Crimea Declares Independence Ahead of Popular Vote on Secession
Source: RIA NOvosti
MOSCOW, March 11 (RIA Novosti) The parliament of Crimea, a majority ethnic Russian region within Ukraine, declared independence Tuesday ahead of a popular vote on secession and annexation by Russia.
The declaration appeared to be the latest attempt to shore up the legal basis of the upcoming referendum, which is scheduled for Sunday but has been declared unconstitutional by the countrys central leadership in Kiev.
A representative of the regional parliaments press office said that 78 of 100 deputies voted to declare independence.
The text of the declaration, published on the parliaments website, claims that the action is in accordance with international law, specifically citing a 2010 ruling by the International Court of Justice that affirmed Kosovo had the right to declare independence from Serbia.
Read more: http://en.ria.ru/world/20140311/188317029/Crimea-Declares-Independence-Ahead-of-Popular-Vote-on-Secession.html
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)The Crimeans will vote to join Russia.
Ukraine and the West will denounce the vote as illegal, in effect denying the expressed will of the Crimeans.
Russia will annex Crimea, in effect denying the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
What a mess.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)is that the deal most likely to struck between the west and Russia is "OK - take Crimea and if you call it a day at that we'll let the subject of Ukraine drop"
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Personally I think Crimea is a foregone conclusion in terms of what will happen. The question in my opinion is what will happen in Eastern Ukraine.
In terms of Crimea, the two arguments I am hearing is the protection of minorities and control of the military bases. The only argument I'm hearing for Eastern Ukraine is the protection of minorities. I'm not saying that there aren't issues there, but questioning whether it warrants Russia going in to Eastern Ukraine after the Crimea referendum.
Again, I don't see anything stopping Russia from annexing that part of the country.
rtracey
(2,062 posts)And then what, Crimea will become a state of Russia, the military base at Sevastopol will remain in Russian hands, the troops will pull out of Ukraine, anyone not wanting to be Russian will cross over into the Ukraine, anyone wanting to stay Russian will stay in Crimea, and the world will watch for another 50 years....(IMO)....
AngryDem001
(684 posts)It's none of our business anyway. We should focus on the problems we have here at home instead of sending a billion in aid to Ukraine.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Russia won't willingly withdraw from Crimea and the West seems unlikely to force the matter, so the question remaining is how this reaches what appears to be a foregone conclusion, writes Ken Fraser.
When responding to Russia's military engagement in Crimea, US president Barack Obama said: "There will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine."
This is the key to understanding the current situation. Leaving aside the point that this statement might well be as true for the US and NATO as it is for Russian president Vladimir Putin, the core of the message here is that the US is not getting close to actually committing itself to protecting the eastern-leaning part of Ukraine.
What Obama is saying to Putin in this speech is that, as far as the US is concerned, Russia may go ahead and occupy Crimea and secure its access to the city of Sevastopol and basing for its Black Sea fleet. For the time being. In return for this effective partitioning of the country, NATO gets the installation of a friendly government in Kiev. This has the effect of clicking over another notch in the ratchet of encroachment of NATO influence into the former Soviet republics. Putin knows he has lost this notch, but everyone knows that asking him to give up Sevastopol is asking too much.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-03/fraser-russia-gets-crimea-but-this-remains-a-nato-win/5295076
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Before a vote is done. The vote is unconstitutional and will rightly not be recognized.
Meanwhile Russia will be fomenting an ethnic divide in eastern Ukraine.
2banon
(7,321 posts)I was wondering why not have the referendum immediately, rather than on the 16th. (I realize it was originally in late April).. This explains it I think.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)What if by some bizarre chance the resolution fails?
Will the Russians leave?
Not a chance.
riqster
(13,986 posts)The parliament is packed with those supportive of secession, and the referendum offers two different options for seceding. No option is given for maintaining the status quo.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)One option is to join with Russia.... the 2nd option is to stay with Ukraine. Staying with Ukraine seems pretty status quo.
riqster
(13,986 posts)It's going back to an earlier agreement, in which Crimea is less integrated with Ukraine.
Details are important. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/east-or-west-referendum-lays-out-options-ukraines-crimea-n46601
rdharma
(6,057 posts)But I think most Crimeans want to join Russia.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)They don't have much choice in the matter.
Voters will have to run a gauntlet of pro-Russian thugs and Russian troops to get to the poles.
The fact that there are only two choices; join Russia, or be 'independent' shows what a sham this whole vote is.
The fix is in. The decision has been made. The vote is political cover for a done deal.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Like they will be doing in Kiev in the upcoming elections.
EmilyAnne
(2,769 posts)as the nation of Russia and its military.
You guys.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)But the Russian military is not in Kiev and the Right Sector is.
And the Right Sector wants to "monitor" the upcoming election there...... with baseball bats (if they haven't looted other weapons from the local armories).
blackspade
(10,056 posts)They are all right wing thugs.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)yesterday, but they refused. (It is in the linked article)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Swiss Foreign Minister and OSCE Chair Didier Burkhalter ruled out the possibility of an OSCE observation of the planned referendum as the basic criteria for a decision in a constitutional framework was not met, the organization said in a statement.
For any referendum regarding the degree of autonomy or sovereignty of the Crimea to be legitimate, it would need to be based on the Ukrainian constitution and would have to be in line with international law, OSCE said.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)and an opportunity was lost to have the outside evaluate the polls.
International law actually *does* give people the right to seceed and determine their future. See post 20 below
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Is being forced into a referendum that does not include a choice to stay as part of Ukraine.
It's either secession or joining Russia. And it is conducted by a government that as already declared themselves as part of Russia.
The whole thing stinks, worse that the supposed CIA involvement in the 'revolution'.
This referendum is being conducted under the guns of occupiers and is a sham.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and for the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine ?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Going back to the 1992 constitution is NOT the status quo.
Learn before you post.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)In February 1992 the Crimean parliament transformed Crimea into "Republic of Crimea" and the Ukrainian government offered them more self-government.[1] On 5 May 1992 parliament declared Crimea independent[1] (which was yet to be approved by a referendum to be held 2 August 1992[4]) and passed the first Crimean constitution the same day.[4] On 6 May 1992 the same parliament inserted a new sentence into this constitution that declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine.[4] On 13 May 1992 the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament) annulled Crimea's independence declaration and gave its Crimean counterpart one week to do the same.[4] In June 1992 the parties reached a compromise and Crimea was given the status of "Autonomous Republic".[1]
What other option do you want inserted? Obviously the Russian fleet is not going anywhere and the region favors Russia over the new guys? So I seriously doubt if they had an option that specifically stated do you want to join with the new Ukranian government and forget how you've been living your lives for the past two decades, that it would have mattered. The 2nd option gives the chance to vote for the way things were before all this happened. Why would it be any different?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Secede now, or do it slowly.
If it pleases you to pretend otherwise, enjoy. Just remember, the Tatars will not be enjoying the next few years at all.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)didn't get framed the way "you" wanted it. Maybe next US election I can get an option on the ballot for a restoration of all land East of the Appalachians resorting back to the Cherokee Indians. I'll keep my fingers crossed on that one.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)from your own link.
"In a nutshell, they will decide whether to become citizens of Russia or to remain within Ukraine but with enhanced autonomy."
blackspade
(10,056 posts)And what does option 2 mean if there is ambiguity as to which constitution?
What if folks want to leave things the way they are now?
Where is that option?
There is not a yes/no option on this ballot. You have to pick one or the other.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)I posted the poll here for just the reason that I see this being claimed. The second option leaves them as part of Ukraine, though more autonomous. It puts them back to the original (Crimean, they have their own) constitution (1992). They were part of Ukraine then.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Really basic stuff. It's not a political position.
Dem4ever27
(49 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)If the Crimean parliament declares Crimea independent, then all questions about the legality of the referendum will have to be set aside. Under international law, it is entirely legal for the Crimeans to hold a referendum after declaring independence. The Ukrainian constitution and laws have no standing once the independence declaration is made.
The only real question would be whether the independence declaration itself was legal, as Crimea is seemingly occupied by Russia at the moment. Normally the answer would be "no" because occupation governments are typically put in place by occupying powers, but the Crimean parliament existed BEFORE the occupation and all of its members were legally elected by the people of Crimea BEFORE the Russian's moved in, so this isn't a typical situation. Unless some of the Crimean parliamentarians claim that they were being coerced by the Russians, the vote may actually be legal under international law.
I wonder what the ICJ would say about it.
Igel
(35,293 posts)So one official said that they'd deal with the minority languages strictly in accordance with the appropriate European charter (or whatever the term is) for minority linguistic rights.
The actual document says that minority languages are to be protected and encouraged, their use expanded in society and their speakers encouraged to transmit the languages to their children.
The official said that of course Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar would not be official languages. In fact, "negative moments" such as having a Ukrainian-language film play in theaters wouldn't be tolerated under the terms of the European agreement because as a democracy in which 80% of the population spoke Russian, of course everything in Crimea would necessarily be in Russian.
This was from a Russian-language paper based in Simferopol'.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)The resolution says the new Constitution of the Republic of Crimea will envision the following guarantees giving the Crimean Tartar language the status of official language along with Russian and Ukrainian, representation of Crimean Tartars in district and town councils and other bodies, and recognition of national self-rule bodies of Crimean Tartars - Kurultai (the national congress) and the bodies it forms.
Tatarstan President Rustam Minnikhanov attended the Tuesday session of the Crimean parliament.
http://en.itar-tass.com/world/722940?utm_medium=rss20
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)"citing a 2010 ruling by the International Court of Justice that affirmed Kosovo had the right to declare independence from Serbia"
Predictable. Experts in international law warned about this at the time.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The right of nations to maintain territorial integrity is not. The international law dealing with self determination reads: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
In other words, people have a right to determine the nation they belong to. Ukraine signed that treaty.
International law recognizes the right of nations to defend their territory from outside invasions, but it does not recognize the right of nations to prevent their own people from lawfully seceding. In spite of the hot air bellowing from various politicians, there's never really been any question that, under international law, the Crimean's have the right to declare independence and hold a referendum on their future. Russia has no right to be there, but the Crimeans do.
The ICJ ruling on Kosovo simply reaffirmed a principle of international law that has been recognized since the 1950's.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)else Gov Perry could just decide to hold a referendum on Texas seceding, get a majority, and that would be that.
Not that I'd mind, but still.
The Ukrainian Constitution (unlike the US one, I might add) allegedly has provisions for a portion seceding. But they do need to follow that document. Russia has no jurisdiction outside of its borders, and any referendum held while Russia is occupying Crimea is obviously illegal. Quoting the UN Charter doesn't cut it.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)In the case of Texas, there's nothing illegal about Perry declaring that Texas will now be independent and known as the Christian Republican Aryan Provinces of Texas, and it's perfectly legal for them to hold a referendum on it. The crime, under U.S. law, doesn't actually occur until they physically attempt to separate. Until that point, legally, it's just words and bluster.
Under international law, if Texas declared independence and an independence referendum passed, there is NOTHING preventing the United States from invading anyway. Texas has the right to declare itself independent. The United States would have the choice to let them go or fight them for it, and either choice would be legal. Ukraine has the same right with Crimea.
International law, in this situation, primarily relates to how OTHER countries would interact with the situation. If a Texas referendum passed, Britain could legally provide the Christian Republican Aryan Provinces of Texas with weapons, soldiers, air power, and other military assets to defend their independence. Without the referendum, that same action would simply be an act of war against the United States and would constitute an illegal invasion and war crime. Similarly, an independence referendum would legally limit the types of aid that other countries could offer to the United States in our fight against Texas. If they declared independence and a referendum passed, the use of British military assets in aid to the U.S. could theoretically constitute a war crime by Britain against the CRAP of Texas.
An independence referendum doesn't mean that the original host country has to let them go, but it DOES regulate whether other nations should recognize them, and how other nations may respond to any ensuing conflict.
By the way, my quote above doesn't come from the UN charter, though article 1 does contain something similar. The actual line I quoted is from the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. It was adopted by the UN in the 1970's, ratified by the United States in 1992, and has been similarly ratified by Russia, Ukraine, and nearly every other country in the world (with some notable exceptions, like North Korea, Myanmar, and Saudi Arabia.) In the United States, under our Constitution, it carries the same force as any other federal law because it was ratified by Congress.
As to a referendum held while under occupation, I don't know that you're right. Elections happen in Palestine and they are about as "occupied" as you can get. Germany was also a democratic republic for many years while being occupied by the United States and other powers. Occupation itself isn't enough to discount the vote. The bar is usually: "Did the occupying power interfere with the election process?" In this case, the fact that the Crimeans are denying access to the OCSE isn't a good sign.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)I like the CRAP acronym, by the way. Nice touch.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)It only limits how other countries react to it.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)SIMFEROPOL, March 11 (RIA Novosti) The Crimean parliament on Tuesday banned the activities of nationalist political organizations instrumental in the recent Ukrainian revolution, citing security threats.
The blacklist includes the far-right Svoboda party and the neo-Nazi Right Sector movement, which oppose the campaign for Crimea a majority ethnic Russian region within Ukraine to secede and become part of Russia.
The Crimean authorities are making all possible efforts to prevent the infiltration of extremists onto the territory of the republic, Crimeas Supreme Council said in an explanatory statement to the resolution.
The statement cites the fact that Right Sector leader Dmitry Yarosh has been charged in absentia in Russia of extremism, while another Right Sector activist, Alexander Muzychko, is wanted in Russia on suspicion of torturing and murdering Russian servicemen in Chechnya in the early 2000s. Both men have been put on an international wanted list.
http://en.ria.ru/world/20140311/188325084/Crimea-Bans-Nationalist-Neo-Nazi-Groups.html
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)Since last November, hundreds of websites have been banned from the Russian Internet. The list ranges from the lighthearted Australian viral YouTube hit Dumb Ways to Die to Absurdopedia (the Russian version of Uncyclopedia). Even the parody web site Gospoisk (gossearch.ru) was blocked. The site was a fake search engine, ostensibly created with government support, structured so that when a visitor types a query in the search box, he is asked to enter his first and last name, patronymic, passport details, address, and the reason for the request. Since it was a parody, this data evaporated into the ether.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/fall2013/Russia-surveillance
...and these guys are running the Crimean referendum you're fawning over. It'd be funny if it weren't so disgusting.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)I mean it's literally, quite literally, Aleksandr Dugin's vision for Russia.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)swastika |ˈswästikə|
noun
an ancient symbol in the form of an equal-armed cross with each arm continued at a right angle, used (in clockwise form) as the emblem of the German Nazi Party.
I don't care what the ancient esoteric meanings of the symbol are. We fought a war against these bastids and they have no right to rise from their well-deserved graves and march again. Fuck 'em.
IMNSHO.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)They tried to takeover a government building and were dragged from the building after firing into the crowd. They were also
armed with sickles, bats, shovels, and other street weapons. One of the snipers is a the young man at minute 7:33. ('Here's the SOB who was shooting at us'). You can see the bullets they were shooting at minute 0:41.
The crowd painted some of their faces green, made them get on their knees and forced them to apologize to the Ukrainian people. When asked what they're doing trying to takeover the building, they say they were *sent* there but don't know (or won't say) by whom. Right sector armbands (minute 9 shows one of them)...
bemildred
(90,061 posts)newthinking
(3,982 posts)"The Crimean parliament on Tuesday passed a motion stating that it would become independent in the event of a yes vote "
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/11/ukraine-parliament-ultimatum-crimea-referendum
Second paragraph.
There has been innacurate information about the referendum as well. One of the options *does* include staying together with Ukraine. However, it reverts back to the 1992 Crimean constitution, which allows greater autonomy.
Option 1: Do you support Crimea joining Russian Federation as a federal subject?
Option 2: Do you support restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine?
Personally I would rather see option #2 enacted. For one thing, if Crimea becomes part of Russia that will leave Eastern and the rest of southern Ukraine in a more difficult position, as they will loose much of their ability to restore balance in Kiev.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Russia's Foreign Ministry has said that a declaration of independence approved by the pro-Moscow local
parliament in Crimea was "absolutely lawful".
The comment comes days ahead of a Sunday referendum on whether the region should become part of Russia.
"The Russian Foreign Ministry considers the decision of the parliament of Crimea absolutely lawful," the ministry said in a statement on its website on Tuesday.
Earlier in the day, the local assembly approved a "declaration on the independence of the autonomous republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol" with 78 out of 81 lawmakers present voting in favour.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/ukraine-crimea-moves-towards-independence-2014311103927114933.html
It would seem the local assembly did in fact approve a "declaration on the independence of the autonomous republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol" with 78 out of 81 lawmakers present voting in favour.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)newthinking
(3,982 posts)independence linked with annexation and some comments ran with that. It was just stating their independence. If the referendum option 2 is the majority they will still be part of Ukraine.
It is difficult to understand what is meant by autonomous republic, but it sounds like the original constitution (1992) left Crimea with something like in the Euro-union. So with the text of the referrendum it sounds like the declaration is clearing the way not necessarily for annexation, but for the population to determine their future (granted within the limits of the options in the referendum).
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)They long ago gave up pretending they were waiting for the vote they're going to fix on the 16th. A vote held with Russian troops occupying the region, and all the TV stations replaced with pro-Russian ones. Anyone who thinks this vote will show anything apart from the intimidation of pro-Ukraine Crimeans is living in cloud cuckoo land.
RedFury
(85 posts)Considering that the Ukranian Gov is illegal per their own Constitutution, I see no reason the Crimeans have to listen to anything coming out of Kiev. May as well do their own thing before it's too late.
How William Hague Deceived the House of Commons on Ukraine
Article 108 of the constitution specifies four circumstances in which a president may cease to exercise power before the end of his term. Those are:
resignation;
inability to exercise his or her powers for reasons of health;
removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
death.
The procedure for removal from office by impeachment is laid down in Article 111. It is not unlike that required for the impeachment and removal from power of a US president, which could take months.
Thus, Article 111 obliges the Rada to establish a special investigatory commission to formulate charges against the president, seek evidence to justify the charges and come to conclusions about the president's guilt for the Rada to consider. To find the president guilty, at least two-thirds of Rada members must assent.
Prior to a final vote to remove the president from power, the procedure requires
the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to review the case and certify that the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration has been followed, and
the Supreme Court of Ukraine to certify that the acts of which the President is accused are worthy of impeachment.
To remove the president from power, at least three-quarters of Rada members must assent.
The Rada didn't follow this procedure at all. No investigatory commission was established and the Courts were not involved. On 22 February, the Rada simply passed a bill removing President Yanukovych from office.
Furthermore, the bill wasn't even supported by three-quarters of Rada members as required by Article 111 - it was supported by 328 members, when it required 338 (since the Rada has 450 members).
President Putin questioned the legitimacy of the authorities in Kiev at his press conference on 4 March, just before William Hague spoke in the House of Commons:
"Are the current authorities legitimate? The Parliament is partially, but all the others are not. The current Acting President is definitely not legitimate. There is only one legitimate President, from a legal standpoint. Clearly, he has no power. However, as I have already said, and will repeat: Yanukovych is the only undoubtedly legitimate President.
"There are three ways of removing a President under Ukrainian law: one is his death, the other is when he personally steps down, and the third is impeachment. The latter is a well-deliberated constitutional norm. It has to involve the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Rada. This is a complicated and lengthy procedure. It was not carried out. Therefore, from a legal perspective this is an undisputed fact."
There is a fourth way - ill health - but, aside from that, Putin is undoubtedly correct.
David Morrison has written widely on the deception perpetrated by the British government to induce the British public to support military action against Iraq.
He is the author with Peter Oborne of A Dangerous Delusion: Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran published in April 2013. More of his writing is available at david-morrison.org.uk
Cheers.