Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to amend the private member's motion relating to Ukraine in the terms circulated to honourable members.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That this House:

(1) expresses its grave concerns regarding the situation in Ukraine, and in particular, the referendum held in Crimea on Sunday 16 March, which was not authorised by the Ukrainian Parliament and therefore cannot form the legitimate basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea;

(2) calls on the Russian government to respect Ukraine's sovereignty, withdraw its troops and keep open the channels for critical dialogue;

(3) calls on the Government of Ukraine to continue to exercise restraint in the face of provocation; and

(4) acknowledges the steps taken by the Australian Government in support of a peaceful resolution to the dispute.

The situation in Ukraine remains serious, with the potential for military confrontation. The decision by Crimean authorities to hold a referendum on the territory's future is deeply unhelpful. The Ukrainian government has been clear that the vote is a violation of the Ukrainian constitution. The vote was carried out with great haste, with little time for effective preparation and with no independent election observers. Australia has called on Russia to cease and desist from its blatantly aggressive actions against another sovereign nation—specifically, to stop actions in support of this flawed referendum, to withdraw its military forces in Ukraine back to their bases and to engage constructively with the government of Ukraine to map out a peaceful way forward that takes into account the safety and security of all Ukrainians.

Russia must respect international law.    Russia's actions violate Ukraine's sovereignty and are an attack on Ukraine's territorial integrity.    These actions are a clear violation of Russia's international legal obligations, including, most fundamentally, the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force. These are not the actions of a responsible and senior member of the international community.

It is timely that I update the House on Australia's actions to date. The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, has been very strong in her actions to date. On 3 March, the Prime Minister announced the cancellation of the visit to Russia by the Minister for Trade and Investment and the visit to Australia by the secretary of Russia's security council. The foreign minister issued a media release on 2 March regarding the unacceptability of Russia's actions, stating clearly Australia's unequivocal support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and the importance of urgent dialogue to step back from this crisis.    The foreign minister has underlined those views, as has the Prime Minister, in media interviews and in parliament.

On 3 March the secretary of DFAT called in the Russian ambassador at the foreign minister's request to convey to him Australia's views in clear terms and ensure that those views are sent directly to the Russian government. Australia has addressed the issue in the United Nations Security Council, of which we are a member.

In addition, Minister Bishop, jointly with Minister Morrison, issued a media release on 5 March, announcing that Ukrainian nationals in Australia on visas that are due to expire and who may be affected by the unrest in Ukraine will be able to apply for an extension to their visas. Any United Nations Security Council action censuring Russia, including a resolution, requires agreement of the five permanent members of the council. Although Russia can oppose any proposal for the UNSC action, as we saw on Saturday, 15 March, Russia has been isolated in the UN Security Council. Australia is encouraging UN Secretary-General Ban to continue to exercise the role of his good offices.

The situation is clearly untenable, and the foreign minister has been working hard, particularly in relation to Australia's temporary position on the United Nations Security Council and closely with the United Kingdom and with other Security Council members, not only in relation to Ukraine but on other issues in the region as well that will have a great impact. There have been very productive discussions by the foreign minister with foreign minister William Hague and also with the British National Security Council. Particularly, the foreign minister has been working to learn about the EU's perspective on the United Kingdom, on Russia's intervention in the Ukraine and on the referendum.

There are some deeply flawed issues in this whole process—firstly, the way the referendum has been conducted, as I mentioned. There is no provision in the Ukrainian constitution for a regional referendum on the question of succession, so it is unconstitutional. Secondly, why are there Russian troops in Crimea? There is a suggestion that there is an enormous level of intimidation of the people by having those troops present at the same time as a referendum. There are many, many issues that need to be considered here.

There have been a number of international experts in this area—including Ali Amidi, who recently wrote an online piece about all of the arguments, legal and otherwise, that Russia has been putting forward. And I want to go through some of those. One of the legal arguments Russia has resorted to is that it is ready to exercise military intervention in the Ukraine in order to save the lives of ethnic Russian people in Crimea and the Ukraine. This was mentioned in a letter that was sent to the Russian parliament by Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials, who have also frequently had cause to emphasise this. But this argument is very, very flawed, because the ethnic Russian people living in Ukraine and Crimea are not considered Russian nationals. So Russia is not legally authorised to resort to saving citizens and trying to find a way to protect them. Also, these people are not facing the threat of discrimination, criminal acts against them or any other major risks that might provide legal grounds for that justification.

Another argument the Russians put out there is that they have to support the independence-seeking drive of the Crimean people and that it backs their bid to join Russia on the basis of humanitarian grounds. This is another argument that is extremely and deeply flawed. It is deeply flawed on the basis that humanitarian intervention has to be justified on the grounds that the people of a particular country are exposed to or are at serious risk of criminal acts or discrimination. And clearly that is not the case with the ethnic Russian people living in the Ukraine, who are not facing such a situation.

Russia has a third flawed argument in going in to launch military intervention in the Ukraine and Crimea on the invitation of the country's legal president at the moment, Mr Yanukovych. And the point is, can the president still be considered the legal president of the Ukraine government in the jargon of international law? There is a difference, as Mr Amidi points out, between a de facto and a de jour government. As a result, the interim government in Kiev is hardly considered the country's de facto government in international relations, and other states usually recognise de facto governments. Therefore, were the president the legal head of state, he would not be authorised to use foreign forces in order to divide his homeland and to accept the risk of the breakout of civil war and to ensure the risk of the possible massacre of citizens in his country.

I am very proud to be standing here on behalf of the Australian parliament to put this motion forward, and also on behalf of the many thousands of Ukrainians who live in our country and are in absolute fear of what is happening in their homeland and of what is happening to their loved ones and the families. The action taken by Russia is unacceptable, and the motion put before us here today outlines the unacceptability. The situation is a very fluid one. I support the foreign minister in her actions to date, and I hope that the opposition will join me in putting forward the motion today that clearly what has happened is a violation of the Ukrainian constitution and a violation of that country's sovereignty.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The referendum held in Crimea this weekend marked a heightening of an age-old tension. The east-versus-west tug of war over Ukraine and Crimea stretches back long before the Maidan protests made headlines. So I am pleased to get up and speak today in support of the motion that is before the House.

In the 18th century Crimea was one of the regions fought over by Catherine the Great's Russia and the Ottoman Empire. In the mid-19th century imperial Russia and imperial Britain's ongoing tussle for Central Asia manifested in the Crimean War. And in the early 20th century, following the Russian Revolution and civil war, the defeated and once Western-backed White Army was evacuated through Crimea. In 1954, under Soviet Premier Khrushchev, himself a Ukrainian, Crimea was passed from Russia to Ukraine—a purely symbolic gesture, given that at that stage it was all a part of the USSR.

In 2004-05 the Orange Revolution saw a Western-backed government come to power, and then in 2010 the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych was elected. Although at that stage the elections were described as fair, President Yanukovych subsequently imprisoned opposition figures and changed the constitution to give the office of president greater power. This history of conflict is fed by Ukraine's own demographic polarisation. Ukrainian-speaking parts in the west of the country and largely Russian-speaking parts in the east are described as having contrasting architecture, political views and even historical heroes. And election results from the past decade reveal a clear dividing line between the voting patterns in the east and the west. Last year when President Yanukovych rejected a deal for closer integration with the European Union, protests broke out in Kiev. As we know, this resulted in the government's overthrow and Russia's attempts to annex Crimea.

Half a world away in Australia some people ask what difference it makes to us here. Of course, members of the House know that we have very strong Russian and Ukrainian populations here in Australia. Both countries have been sources of migration to Australia, and many Australians of Ukrainian or Russian background have enormous concern for their friends and family who are in Ukraine at the moment.

More broadly, the dangerous stand-off in the Ukraine has serious implications for the global security environment. That means Australia should have a view, and should express its view internationally. Russia's behaviour highlights the danger of countries adopting a zero-sum game world view. President Vladimir Putin's move suggests a belief that Ukraine must choose between close ties with Europe and a good relationship with Russia. I believe that a majority of the members of this House certainly would not accept the view that Ukraine must choose between closer integration with Europe and a good relationship with Russia. The justifications offered by Russia do not match their actions. The massive troop movements, takeover of important sites, the referendum in Crimea, and the incursion into the mainland—particularly over the weekend—are clearly an excessive response to what Russia states is their concern for ethnic Russians in the Ukraine.

Unfortunately, throughout the years we have seen previous examples of this, where ordinary citizens expressing a desire for a greater say in the running of their country have their movement highjacked, so one great power can achieve a strategic victory against another. Zero-sum foreign policy thinking threatens international peace and prosperity. This includes the disregard for international law. The G7 issued a statement saying:

The annexation of Crimea could have grave implications for the legal order that protects the unity and sovereignty of all states.

The G7 added that it would be:

A clear violation of the United Nations Charter; Russia's commitments under the Helsinki Final Act; its obligations to Ukraine under its 1997 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership; the Russian-Ukraine 1997 basing agreement; and its commitments in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.

I have mentioned in the past the concern regarding the disregard of the Budapest Memorandum. This was a deal that involved Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons that were left on Ukrainian soil after the dispersal of the USSR. In return for giving up those Soviet era nuclear weapons to Russia there were commitments from the US and the UK, and of course Russia itself, that Ukraine's sovereignty and independence would be respected—and that there would be no use of force, or threat of the use of force, and that there would be no economic coercion of the Ukraine. It is very difficult to see or understand how a country can be encouraged to give up nuclear weapons, or not build them, if assurances made for the security and integrity of that country are not kept. It begs the question of why any country would give up nuclear weapons, or not build them, if those assurances are not kept.

The crisis may also have economic implications, with the repatriation of billions of dollars between the West and Russia following the threat of western sanctions. While Australia's ability to influence events in the Ukraine is somewhat limited, we can and should do a number of things. We can utilise the diplomatic leverage we have at the United Nations Security Council, to add our voice to the global calls for a diplomatic solution that adheres to international law—voting at gunpoint is not true democracy. Australia can support international efforts to apply economic means to resolve the crisis peacefully, and we can contribute to the international financial support for Ukraine.

We can, and should, and must argue very clearly that the sort of zero-sum thinking we have seen recently in the Ukraine is not the way to see foreign relations. These sentiments were echoed by Secretary of State Kerry earlier in the conflict. Win-win solutions are possible, particularly for Russia and the Ukraine.

We hope that during her recent meetings in Britain the Minister for Foreign Affairs has used the opportunity to inject Australia's longstanding principles of multilateralism, and peace and respect for international law, when it comes to talks on Ukraine.

On the ground level, I can say that I have spoken personally to our honorary consul in Kiev, offering Labor's support to him at this very difficult time. We must ensure that we are providing adequate consular assistance to Australians in Ukraine. It is obviously a very difficult role at the moment, and the honorary consul should be offered any assistance that we can offer him in making sure that any Australians or dual nationals who are in the Ukraine at the moment are well looked after, and the connections between us are strong and immediate.

I am also very pleased that, in the last parliamentary sitting week, the Minister for Foreign Affairs accepted my suggestion to allow Ukrainians in Australia to apply onshore for an extension of their current visa. There is of course precedent for this happening in the past. When a country is in conflict, when there are difficulties being experienced at home, and Ukrainians are visiting Australia, it makes perfect sense that they should be able to go to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and talk through their circumstances and receive a generous hearing.

Despite being half a world away, what happens in the Ukraine will likely have economic and strategic ripples that effect the entire world. Certainly those economic and strategic effects will be felt in Australia, and that is why it is so important that Australia speaks up at every opportunity to urge a peaceful resolution to the current conflict. Recent tensions in our own region underline the importance of Australia working to support a rules based international system, and looking for opportunities to emphasise that zero-sum approaches to international relations hurt us all.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support enthusiastically this motion and I thank the member for Brisbane for proposing it. I thank the member for Sydney for her support for this motion on behalf of the opposition. It is rare in this parliament that there is a unanimity of view. But I think the circumstances that face Ukraine reflect why this is the case. It was on Thursday, 21 November last year that I rose to propose a resolution to formally acknowledge on behalf of the government of Australia the 80th anniversary of the Ukrainian Holodomor. This was an engineered famine between 1932 and 1933. It was appalling. It gripped Ukraine in a way that led to the deaths of some 3.5 million people, and possibly more. There was aggressive implementation of forced collectivisation and five-year plans across the old Soviet Union immediately prior to this period. It had a profound and significant impact on Ukraine. I mention it because I want people to know that this country has endured hardship, incredible hardship, over a period of time. These events occurred in the context of, I think, forced domination in that region which has coerced people to support a form of nation that was not to their liking. This was the old Soviet Union. It reminds me of the former Yugoslavia, where states, essentially, were forced and coercively required to model themselves in a particular way. What we have seen, I think, with the passage of time is that those forced states do not survive. They did not in the former Yugoslavia; they did not with the old Soviet Union. But we are dealing with the remnants of that situation—a form of transmigration in which people were moved in order to provide for the Soviet hegemony in that region over a period of time. Those people still live in regions that were not naturally theirs and people have not walked away from the idea that they ought to be able to impose their will. And that is what, I think, we are seeing in Ukraine.

From the point of view of Russia, it is a very foolish approach that they are taking. They ought to look at Australia, where people of different cultures, different races and different religions can, in fact, live together and build a future together. I would like to think that that was possible in Ukraine. As the shadow foreign affairs minister mentioned, in 1994, when people were thinking sensibly about resolving these sorts of issues—and the European parliament recalled this in a resolution that it recently passed—the existing borders of Ukraine were guaranteed by the United States, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom in the Budapest Memorandum of Security Assurances when Ukraine relinquished nuclear weapons and joined the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The European parliament was reminding the Russian Federation that, together with the two other countries mentioned, it had committed itself to the same act of refraining from economic coercion designed to subordinate to its own interests the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty, and, thus, to secure advantage of any kind.

This is a very, very important time. Russia can position itself in way that makes it an outstanding international citizen. But it appears to be acting contrary to that. The Australian parliament, I do not believe, should approve of it; the Australian government certainly does not. I urge very strongly support for this resolution proposed by the member for Brisbane.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to speak on this motion, and I congratulate the member for Brisbane on bringing it to the parliament. Obviously, I welcome its support by the opposition and the member for Sydney, and I note the rare moments of unanimity with my colleague the member for Berowra. Obviously, Eastern Europe has had an interesting history. But one thing that has been consistent for a very long time until the beginning of this century, or the end of last century, was that people were ruled by one tyrant or another for a very long period of time. Democracy, liberty and freedom have only really recently graced these lands. So this is a rare and unique opportunity, but it is coloured, I guess, by history.

There are four principles that I think we should apply to the Ukraine. The first and foremost is that they have the right to select their own government through free and fair elections and that that government should be free of corruption and kleptocracy. There should be a right to protest. They have the right, if you like, to decide the future of their country. They should have the right to choose their own foreign policy. That seems, to me, to be a fundamental right in a nation-state. Obviously, every nation, when it is choosing its foreign policy, takes into regard its neighbours and their interests as well. But one of the fundamental things a nation-state can do is choose its own foreign policy. If Ukraine want to join the European Union or have good relationships with Europe, that should be something that the nation are free to do. Fourthly, they have the right to their own territorial integrity. These borders have been established for the last 23 years; they are not some new invention. It is Ukrainians who should decide the future of those borders, not anybody else.

What weighs over all of this is, of course, Russia. It has legitimate national, economic and security interests in the region that need to be taken into account, to have regard to, and history weighs on those. But Russia should not annex territory, and that includes the Crimea. It cannot place troops into its neighbour's territory, outside of those bases which have been agreed to in previous agreements—the member for Sydney went through those agreements—and it definitely should not have armed personnel, in uniform but without insignia, outside those authorised bases. That is a very, very distressing precedent to set because one of the key things about having armed forces is that you are able to identify them. It is a most distressing precedent to have had soldiers running around with no insignia and no clear chain of command that the world can identify so that it became very hard to pinpoint on whose authority they were acting—officially, at least, if we knew or suspected they were acting under the command of the Russian President.

Russia should not seek to use Russian language or ethnicity as a reason for breaching the territorial integrity of nation states. This would be a recipe for disaster if it were allowed to stand as a principle. It would be as disastrous as when it was previously invoked as a principle, in the case of the Sudetenland. It is a very, very dangerous precedent to set and we should not allow it to be set. We should not allow Russia to support separatism within Ukraine's autonomous regions as a method of expanding Russia's borders. As the member for Berowra has said, it is a very old-fashioned way of doing foreign policy. Russia should accept international law and the UN Security Council's legitimate concerns about its behaviour and withdraw its veto about the Crimean referendum.

Ukraine has a short independent history, just 23 years, and that history means that those in Ukraine have an obligation to govern wisely with a view to peace and stability within the region. That means taking Russia into account but not being dominated by it. Ukrainians have a right to liberty, to freedom and democracy, but these things cannot be expressed if they are under the yoke of foreign domination or foreign threat. I urge the UN to act and I congratulate the member for Brisbane for bringing this motion to the House.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by congratulating the member for Brisbane and the member for Berowra for this excellent and important motion and for bringing it to the House in a timely fashion. It is timely because today we are in the shadow of a referendum ballot which has already been labelled as illegitimate by key members of the international community, including the United States and the United Kingdom. As a free, tolerant and open democracy and as a member of the United Nations Security Council, Australia has a right to point to the concerns of the international community about the democratic legitimacy of a ballot when surrounded by military personnel, when particular ethnic minorities do not feel able to cast a vote and under the circumstances we have seen in recent weeks and months in the Crimea and Ukraine. The United States have said they consider the referendum illegal under Ukrainian law and will not recognise the outcome. The European Union has condemned the referendum. It has also called the referendum illegal and is looking at sanctions. And the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has criticised Russian activities in a personal phone call with President Putin. These serious nations committed to democracy and freedom have expressed grave concern at the process. Australia has also expressed its grave concern about the process that has occurred on the Russian side in relation to Ukraine.

This motion is worth supporting because it does acknowledge that no-one has the right to use violence in relation to territorial sovereignty and integrity. We have heard from various speakers about the agreements between nations, including with Russia, to recognise the territorial integrity of the Ukraine in return for the giving up of nuclear weapons and the establishment of the Ukraine some few decades ago. Regardless of whether there are ethnic minorities which may wish to reunite with Russia or may have different desires than to be part of the Ukraine, it is not an appropriate mechanism to resolve those concerns or tensions through the use of armed soldiers simply walking into a country; simply surrounding the polling booths where a ballot is being conducted; simply pretending that, just because they wear no insignia, people with Russian equipment and Russian gear have nothing to do with the Russians. This is of grave concern to the entire world. I thank and support the United Nations Security Council and all the nations, including nations such as China, who have tried to seek a different way to resolve the problem within the Ukraine at the moment.

The reason we need to pass a motion like this is because all free and democratic nations in the world need to take a stand. If democracy is not properly constructed—that is, if the rights of minorities are not respected in a democracy—then you simply have absolute mob rule. The rights of minorities must be respected in a democratic system, otherwise there is no freedom or liberty. What we have in the Ukraine and particularly in the Crimea at the moment is that the rights of those minorities absolutely are not being respected or dealt with in a legal or lawful fashion, therefore there is simply mob rule and an illegitimate ballot. It is so important that we have this motion before us today to recognise from the Australian point of view that this ballot will not be regarded as legitimate by the international community.

I commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, on her excellent work on the international stage in ensuring that it is clear that the Australian government's condemnation of Russian military activity inside and outside of Ukraine in relation to this matter is not acceptable. It is unacceptable for any nation to threaten the territorial integrity of Ukraine, or anywhere else, in any way. The United Nations Security Council has been meeting and discussing this escalating crisis. In that process, Australia, through our new role at the Security Council, have made clear our unequivocal support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and that we absolutely condemn the use of force, the threat of the use of force and, of course, the conduct of a referendum ballot under the threat of the use of force. I fully support this motion, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, and the Australian government. I commend the House on all sides for supporting such an important motion in the shadow of such concerning developments in the Ukraine.

Debate adjourned.