The world can’t overlook the long shadow of Versailles
The debate over using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction is coming to a head. The arguments in favour are compelling. The objections are weak.
But there could also be unintended consequences. Canada has passed legislation allowing Russian assets to be redeployed on behalf of Ukraine. In the US, four members of Congress have introduced legislation to repurpose sovereign Russian assets for Ukraine.
And EU leaders considered the issue at their recent summit, though German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and others expressed concern that any such action might violate international law. The arguments in favour of seizing frozen Russian assets have been conveniently assembled in one place by Lawrence Summers, Philip Zelikow and Robert Zoellick. Russia possesses the means to finance reconstruction.
A vigorous economy will be post-war Ukraine’s best defence. Truth and justice are on Ukraine’s side. Other strongmen tempted to emulate Russian President Vladimir Putin’s imperialism would be deterred.
Then there is the pragmatic case. G7 governments are heavily indebted and are confronted with the need to devote additional resources to national defence, to the green transition and to their ageing populations. Already, there are signs of Ukrainian aid fatigue, and critics ask why Western countries should bear the costs of a war they didn’t start.
These complaints are heard despite the fact that financial transfers from the US and the EU, amounting to some $3 billion a month, pale in comparison with the costs of reconstructing Ukraine. In March, the World Bank put those costs at $411 billion. The bill continues to mount with each additional day of fighting.
Read more on livemint.com
