Ukraine Coup Lawful, But Crimea Referendum Unlawful?

[KoKo]

Published on Friday, March 21, 2014 by Inter Press Service
Ukraine Coup Lawful, But Crimea Referendum Unlawful?

'For US officials and press to claim somehow that the coup which occurred in Ukraine, engineered by the West, complied with law, while the referendum in Crimea did not, is utter hypocrisy.'
by Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, conscious of the stark ineffectiveness of the Security Council over the upheaval in Ukraine, is engaged in a round of shuttle diplomacy with Russian and Ukrainian leaders to help resolve the crisis in that region.

“The secretary-general is desperately trying to create a U.N. role in the spreading dispute,” said one Third World diplomat.

"Imagine the response from Washington if Russia or China or some other sizable world power had worked hard to build a military and/or political alliance near U.S. borders." —Norman Solomon

“It’s a good try – but in a lost cause,” he said, pointing out that Ban is up against a tough-talking Russian President Vladimir Putin who has already rejected a political compromise held out by U.S. President Barack Obama.

Norman Solomon, founding director of the Washington-based Institute for Public Accuracy, told IPS it is proper that “Ban Ki-moon should try to mediate the conflict, but it’s too bad his itinerary on this trip won’t also take him to Washington.”

Placing recent events in context, the U.S. and Russian governments are both blameworthy, he said.

“And if one takes seriously the unfortunate but very real dynamics that impel large nations to be concerned about spheres of influence – particularly in the vicinity of their borders – the U.N. secretary-general should be willing to confront President Obama as well as President Putin,” said Solomon, author of ‘War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.’

He said one of the ways that Ban could move toward defusing this crisis would involve urging a rollback of the expansion of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation), along with an ironclad pledge from NATO to never seek membership from Ukraine.

“A secretary-general less subservient to the U.S. government might be willing to give it a try,” he said.
---------

More..Interesting Read at:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/03/21

[BlueStreak]

1. It is the "New World Order"

This is how the game is played. Demonize the enemy. Poison the atmosphere with propaganda. That is good for politics on the home-front in the short term, but leaves much greater problems long term because it makes blithering idiots out of your people -- and one day you will wish they were capable of thinking.

The simple truth is that Crimea was never really separated from the USSR. Russia continued to base their Black Sea fleet there -- they never left with the USSR dissolved. The big majority of residents considered themselves Russian. And they were not treated very well under Kiev's rule. This "crisis" was brought on by the overthrow of Yanukovych.

And the real cynical irony of all this propaganda is that the west actually WON this round as it sits today. If Rutin goes no further than Crimea -- which was effectively Russian territory already -- that means the real change is that mainland Ukraine is hooking up much more closely with Europe. That is a big change.

[Gothmog]

2. The Crimea vote is a joke

Putin is claiming that the Kosovo vote is a president. He is wrong. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4685854

[reformist2]

11. He is wrong, in a way, because Crimea wanted to be with Russia all along.

[Gothmog]

44. The vote was a joke

No one who is familiar with international law believes that this election was valid. The voters had to chose between annexation by Russia now or annexation by Russia later. The voters were not given the opportunity to vote for the status quo. From a purely legal standpoint under international law, the vote was meaningless and a nullity See http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/paul-linden-retek-evan-brewer/Crimea-justified-kosovo-ruling-icj-2008-russia-putin and http://www.voanews.com/content/crimea-referendum-illegitimate-says-us-legal-scholar/1873090.html

From a non-legal vote, it is clear that the vote was fraudulent. For example 123% of the population of one city voted for the referendum http://www.kansascity.com/2014/03/17/4896905/questions-surround-crimea-referendum.html

Officially, the joining-Russia option on the ballot attracted a healthy 97 percent support from the 83 percent of registered voters in Crimea who made it to the polls. The most repeated tidbit was the voter turnout in Sevastopol, long a pro-Russian bastion, where a reported 123 percent of registered voters are said to have cast ballots.

Ukrainian news reports said that all one needed to vote was a passport, and it didn’t have to be a Ukrainian one. One reporter from Kiev showed his Russian passport and was handed a ballot and allowed to vote. This raised questions in Kiev if perhaps the Russian soldiers and Russian paramilitary occupying the area since late February had been allowed to cast votes.

It also raised eyebrows, because while an estimated 58 percent of the Crimean population is known to be ethnic Russian and very pro-Russia, the remaining 42 percent are not thought to be similarly smitten. Ukrainian opinion polls over the last decade have consistently shown Crimea to be more pro-Russian and in favor of secession than any other region of Ukraine, but previous polls had shown consistently that those favoring splitting from Ukraine and joining Russia numbered about 40 percent.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/03/17/4896905/questions-surround-crimea-referendum.html#storylink=cpy

Finally, the turnout claimed in this election shows that it was fraudulent. A good comparison is the recent North Korean vote where 100% voted for the current leadership http://www.bristolpress.com/articles/2014/03/20/opinion/doc532a3ce5f11ac625557012.txt

It’s an amazing victory. Even more amazing when you consider that according to the most recent census, 37 percent of the Crimean population is ethnically Ukrainian or Tatar. Yet only 3 to 7 percent voted against leaving Ukraine and embracing Mother Russia.

To be fair, it’s not quite as amazing as last week’s election in North Korea.

There, beloved leader Kim Jong Un was reelected to the parliament with 100 percent of the vote. The ruling party holds all 687 seats.

And last year in Cuba, voters approved 100 percent of the national assembly candidates put forward by official nominating committees.

How do exemplary democracies such as Russia, Cuba and North Korea achieve these mandates?

By rigging them, of course.

As The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer pointed out long ago, the fraudulence of an election is proportionate to the margin of victory. Slate’s Joshua Keating recently updated this pattern with stellar vote shares from Azerbaijan (85 percent), Kazakhstan (91 percent), Belorussia (93 percent), Turkmenistan (97 percent), Syria (98 percent) and Chechnya (99 percent). In “The Dictator’s Learning Curve,” Slate’s William J. Dobson notes that smarter tyrants have learned to water down such ridiculous margins.

Even Krauthammer has to be right occasionally.

Here is a good article on the election http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/03/crimea-votes-secede

THE outcome of the “referendum” in Crimea was never in doubt. With Russian troops occupying the peninsula and anyone who does not want to join Russia staying away from the bogus procedure, the 97% vote in favour of becoming part of Russia is not a surprise. Crimean Tatars, the native Turkic Muslims of Crimea, who account for 13% of the total population, and many of the ethnic Ukrainians, who make up another 25%, boycotted the referendum. The 83% official turnout was boosted by Russian passport holders and by multiple voting.

Neither Ukraine, nor the rest of the world, recognise this referendum as legitimate. Under the Ukrainian constitution it could only be called by the Rada, the parliament. Had it done so there is a strong chance most people in Crimea would still favour a secession from Ukraine. The post-referendum jubilation in Crimea among those who want to rejoin Russia was genuine. People cheered Russia’s military presence in Crimea as a liberation rather than occupation. This was largely the result of the rabid anti-Ukrainian propaganda which portrayed the government in Kiev which came to power after the revolutionary protests last month as a bunch of crazed fascists hell-bent on exterminating the Russian-speaking population of Crimea. But it was also the result of the neglect which Ukrainians displayed towards Crimea over the years, leaving it to its own devices and failing to integrate it deeper into Ukraine.

Still, the purpose of the vote was not to establish the wishes of the Crimean population, but to create a pretext for the full annexation of Crimea by Russia. Having declared Crimea as an independent state, its puppet government has already asked the Kremlin to fold Crimea into Russia—a request which the Russian parliament will discuss on March 21st. By the end of the month Crimea could adopt Russian currency and change the clock to the Moscow time zone. Coincidentally, also on March 21st, the European Union could sign a political part of the association agreement with Kiev.

In this case, it is clear that this vote is nothing but a PR stunt

[sabrina 1]

14. To whom is the vote a 'joke'? Explain why the will of the majority is now a 'joke'?

[Igel]

3. "Sphere of influence."

Russia has one, apparently, that a lot of people seem to think gives Russia rights to defend its borders, to defend its economic interests, to defend "its people" that are there. The problematic countries must be neutered by threats, economic distress, manufactured problems, sham referendums. Preferably they must be puppets. And if out-and-out control is necessary, well, there you go.

The US, therefore, must have one. Those same people must therefore think that the US, too, has rights to defend its borders, to defend its economic interests, to defend "it's people" that are there. The problematic countries must be neutered by threats, economic distress, manufactured problems, sham referendums. Preferably they must be puppets. And if out-and-out control is necessary, well, there you go.

Then we hear about CIA "games" in areas in the American "sphere of influence." Occupation of the Yucatan. Cuban trade embargo. Alleged American meddling in Venezuela. How the US invaded Grenada. US influence in Central American countries and in Colombia.

The asymmetry in attitudes is amazing, esp. when you take into account that most people reflexively like their own groups, so if all things are equal they'll justify their own group and vilify their opponents. So the man-in-the-street Russian who sees Russia doing the same as (or even worse) than the US justifies Russia and slams the US. This is normal. The man-in-the-street American who sees Russia doing the same as (or even worse) than the US would naturally do the same.

An even-handed, internationalist "citizen of the world" approach would be to condemn each instance as it came along, proportionate to the egregiousness of the offense.

What to say about the man-in-the-street American who sees Russia doing the same as (or even worse) than the US but who finds ways to justify Russia while denigrating the US?

[Catherina]

4. The putsch government in Kiev is totally illegitimate as he points out

According to Article 108 of Constitution of Ukraine, 2004:
“The President of Ukraine exercises his or her powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President of Ukraine.
The powers of the President of Ukraine terminate prior to the expiration of term in cases of:

- resignation;
- inability to exercise his or her powers for reasons of health;
- removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
- death.”

The coup supporters pretend that the President was impeached, well not according to the constitutional impeachment process.

Then you have the utter hypocrisy of Crimea, right next door to Russia. Russian since 1783.

The Malvinas islands? Right next door to...? British since...?

[reformist2]

13. And of course no comment from the pro-intervention, stick-our-nose-into-everyone's-business crowd.

[Catherina]

18. How can they comment when they still swear this has nothing to do with it?

It's hard to argue FOR Shock Doctrine Austerity and Democracy at the same time, especially on a liberal board.

[MH1]

5. The Ukraine coup was "engineered by the West"?

has that been conclusively shown and acknowledged?

Pardon my ignorance, I haven't been glued to this story, and I while I heard that accusation, I was not aware that it was widely accepted as truth. Wouldn't surprise me a lot if European power-brokers were angling to pull Ukraine closer to Europe and helped encourage protests against Yanukovich ... but that's a few steps away from "engineered a coup".

[reformist2]

7. I've read/listened to dozens of experts who all admit that it was. It's common knowledge outside US.

Just Google Victoria Nuland, for starters.

[MH1]

9. Thanks, I'll check that out. nt

[reformist2]

6. The new government in Ukraine is the joke. If I were in Crimea, I would have voted to secede, too.

[MH1]

8. Secession to become an independent state is one thing, becoming part of Russia

is another.

I don't envy the Tatars or Ukrainians that are left to twist in the wind in the Crimean province of Russia.

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. Russia and China are working to build military and political alliances near US borders

what do you think Chinese and Russian investment in South America are about, exactly?

[bvar22]

19. Russia & China don't have to work very hard in South America.

Our (USA) hostile foreign policy condemning of the emerging Populist Democracies,
and demonizing their elected leaders,

and our continued support of the few remaining Right Wing Police States (like Colombia),
have driven these emerging Democracies and their emerging Markets
straight into the open arms of Russia, China, and Iran.


What would you do if the USA was funding coups and protests against YOUR elected government?

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. The protests in Ukraine were partly the result of the corruption of the government.

You can't compare what happened in Ukraine to what happened in Venezuela, for instance. The Ukraine protests weren't a "western-backed right-wing coup". That's the Kremlin line that you'll get from Russia Today, but it's a long way from being the truth.

[KoKo]

28. Did you see this: "Who In Ukraine Will Benefit From An IMF Bailout?"

posted over in Video & Multimedia...it's an interesting watch....

TRNN:
Who In Ukraine Will Benefit From An IMF Bailout?

Oil and Gas Exchanges, Austerity Programs like Greece, Ireland and Others....Ramifications of us Selling our USA NatGas to compensate EU for Russian Nat Gas/Oil...and increases employment as how we will sell it to EU..Pension Cuts and more Privatization.

Published on Mar 21, 2014 Economists Michael Hudson and Jeffrey Sommers discuss how provisions in an IMF deal, like cuts to gas subsidies and pensions, will hurt the average Ukrainian citizens and benefit kleptocrats.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017182315

[pampango]

12. If Yanukovich had stayed in Kiev and implemented the agreement he signed, he would still be in power

There was not 'coup', although the government did have to do something to fill the void when he skipped town.

[tritsofme]

15. I very much doubt the former Eastern bloc countries wish to be abandoned

again, kicked out of NATO, and left at the mercy of Russia's "influence"

No, that actually sounds pretty sick to me.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. So if Russia annexes east Ukraine, what should

our response be?

[tritsofme]

27. I was responding to the notion that NATO be rolled back.

In deference to Putin or some such nonsense.

Were Ukraine a NATO or EU member, this would not have happened. Our options today are limited, and the administration is responding appropriately.

[Duckhunter935]

30. If Ukraine had not

given up its nuclear weapons this also may not have happened, They are no match and will be gobbled up.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Fine. So if Russia annexes Latvia what should our response be.

Same scenario, now with the added article 5 Nato entanglement.

[tritsofme]

32. That would be a terrifying scenario.

It would be a choice on Russia's part for war with the West, which is what makes it so unlikely.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. It is highly unlikely we could mount a conventional attack in the Baltics.

So we would be forced to consider the nuclear option, and that seems unlikely. NATO is a ridiculous entanglement. Pushing NATO up to Russia's borders was an act of hubris that we may very well regret in rather horrifying ways.

[Bad Thoughts]

16. The politics of hurt feelings?

Will Solomon tell us next that ID should be taught in schools do as not to provoke creationists?

[ProSense]

17. Pretzel logic

"Ukraine Coup Lawful, But Crimea Referendum Unlawful?"

Anything to justify an illegal invasion. The author seems to want to imply that the "coup" is "unlawful" in the same way the referendum is "unlawful."

None of this justifies Putin's illegal invasion, which means the Putin's forced referendum is illegal.

This is simply an attempt to redefine the ousting of a failed leader as a "coup" to claim try to legitimatize the illegal referendum.

I notice the piece doesn't even mention Viktor Yanukovich, who was removed from office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#Removal_from_presidency

How Obama Crippled a Russian Bank with a Stroke of a Pen
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024708736

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Ah I see you've become a pretzel warrior.

Good for you. Somebody needed to step up and fight all these damn pretzels.

[ProSense]

24. Silliness.

Go find someone else to try that lame attempt at association.

[frazzled]

23. The duly elected Ukrainian Parliament voted 380 to 0 ...

to dismiss Yanukovych from office, and then voted to install the transitional government slate. There will be new elections for a permanent government in May.

What makes it illegal when the entire elected Parliament of a country votes itself a new government? These were the representatives elected by the Ukrainian people.

The "orchestrated by the West" think is just too stupid to even respond to. (Please don't post further articles with conspiratorial linkages involving a meeting that took place here or there--as if such meetings don't take place all the freaking time on all sides; they will neither convince me, nor will I respond.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraines-yanukovych-missing-as-protesters-take-control-of-presidential-residence-in-kiev/2014/02/22/802f7c6c-9bd2-11e3-ad71-e03637a299c0_story.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. In international terms, yes, 'coup' lawful, referendum unlawful, because Russia sent in troops

from outside the country. The 'coup' may be unlawful in terms of Ukraine's own laws about the powers of parliament and president (what powers do they have to force the president to go?), but what happened wasn't automatically against international law. But the presence of Russian troops on the Crimean streets, and firing their weapons, was against international law.

The article itself is full of shit, because it's "blame America for everything".

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. The U.S. has always considered lawful those coups in which it was complicit in some fashion nt

[stevenleser]

29. It's not illegal for countries to try to convince other countries to do something.

Several countries and external groups have PACs here in the US and various other organizations that advocate for things. If those PACs manage to convince enough people of something to tilt an election or convince congress to impeach a President, that does not make the results illegal.

The argument that Ukraine should go the way of the Baltics and Poland and Czech Republic and similar countries that essentially left the Russian sphere of influence after 1994 versus how countries like Ukraine and Belarus went is an easy one to make based on the economic and other conditions of the relative groups.

All of a sudden, making that argument is "wrong", "meddling", "Imperial/Empire" and whatever other term you want to use for "bad".

Fact is, 20 years of experience of countries that parted with Russia versus those who didn't is pretty compelling for the side that says you should partner with Western Europe instead of Russia.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. So what do you think our response would be to a Chinese sponsored coup in Panama?

[stevenleser]

36. Define coup in this specific instance. Panama no longer has a military for starters. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

37. same as what we helped along in Ukraine.

China knee deep in sponsoring mass demonstrations, Chinese friendly political parties in the forefront, the elected government overthrown and replaced, sans elections, with a new Chinese friendly government.

p.s. "coup" does not require a military, that would be a "military coup".

[stevenleser]

38. Overthrown and replaced how. The specifics matter. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Oh I see, you aren't going to answer the question, are you?

Sorry, my mistake. I thought dialog on this issue was perhaps possible, but I see it isn't.

[stevenleser]

40. Sure I am. The details matter. If the Panamanian assembly voted to impeach on Chinese influence

the Vice President would take over according to the Panamanian Constitution and we would do nothing.

I am a dual national and travel to Panama often and have friends in the National Assembly and who are judicial magistrates. Your attempt to impute a Ukrainian scenario onto Panama will not work. Panama at this point is a well functioning Democracy with a Constitution that predicts and would flow smoothly through most challenges.

Your attempt to suggest a nightmare Chinese takeover is funny if one understands the reality on the ground in Panama.

The Chinese already have several important contracts in Panama, not the least of which is a multibillion dollar project to clean up the bay of Panama that is adjacent to the Pacific entrance to the canal.

That is one example of dozens of situations where foreign firms, including Chinese and Russian firms, are on the ground doing business there.

There is one possible exception. The 1977 Torrijos-Carter treaty specifies that the US has the right to defend the canal from any threat that might interfere with its continued neutral service to ships of all nations. If after someone took over in Panama, the canal operations were somehow threatened, we would invade immediately. Not only that, China and Russia would probably insist that we did that very thing if canal operations were threatened since they depend on the Canal as much if not more than we do.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. what happened in Ukraine was not a simple "vote to impeach".

And I think you are being silly over what our reaction would be. We would intervene. We would find an excuse to declare the canal under threat.

We put Russia's military bases in Crimea under threat, and quite predictably Russia neutralized that threat.

[stevenleser]

42. You make my point for me. No vote to impeach a head of state is ever a simple one.

They are ALWAYS fraught with intrigue and claims of illegitimacy.

I'll tell you what we would definitely not do as a result of an unusual transfer of power in Panama, and this is to the point. We would not invade the islands of San Blas and annex them.

And if that is not enough, here are two more things that folks trying to make the point that you are trying to make cannot explain.

#1 - If the issue was the national government in Kiev, why isn't that the focus of Russian actions? They haven't done anything about that. Instead they have land-grabbed one of the farthest away provinces.

#2 -Crimea was due to face a referendum on whether to remain part of Ukraine on May 25th. If it was the will of Crimeans to leave and that will would hold up to a campaign where both sides were able to make arguments to the populace, why the need to invade and seize the region?

[BlueStreak]

43. That's already happening, actually. The Chinese just look at things on a differnet time scale

Most schools teach Spanish, English AND MANDARIN in Panama.

China has ENORMOUS influence in Panama, possibly more than the US now.

The Chinese don't mind waiting a generation for results. I guess that is what happens when the society dates back 3000 years or more.

[malaise]

33. Psssssssssssst why do you think they ran Kofi Annan?

Because he refused to carry out their Iraq agenda.

All the emperors are naked - we know it's bullshit. The West no longer gets to decide what is and what is not legal because we've been involved in way too much illegality...and every rational persons knows this.