What specifically about the Crimea referendum is "illegitimate" in the eyes of the in

SamHarris · 22-03-2014 2:52am

First Up wrote: »

Where did you get your four times the population figure? A complete and utter fabrication.

In this debate by the notoriously pro-Western Washington mouth piece al Jazeera.

And to whoever it was that said external monitors were invited, no, your wrong. That people are still convinced by many nations "elections" and "referendums" is laughable. Either they are incredibly naive or basically are convinced that the world is what they want it to be - I have a feeling they are the same type that concoct incredibly contrived conspiracy theories to explain any event that does not jive with how they usually think things should go down.

First Up · 22-03-2014 10:51am

SamHarris wrote: »

In this debate by the notoriously pro-Western Washington mouth piece al Jazeera.

And to whoever it was that said external monitors were invited, no, your wrong. That people are still convinced by many nations "elections" and "referendums" is laughable. Either they are incredibly naive or basically are convinced that the world is what they want it to be - I have a feeling they are the same type that concoct incredibly contrived conspiracy theories to explain any event that does not jive with how they usually think things should go down.

Al Jazeera said nothing of the sort. They are reporting the same figures a everyone else - turnout of 83%, yes vote of 96%. There was a brief period of a few hours during which the ITAR TASS news agency got their sums wrong and made it look like the numbers were bigger than they were (123%). It was quickly amended but of course this was seized upon by those anxious to deny reality.
An invitation to send election observers was issued to the Swiss OSCE office (current chair) and was declined.
If you want to see a good, balanced and informed background piece on what brought Crimea to where it is, have another look at Al Jazeera. But warning - it contains facts.

SamHarris · 22-03-2014 11:26am

First Up wrote: »

Al Jazeera said nothing of the sort. They are reporting the same figures a everyone else - turnout of 83%, yes vote of 96%. There was a brief period of a few hours during which the ITAR TASS news agency got their sums wrong and made it look like the numbers were bigger than they were (123%). It was quickly amended but of course this was seized upon by those anxious to deny reality.
An invitation to send election observers was issued to the Swiss OSCE office (current chair) and was declined.
If you want to see a good, balanced and informed background piece on what brought Crimea to where it is, have another look at Al Jazeera. But warning - it contains facts.

Whatever, it was in a round table discussion on the legality of the occupation (everyone agreed it and the referendum were entirely illegal and invalid) but honestly I couldn't care enough to dig it up for you. The "warning - it contains facts." tells me everything I need to know about the attitude you would have discussing anything with you. Believe what you want, I'll wait for someone more interesting and adult to debate this with.

Given that it is the policy of those observers not to attend what it views as illegal referendums and that this was known by the Crimean authorities before the invitation was extended makes the entire exercise patently a smokescreen. I honestly thought the ham fisted attempts by the Russian government to create a veneer of authenticity to this entire episode were so transparent as to be laughable. Looks like the usual type swallowed it all hook line and sinker. I would ask if you still think those many thousands of armed men with APCs are spontaneous "Self defense" groups, but I don't even want to know the answer.

Just in the future, the strategy you attempted here, common among various conspiracy theorist proponents, of forcing a scoffing attitude at those that have the temerity to point out the massive fallacies in their arguments, in place of actually having something substantive to say beside "Watch the news", doesn't fool anyone past the age of 16.

recedite · 22-03-2014 12:42pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

In June 1992 the parties reached a compromise and Crimea was given the status of "Autonomous Republic"
Further reading, if you're interested:
http://books.google.ie/books?id=i1C2MHgujb4C&pg=PA194&dq=26+February+1992++Crimean+constitution&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=b1RUUaWcMMGxPPibgagD&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=26%20February%201992%20%20Crimean%20constitution&f=false
"After an interim constitution lasting from 4 April 1996 to 23 December 1998, the current constitution was put into effect, changing the territory's name to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea....
"The constitution establishes the republic's status and authority within Ukraine. It grants Crimea the right to draft a budget and manage its own property.[1]

If we can just focus in on that period in June 1992, which is the "restore point" offered to the people in this recent referendum.
The declaration of independence has just been withdrawn (under duress), and an amendment to the constitution affirms that Crimea is "a part of Ukraine".

Are you saying that the situation pertaining then was not actually compatible with Crimea being in Ukraine, because the constitution made it effectively an independent state, despite the wording of the amendment?

Your link has some interesting comment on this very point;
"...The parliament inserted a new sentence into the new constitution to the effect that the Crimean republic is a constituent part of the Ukrainian republic. The relationship between the two independent republics, the one contained in the other, should in the view of the legislators have been based both on treaty and various agreements. This position was no less paradoxical than the Ukrainian concept of Ukraine as a unitary state containing an autonomous formation.."

And in conclusion he acknowledges
"The different roles played by the 14th Army and the Black Sea Navy"....but... "the peaceful containment of the Crimean conflict up to the time of writing seems to owe much to sheer good luck."

I think we can safely say now, with the benefit of hindsight, that it was the powerful Russian military presence that has prevented the region from descending into anarchy and civil war, and not “sheer good luck” at all.

The whole concept of an autonomous free state within another state, is somewhat paradoxical, but it can go as far as the two parties want it to go. For example Australia today functions much as an independent republic, yet is still technically subject to the British Crown. The "danger" of allowing an autonomous region that kind of freedom is that they can declare full independence at any time. As the Irish Free State did in 1937. By then, they are so used to independent actions that it becomes too late to influence or stop them.

And on that '98 constitution, those powers to manage a budget and own property are what we would give to a county council here.

So the idea of that constitution being the legal basis for the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" is equally paradoxical, as was pointed out by the author above.

SamHarris · 22-03-2014 12:47pm

Would another example of a free state within a state not be, for example, the Native American states with the US or the First Nations regions in Canada (not sure how much autonomy the second has)? There seems to be many forms in which it can take.

First Up · 22-03-2014 1:38pm

SamHarris wrote: »

Whatever, it was in a round table discussion on the legality of the occupation (everyone agreed it and the referendum were entirely illegal and invalid) but honestly I couldn't care enough to dig it up for you. The "warning - it contains facts." tells me everything I need to know about the attitude you would have discussing anything with you. Believe what you want, I'll wait for someone more interesting and adult to debate this with.

Given that it is the policy of those observers not to attend what it views as illegal referendums and that this was known by the Crimean authorities before the invitation was extended makes the entire exercise patently a smokescreen. I honestly thought the ham fisted attempts by the Russian government to create a veneer of authenticity to this entire episode were so transparent as to be laughable. Looks like the usual type swallowed it all hook line and sinker. I would ask if you still think those many thousands of armed men with APCs are spontaneous "Self defense" groups, but I don't even want to know the answer.

Just in the future, the strategy you attempted here, common among various conspiracy theorist proponents, of forcing a scoffing attitude at those that have the temerity to point out the massive fallacies in their arguments, in place of actually having something substantive to say beside "Watch the news", doesn't fool anyone past the age of 16.

I'll take that as a retraction then.

SamHarris · 22-03-2014 2:00pm

First Up wrote: »

I'll take that as a retraction then.

I'm sure.

hatrickpatrick · 22-03-2014 6:42pm

View wrote: »

So, did the Crimean parliament vote in favour of this constitution? YES.

Have they operated in Crimea under this constitution for over 15 years? YES.

Did the local or general election results in Crimea show strong support for a regional separatist or pro-Russian unification? NO.

How many seats did the pro-Russian unification party achieve in the last election there? 3/100.

Who did the Crimeans tend to vote for? Well, they were so disaffected, they voted for the largest party in the Ukrainian parliament (the one most Ukrainians voted for).

Who formed the government in Crimea before this external intervention? The largest Ukrainian party, the one the Crimeans largely voted for.

Who formed the government in Crimea after the external intervention?? That small pro-Russian unification party, the one the Crimeans largely did NOT vote for.

Oh, and whatever happened to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea? Well, it no longer exists as it that small pro-Russian unification party voted to abolish their autonomy as soon as they could.

So, so much for the "deep concern" for Crimea's autonomy.

And yet in a referendum, they voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, overwhelmingly enough to pretty much ensure they'd still have won even without the various reasons put forth for this vote to be considered as being held under duress or anything like that.

So your post, if anything, illustrates how representative democracy is a pretty bad marker of what the people actually want, in a lot of cases. The issue of course is that pro-unification politicians might not have been elected because of other, unrelated policies they have. The "mixed bag" nature of parliamentary representation is always going to mean that who does and doesn't get elected isn't a good marker of what the people do and do not want.

nacho libre · 22-03-2014 7:32pm

Einhard wrote: »

It's pretty disturbing when people are willing to turn a blind eye to, or excuse, or obfuscate wrongs simply because it fits their world view. Wrong is wrong- American policy or hypocrisy or whatever shouldn't come into it.

Correct, but i note some of the very people thanking your post go out of their way to excuse wrongdoing by America because it fits their world view;)

comongethappy · 22-03-2014 7:49pm

nacho libre wrote: »

Correct, but i note some of the very people thanking your post go out of their way to excuse wrongdoing by America because it fits their world view;)

Prove that.

nacho libre · 22-03-2014 8:05pm

comongethappy wrote: »

Prove that.

ok. do you believe American foreign policy is littered with shameful episodes?

ILikeBananas · 22-03-2014 8:38pm

First Up wrote: »

That still doesn't explain why 83% of the electorate voted 96-4 to join Russia.

There doesn't seem to have been much scrutiny of these figures but even a basic analysis of Crimea's demographics would show that these figures have been "rounded up" significantly.

Firstly the Crimean Tatars, who comprise 12% of the population of Crimea, boycotted the vote. So that would mean to get an 83% overall turnout there would need to have been a 94% turnout amongst the remainder of the population to make up for the absent Tatars.

This might actually have been possible if the rest of the population was 100% ethnic russian but in reality 30% of them were ethnic Ukranians who were either going to abstain or vote against joining russia.

So in reality I suspect that although the 96% figure may have been accurate to achieve that value the actual turnout was probably nearer to 50%. Of course that's not that impressive sounding so hence the 80% figure that was announced.

SamHarris · 22-03-2014 8:46pm

ILikeBananas wrote: »

There doesn't seem to have been much scrutiny of these figures but even a basic analysis of Crimea's demographics would show that these figures have been "rounded up" significantly.

Firstly the Crimean Tatars, who comprise 12% of the population of Crimea, boycotted the vote. So that would mean to get an 83% overall turnout there would need to have been a 94% turnout amongst the remainder of the population to make up for the absent Tatars.

This might actually have been possible if the rest of the population was 100% ethnic russian but in reality 30% of them were ethnic Ukranians who were either going to abstain or vote against joining russia.

So in reality I suspect that although the 96% figure may have been accurate to achieve that value the actual turnout was probably nearer to 50%. Of course that's not that impressive sounding so hence the 80% figure that was announced.

For whatever reason the people who want to see all this as perfectly normal and right will be the type to "forget" that the vast majority of elections all over the world mean little or nothing every year, and that given the complete absence of any oversight on this particular poll (why not allow it unless you were planning something?) gives us no reason to believe it is in any way different.

It wouldnt matter if pictures came out of people filling out the form with a gun to their head, the people still determined to see this as legitimate always will(despite how many of them even now complain how the US is evil for invading other states, almost in the midst of saying how different this is, barely able to contain themselves for a paragraph to not display the hypocrisy they feel so slighted by in others).

Or at least say they do. The unchanging narrative (that we can all guess at) that they have for world affairs demands it.

SamHarris · 22-03-2014 8:47pm

nacho libre wrote: »

ok. do you believe American foreign policy is littered with shameful episodes?

Hmmm before he answers I'm curious is invading another state a shameful episode or does it really depend :rolleyes: ?

comongethappy · 22-03-2014 8:50pm

nacho libre wrote: »

ok. do you believe American foreign policy is littered with shameful episodes?

Yes.

Next!

SamHarris · 22-03-2014 8:59pm

comongethappy wrote: »

Yes.

Next!

I think he was meant to address a point you made with that.

No more or less shameful than any other state I know a lot about over the last 250 years. We are talking about a time that includes the Belgian Congo.

I have a feeling people think that the US has a specially nefarious history because they know more about it. I'm afraid this has more to do with people watching too much TV than with any factual information. A good example of this would be slavery - I would not doubt at all that the vast majority of Irish people think the US experience with it was particularly special - maybe the last to ban it or the only Western state to engage. It's sad that only the countries that bother to remember the wrongs of it's past get reminded of it by others, for example far more people would be aware of Germany's Nazi past than the very similar death toll taken by the Japanese in the same period. Not least because Germans engage with it in a far more direct level. By the same token I notice many Irish people who tut at the imperial past of many European countries deign not to remember Ireland was just as involved as part of the UK, up to and including things like the scramble for Africa.

My ultimate point being nacho libre is grasping at straws and does not have a point himself. This entire thread has been a bunch of "But what about..." from people defending Russia. Not one cogent argument only engaging with the event itself. More proof, if proof were needed that for the vast majority of them are basing this entirely on the most petty of politics, not the tiny hook of "right and wrong" they would desperately like to.

Dannyboy83 · 23-03-2014 1:02am

recedite wrote: »

If we can just focus in on that period in June 1992, which is the "restore point" offered to the people in this recent referendum.

Do you have a source for that?

I don't understand how it would be possible to restore the June '92 arrangement...Ukraine has operated on a new constitution since 12th June 1999. That Ukrainian constitution was abolished on the 17th March '95.

Did Ukraine also agree to restore their previous constitution to facilitate Crimea?
I've never heard of any of this before.
Can you provide a source for these claims please?

hatrickpatrick · 23-03-2014 6:13am

ILikeBananas wrote: »

This might actually have been possible if the rest of the population was 100% ethnic russian but in reality 30% of them were ethnic Ukranians who were either going to abstain or vote against joining russia.

One slight issue with this - you're assuming that people who are ethnic Ukrainian and/or have a background which would suggest being anti-unification are automatically going to vote no without considering other factors. For example, and this is just hypothetical so don't accuse me of being unpatriotic, morally and ideologically if I lived in Northern Ireland I'd be 100% in favour of living in a United Ireland, but being honest if a poll was held tomorrow to that effect there's no way I'd vote yes in it. Regardless of my ideological feelings on it, pragmatically it'd be fairly insane to vote in favour of joining a country until it's got its ridiculous financial crises in order to some extent.

That's just one example - I'm sure there are plenty more - of why the "You're ethnically X, so you must obviously be voting in favour of Y" argument is flawed. Just because someone belongs to a demographic which has reasons for voting in a particular direction, doesn't necessarily mean that individual will vote that way.

In fact, am I not correct in thinking that when NI in fact had a referendum on re-unification during the Troubles, the result was so overwhelmingly against that one had to consider that some nationalists voted against, as well as unionists? I'd assume this was due to not wanting to deal with the inevitable eruption of hostilities and extremism if re-unification had happened in the midst of everything that was going on, although I'm sure there were other reasons at the time. Point is, you can't really infer anything about how someone will vote based on their background.

Dannyboy83 · 23-03-2014 2:04pm

http://www.russia-direct.org/content/assessing-cost-crimea
As above, wages and pensions doubled overnight, which makes it probable that at least some Russian speaking ethnic Ukranians would have voted to join Russia.

riffmongous · 23-03-2014 2:44pm

It does work both ways though surely, would every single ethnic russian want to rejoin russia? I doubt it.

All the more reason why it's a pity we didnt get a legitimate referendum to find out.

Richard · 23-03-2014 11:01pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In fact, am I not correct in thinking that when NI in fact had a referendum on re-unification during the Troubles, the result was so overwhelmingly against that one had to consider that some nationalists voted against, as well as unionists? I'd assume this was due to not wanting to deal with the inevitable eruption of hostilities and extremism if re-unification had happened in the midst of everything that was going on, although I'm sure there were other reasons at the time. Point is, you can't really infer anything about how someone will vote based on their background.

That's true, and you may well be right about some nationalists voting for the status quo in that 70s referendum, although the overwhelming pro-union vote was also largely due to a boycott by nationalist parties.

But that referendum was an example of exactly when NOT to carry one out. The situation with NI then and Crimea now are VERY different, but carrying out a referendum on the future of a region when there are armed groups involved is never going to end well.

Russia could have has what they wanted without all their muscle-flexing. I suspect that Putin just enjoys it.

alaimacerc · 24-03-2014 5:23am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For example, and this is just hypothetical so don't accuse me of being unpatriotic, morally and ideologically if I lived in Northern Ireland I'd be 100% in favour of living in a United Ireland, but being honest if a poll was held tomorrow to that effect there's no way I'd vote yes in it.

In fact there's excellent and fairly consistent polling evidence that many, many people who are "from a Nationalist (or Republican) background", and who furthermore vote for parties that advocate a united Ireland, levels of support for immediate union is actually very, very patchy. (Gerry Adams calling for a "border poll" is great politics... up to the point he gets one.) So your caveats about similar inference from ethnicity and language in Crimea are well-taken.

Mind you, the same might be said for extrapolations from past voting for Ukraine-wide political parties...

alaimacerc · 24-03-2014 5:37am

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Do you have a source for that?

My Cyrillic and East Slavic is pretty ropy, but happily "1992" is on the ballot paper in good old-fashioned arabic numerals.

I don't understand how it would be possible to restore the June '92 arrangement...[...]

Did Ukraine also agree to restore their previous constitution to facilitate Crimea?

I think you're conflating "possible" and "to Ukraine's liking". Had the vote been in favour of that option, it would have essentially been a "unilateral declaration of autonomy". Presumably there would have then been some sort of negotiation about what sort of change of status was acceptable to Kyiv -- with what level of good faith on either side is a matter for hypothetical debate and counterfactual speculation.

alaimacerc · 24-03-2014 5:53am

djpbarry wrote: »

Who has objected to Crimean self-determination in principle?

Well, many people -- including the very person I was responding to, rather to the point. And the EU, the US... If someone is using Ukrainian law and the Ukrainian constitution to argue that referendum is "illegal", and that's the be-all-and-end-all of the "legitimacy" thereof, then they're explicitly arguing that territorial integrity trumps self-determination. (Whether with any degree of consistency or merely in this instance doubtless varying between the various people saying this.)

Of course, which principle should be paramount in which case is a pretty thorny question.

And you’re accusing others of constructing straw men?

You're darn' tootin'.

Eggy Baby! · 24-03-2014 10:27am

How many seats did the pro-Russian unification party achieve in the last election there? 3/100.

Who did the Crimeans tend to vote for? Well, they were so disaffected, they voted for the largest party in the Ukrainian parliament (the one most Ukrainians voted for).

Aka "tactical voting"

First Up · 24-03-2014 10:38am

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Aka "tactical voting"

How many Crimeans voted to leave Russia and join Ukraine in 1954?

View · 24-03-2014 10:49am

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Aka "tactical voting"

Ukraine uses PR voting. Their system is like Germany's in that 50% of seats are allocated based on votes cast for a party list, 50% of seats are based on votes cast for individual candidates ominated by the parties. That mixed PR system is regarded by political scientist as being fairer (more proportional to the voters' wishes) than our PR-STV.

Certainly, with the party list vote, there is no reason whatsoever for a voter not to vote for the party they prefer most.

View · 24-03-2014 10:57am

First Up wrote: »

How many Crimeans voted to leave Russia and join Ukraine in 1954?

A very stupid argument since Crimeans were never given a vote joining Russia in the first place, were they?

Nobody has ever voted to join Russia in a free and fair vote and nobody, who was "joined" to Russia, has ever voted their way out.

First Up · 24-03-2014 11:17am

View wrote: »

A very stupid argument since Crimeans were never given a vote joining Russia in the first place, were they?

Nobody has ever voted to join Russia in a free and fair vote and nobody, who was "joined" to Russia, has ever voted their way out.

It was a question. To answer yours, I'm not familiar with the details of the 1783 incorporation of Crimea into the Russian empire, other than that it happened at the expense of the Ottoman empire which in turn had grabbed it from the Genoese (or was it the Venetians?) a few hundred years before that.
Seems to me that the recent referendum was the first time anyone asked the Crimeans their opinion. Has to be worth something.

Eggy Baby! · 24-03-2014 11:19am

View wrote: »

Ukraine uses PR voting. Their system is like Germany's in that 50% of seats are allocated based on votes cast for a party list, 50% of seats are based on votes cast for individual candidates ominated by the parties. That mixed PR system is regarded by political scientist as being fairer (more proportional to the voters' wishes) than our PR-STV.

Certainly, with the party list vote, there is no reason whatsoever for a voter not to vote for the party they prefer most.

Two pieces of evidence are typically wheeled out in support for this (i.e the statement that most Crimeans don't support independence): The fact that the Crimean PM Aksynov’s Russian Unity Party only achieved 4% in the 2010 elections in Crimea, and a February 8-18 poll showing that only 41% of Crimeans supported union with Russia.

The rejoinder to the former is easy – tactical voting. An outfit such as the Russian Unity Party would have no chance at the all-Ukraine level, so pro-Russian Crimeans understandably voted for the Party of Regions. And overwhelmingly so.

Regarding the poll numbers:

First, 41% is a very substantial share of the population, and clearly enough to justify a referendum. Most polls show lower support for Scottish independence, and yet they are going through with it. The referendum that split Montenegro from Serbia succeeded by the lowest of margins.

Second, the political situation has changed cardinally since mid-February. The President that Crimeans overwhelmingly voted for has since been overthrown in an unconstitutional coup, and power has been parceled out between Batkivschina and the fascist Svoboda party. Instead of maintaining the status quo until the elections – a not unreasonable expectation of an unelected transition government – they have instead pushed to roll back the Russian language, “lustrate” Party of Regions officials, appoint oligarchs to rule the restive eastern provinces, and formalize the status of Right Sector – the armed wing of Svoboda – as a paramilitary force. At the same time, Russian intervention has transformed the prospect of joining Russia from a pipedream held by Soviet nostalgics to a real choice on a paper ballot. In these circumstances, it is almost certain that support for Crimean secession has gone up.

http://darussophile.com/2014/03/five-myths-about-the-crimean-referendum/#more-11213 (See number 4).

(Note that support for Scottish independence is currently at 39% and, as the commentator states above, they are still going through with it. Even though the Scottish referendum is, admittedly, being done in a much more orderly manner because the situation does not demand expediency).

http://sevastopolnews.info/2014/03/lenta/sobytiya/069216409/

In cyrillic, but I believe that the picture attached to the article speaks for itself. The date is the 12th of March and poll numbers read 80% or thereabouts as pro-Russian. Limited translation would be appreciated.

What specifically about the Crimea referendum is "illegitimate" in the eyes of the in

Comments