talks were a rich man's club, a small group of countries which agreed with each other. It's very different when there is a diversity of countries at the core, with allies in the developing world. Consensus-based decision-making breaks down,” says Dr Narlikar.

Her talk will argue the need for the decision-making process to adapt to a more pluralistic system. “ ̽��ֱ��current system greatly delays the benefits of increasing diversification and creates a very polarised system which is not good if we value stability,” she says.

̽��ֱ��Centre for Rising Powers, which had its inaugural lecture on 12 May, is different from the other new country-specific research centres which has sprung up in response to the rise of the BRICs, says Dr Narlikar. ̽��ֱ��CRP looks at the rise and fall of powers theoretically and historically and how they negotiate and bargain for a place at the power table. “People are behaving as if this transition period has never happened before, but it is a deep-rooted phenomenon and there is always the risk of systemic upheaval,” says Dr Narlikar. “Further, as power transitions seldom happen in a vacuum, the Centre is just as interested in the established powers and other members of the international system that have to deal with, manage, or withstand the rise of new powers.”

̽��ֱ��CRP is very interdisciplinary – its steering committee includes academics with a background in economics, history and political science as well as practitioners. Dr Narlikar highlights that the Centre is committed to cutting-edge research, but with a view to informing and engaging with policy. Other events planned for the future include a panel discussion with former British ambassadors to Brazil, India and China.

Dr Narlikar's talk is just one of a range of sessions being given by Cambridge academics at the Hay Festival. They cover everything from Renaissance costume to liberal ideas about toleration to the history of astronomy. For full details, click here.

Ahead of her talk at the Hay Festival, Dr Amrita Narlikar, Director of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge's new Centre for Rising Powers, discusses how countries like Brazil and China are changing the shape of global politics.

Consensus-based decision-making worked when trade talks were a rich man's club. It's very different with a diversity of countries at the core. 

Dr Amrita Narlikar

scazon

Flag of the United Nations.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Power in the balance

bjb42 — Wed, 11 May 2011 11:08:11 +0000

̽��ֱ��Centre for Rising Powers will bring together academics from different subject areas whose research touches on one of the most important questions in international relations: How different powers rise to the top of international politics, and how to predict the impact they will have when they do so?

Its formal launch will take place this Thursday (12 May), with an inaugural lecture given by Joseph Nye, ̽��ֱ�� Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard ̽��ֱ�� and one of the most influential researchers in the field of foreign policy and international relations.

Professor Nye is a former chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, served as Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Security Affairs under President Bill Clinton and currently co-chairs both America’s main cyber security project and the Advisory board of the USC Centre on Public Diplomacy. His lecture will be on the future of US-China relations.

In keeping with his theme, some of the Centre’s research will concern the big, emerging powers of the present day – in particular the so-called BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China. All four are expected to figure in the list of leading world economies by the year 2050, raising questions about the challenge they will pose to the liberal, western powers who have effectively dictated the course of international politics since the end of the Cold War.

Uniquely, however, the Centre for Rising Powers will also look beyond the immediate cases of the 21^st century. Researchers will also look at historical cases to understand more about how new powers emerge, how they can be accommodated, and the effect that this has on international stability in different cases. ̽��ֱ��rise and fall of Germany in the 19^th and 20^th centuries, or the emergence of the USA or the Soviet Union as global leaders over the course of the 20^th, could in this sense provide lessons for the future as valuable as those which can be drawn from the study of rising powers today.

̽��ֱ��changes which occur as a result of transitions in the world order are felt far beyond established corridors of power. By altering the course of international politics, these countries also impact on the global response to issues such as climate change, trade, international finance, migration, poverty reduction and international security. Far more than diplomacy alone rests on having a clear understanding of their intentions, their negotiating behaviour, and what the consequences of their leadership on such issues are likely to be.

̽��ֱ��findings which emerge from the Centre’s research will be fed back to international policy-makers. ̽��ֱ��new Centre already has links with various think-tanks, policy institutions and private sector organisations, and seminars, conferences and workshops in which research can be communicated back to these groups will be held by the Centre on a regular basis.

Dr Amrita Narlikar, Director of the Centre for Rising Powers, said: “Power transitions are one of the main sources of deadlock and conflict on the world stage, but they also have the potential to act as sources of renewal and change for the better.”

“As a result, the study of how powers rise and how the process should be handled has a direct impact on international co-operation, peace and stability – and on more general values such as efficiency, fairness and justice in the global order. ̽��ֱ��research that the Centre produces will, in some form or other, be of international policy relevance.”

̽��ֱ��inaugural lecture of the Centre for Rising Powers will be given by Professor Joseph Nye in the Old Library, Pembroke College, on Thursday, 12 May, 2011. For more information about the Centre for Rising Powers, its members and its work, please visit the website: https://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/

A new research hub dedicated to the study of emerging powers and how different nations evolve to become leading political forces on the world stage, is being created at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Power transitions are one of the main sources of deadlock and conflict on the world stage, but they also have the potential to act as sources of renewal and change for the better.

Dr Amrita Narlikar

Radar Communications from Flickr

United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes