Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…6791112

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


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

    Is 'June' 1992 on the ballot paper? In any language?

    Recedite has been unable to provide a source to back up that claim.
    Can you?

    No. So the point stands.

    May 1992, independence, was on offer.
    Therefore, there was no Status Quo option, and therefore, no option to vote 'No'.

    Unless you can provide evidence that June 1992 was on offer, then the debate is closed.


  • Options
    #243
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    SamHarris wrote: »
    I have a feeling people think that the US has a specially nefarious history because they know more about it.

    This is just my own opinion, but the reason I have more of a problem with the US' nefarious episodes is because of US leaders being insufferable hypocrites publicly. Most countries had nefarious episodes in their past (and many in their present), most of these countries do not trumpet their righteousness and demand that the entire world bend to their desires of how it should be run. Most other countries don't go around saying "This sovereign independent country isn't being run the way we want it to be run, let's have its government killed or locked up and force a regime which we like to be installed instead".

    Just my two cents. The reason people hold the US to a higher standard is because the US claims to hold the moral high ground on literally every issue internationally. When you put yourself in that position, you invite far greater scrutiny and criticism of your actions than others.


  • Options
    #244
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    This is just my own opinion, but the reason I have more of a problem with the US' nefarious episodes is because of US leaders being insufferable hypocrites publicly. Most countries had nefarious episodes in their past (and many in their present), most of these countries do not trumpet their righteousness and demand that the entire world bend to their desires of how it should be run. Most other countries don't go around saying "This sovereign independent country isn't being run the way we want it to be run, let's have its government killed or locked up and force a regime which we like to be installed instead".

    Just my two cents. The reason people hold the US to a higher standard is because the US claims to hold the moral high ground on literally every issue internationally. When you put yourself in that position, you invite far greater scrutiny and criticism of your actions than others.

    Agree with the above, except that the US behaves arrogantly in an objective sense. I don't personally hold the USA in any higher regard than I do, say the UK. The USA is just in a special historical position because it is immensely powerful and business guides foreign policy so much. Plus, because of historical events, the US government sees its role as shaping the world in its image (not necessarily a democratic image).


  • Options
    #245
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Just my two cents. The reason people hold the US to a higher standard is because the US claims to hold the moral high ground on literally every issue internationally. When you put yourself in that position, you invite far greater scrutiny and criticism of your actions than others.

    That really is a terrible way to view international affairs. It is particularly damaging when it allows the actions of other countries to fly under the radar.

    Just because a country claims the moral high ground doesn't mean they should face any more or less criticism. You should be discerning enough to recognise what's wrong is wrong and hold every country to the same standard.

    Also, pretty much every country on earth believes they hold the moral high ground, so nothing new there


  • Options
    #246
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    Do you have a source for that?
    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?
    What's written on the ballot paper is the source. We are only talking about restoring the 1992 Crimean constitution, written in Crimea for Crimea.
    Yes you are right, if the Crimeans had voted for that particular restore point ( the 1992 autonomous republic under Ukraine) then Ukraine would have had to revisit the general Ukraine constitution (which of course would still consider the Crimean referendum to be illegal). They (Ukraine) would have to put in an amendment to say that the 1992 Crimean constitution is legally binding on the autonomous Crimea region of Ukraine. But as the Crimeans voted for the "join Russia" option instead, that is a moot point. It is the Russians who are modifying their laws now to incorporate the new reality of Crimea.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    recedite wrote: »
    What's written on the ballot paper is the source. We are only talking about restoring the 1992 Crimean constitution, written in Crimea for Crimea.
    Yes you are right, if the Crimeans had voted for that particular restore point ( the 1992 autonomous republic under Ukraine) then Ukraine would have had to revisit the general Ukraine constitution (which of course would still consider the Crimean referendum to be illegal). They (Ukraine) would have to put in an amendment to say that the 1992 Crimean constitution is legally binding on the autonomous Crimea region of Ukraine. But as the Crimeans voted for the "join Russia" option instead, that is a moot point. It is the Russians who are modifying their laws now to incorporate the new reality of Crimea.

    It is a moot point, you're quite right.

    But you said
    recedite wrote:
    I really can't see how anyone can say that is a "Yes and Yes" choice.

    Now it's clear how it could be perceived as a Yes and Yes choice.


  • Options
    #248
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    .

    This is just my own opinion, but the reason I have more of a problem with the US' nefarious episodes is because of US leaders being insufferable hypocrites publicly. Most countries had nefarious episodes in their past (and many in their present), most of these countries do not trumpet their righteousness and demand that the entire world bend to their desires of how it should be run. Most other countries don't go around saying "This sovereign independent country isn't being run the way we want it to be run, let's have its government killed or locked up and force a regime which we like to be installed instead".

    Just my two cents. The reason people hold the US to a higher standard is because the US claims to hold the moral high ground on literally every issue internationally. When you put yourself in that position, you invite far greater scrutiny and criticism of your actions than others.


    Very strange. Let us say that on a scale of 1 to 10 of high standards, the pedestal the US puts itself on is 10 and that it falls short in reality and is only an 8.

    A country that aspires to be a low standard 5 and stays a 5 is subject to less criticism from you because they are not hypocrites. As I say very strange.

    The US is governed and run to a higher standard and with more respect for human rights than any of China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Syria. Yet some of you can't even see that.


  • Options
    #249
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Godge wrote: »
    Very strange. Let us say that on a scale of 1 to 10 of high standards, the pedestal the US puts itself on is 10 and that it falls short in reality and is only an 8.

    A country that aspires to be a low standard 5 and stays a 5 is subject to less criticism from you because they are not hypocrites. As I say very strange.

    The US is governed and run to a higher standard and with more respect for human rights than any of China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Syria. Yet some of you can't even see that.

    What country "aspires to be a low standard"? How countries run themselves, under whatever political, cultural, religious or governance system they chose is essentially their own business. You can have whatever opinion you like of how they do things but interfering in it is a different matter. That applies just as much to the US as it does to Russia or anyone else.

    The US's track record in liberating (i.e interfering in) others is not exactly stellar and it's list is as long as anyone's.


  • Options
    #250
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    First Up wrote: »
    Seems to me that the recent referendum was the first time anyone asked the Crimeans their opinion. Has to be worth something.

    They have ample elections in which to give a pro-Russian unification party (or parties) a majority if they were interested in doing so, they have not done so.

    A referendum has to be free and fair to be worth something. The one in Crimea wasn't.

    How many members of the Council of Europe accept the referendum was either held according to best practice OR was free and fair?


  • Options
    #251
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    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.

    The Russian Unity party got 3 seats out of 100 in the CRIMEAN parliament.

    Russian Crimeans did NOT vote for them in the CRIMEA only elections (except in derisory numbers).

    It would appear that "tactical voting" by Russian Crimeans is a euphemism for "rather embarassingly for Russia, they did not vote unification with Russia".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    View wrote: »
    They have ample elections in which to give a pro-Russian unification party (or parties) a majority if they were interested in doing so, they have not done so.

    A referendum has to be free and fair to be worth something. The one in Crimea wasn't.

    How many members of the Council of Europe accept the referendum was either held according to best practice OR was free and fair?

    No previous vote took place after the status of the Russian language had been downgraded or the Kiev government and elected president run out of office. They are the sort of things liable to influence how people vote.

    The criticism of the referendum is not so much how it was conducted but that it should have been conducted at all. As I have previously said, the outrage over Crimea is to be taken with a pinch of salt when considered against how Kosovo was allowed to declare independence from Serbia, with considerably less justification than Crimea's departure from Ukraine.


  • Options
    #253
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    First Up wrote: »
    How countries run themselves, under whatever political, cultural, religious or governance system they chose is essentially their own business.

    No country exists in a vacuum. A poorly run country is likely to destabilise the surrounding region i.e North Korea. I'm sure there are plenty of people in North Korea who would like other countries to pressure Kim into changing the way he conducts 'business'


  • Options
    #254
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    czx wrote: »
    No country exists in a vacuum. A poorly run country is likely to destabilise the surrounding region i.e North Korea. I'm sure there are plenty of people in North Korea who would like other countries to pressure Kim into changing the way he conducts 'business'

    Here's where we start getting selective again. Apart from a few dud rockets and lots of bellicose bluster, all North Korea does is make life miserable for North Koreans. If you want to use the "de-stabilise the region" argument, you could neatly put Ukraine/Crimea into that and hey presto - a nice justification for Russia to step in.


  • Options
    #255
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Eggy Baby! wrote: »
    (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).
    .

    The Scottish National party won a clear majority in the last elections held in Scotland (not 3 out of 100 as was the case in Crimea). Hence, a referendum is being held there.

    Even with that majority, they'll probably lose which shows how incredible it is to suggest that pro-Russia unification has gone from having trivial levels of support in the last Crimean election to the reported "results" - results which would require Crimean Ukrainians to have overwhelmingly supported the idea, never mind unanimity among Crimean Russians, for those to be true.

    As an election result, it makes the miracles in the Bible seem like paltry stuff.


  • Options
    #256
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    First Up wrote: »
    Here's where we start getting selective again. Apart from a few dud rockets and lots of bellicose bluster, all North Korea does is make life miserable for North Koreans. If you want to use the "de-stabilise the region" argument, you could neatly put Ukraine/Crimea into that and hey presto - a nice justification for Russia to step in.

    Think it's sad that some people believe that how a country governs itself is its own business. You just said that NK makes its citizens life a misery, that's not right.

    North Korea is a very clear-cut case. It has been ruled by horribly for decades by the same family and is a highly militarised country with a large DMZ with the south


  • Options
    #257
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    czx wrote: »
    Think it's sad that some people believe that how a country governs itself is its own business. You just said that NK makes its citizens life a misery, that's not right.

    North Korea is a very clear-cut case. It has been ruled by horribly for decades by the same family and is a highly militarised country with a large DMZ with the south

    Don't disagree with you that NK is a dreadful place but what do you want to do about it?


  • Options
    #258
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    First Up wrote: »
    What country "aspires to be a low standard"? How countries run themselves, under whatever political, cultural, religious or governance system they chose is essentially their own business. You can have whatever opinion you like of how they do things but interfering in it is a different matter. That applies just as much to the US as it does to Russia or anyone else.

    The US's track record in liberating (i.e interfering in) others is not exactly stellar and it's list is as long as anyone's.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    This is just my own opinion, but the reason I have more of a problem with the US' nefarious episodes is because of US leaders being insufferable hypocrites publicly. Most countries had nefarious episodes in their past (and many in their present), most of these countries do not trumpet their righteousness and demand that the entire world bend to their desires of how it should be run. Most other countries don't go around saying "This sovereign independent country isn't being run the way we want it to be run, let's have its government killed or locked up and force a regime which we like to be installed instead".

    Just my two cents. The reason people hold the US to a higher standard is because the US claims to hold the moral high ground on literally every issue internationally. When you put yourself in that position, you invite far greater scrutiny and criticism of your actions than others.


    The anti-Americans can't have it both ways.

    You cannot say that the US takes the high moral ground and criticise them for it yet state that other countries also aspire to high standards and excuse them for not reaching it.

    The point I am making which you failed to address completely is that the US has higher standards of democracy, human rights and whatever else you want to call it than the likes of Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia or countless others including most of sub-Saharan Africa.

    The hypocrites around here are those who criticise American foreign policy but absolve the likes of those others from criticism. We have some people even trying to excuse North Korea!!! I mean, what sort of twisted logic is that. North Koreans have been subject to the most repressive tyrannical regime for decades. It is about time someone shouted stop.


  • Options
    #259
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    First Up wrote: »
    Don't disagree with you that NK is a dreadful place but what do you want to do about it?


    For a start, we could all support American attempts to force regime change in North Korea.


  • Options
    #260
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    First Up wrote: »
    No previous vote took place after the status of the Russian language had been downgraded or the Kiev government and elected president run out of office. They are the sort of things liable to influence how people vote.

    Russian wasn't downgraded. The law on its status remains unaltered.

    The President was voted out of office by the Ukrainian parliament - including by his own party, the one that Russian-speaking Ukrainians (including the Crimean ones) strongly supported.

    I note you have no problem with the democratically elected government of Crimea, the one that Crimeans had overwhelmingly voted for, having been "run out of office" as soon as those "unidentified" soldiers appeared in Crimea.

    Running governments out of office is okay in Crimea but not in Kiev, is that it?


  • Options
    #261
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    This is just my own opinion, but the reason I have more of a problem with the US' nefarious episodes is because of US leaders being insufferable hypocrites publicly. Most countries had nefarious episodes in their past (and many in their present), most of these countries do not trumpet their righteousness and demand that the entire world bend to their desires of how it should be run. Most other countries don't go around saying "This sovereign independent country isn't being run the way we want it to be run, let's have its government killed or locked up and force a regime which we like to be installed instead".

    Just my two cents. The reason people hold the US to a higher standard is because the US claims to hold the moral high ground on literally every issue internationally. When you put yourself in that position, you invite far greater scrutiny and criticism of your actions than others.

    If you believe most government do not trumpet their countries special righteousness, that is far more an indication of ignorance than a reflection of reality.

    Actually the countries with power do it where they feel they can get away with it. Any number of examples in the last 70 years hold to that. So this is just wrong.

    I'm curious, what country in what situation do you know admitted or implied they were morally in the wrong with their actions but were doing it anyway? I can't think of any.

    This entire reply is merely proof of my assertion, not a rebuttal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Godge wrote: »
    For a start, we could all support American attempts to force regime change in North Korea.

    And replacing it with....? Worked a treat in Iraq.


  • Options
    #263
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    It is a moot point, you're quite right..

    Now it's clear how it could be perceived as a Yes and Yes choice.
    No, its not clear.
    I agree there is no status quo option, and I'm not convinced one was needed either.
    I see two different options. One to join Russia, and one to be an autonomous republic within Ukraine. The missing status quo option, that of simply remaining a part of Ukraine with no independence, was an unpopular situation that was imposed on them since 1992.


  • Options
    #264
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    First Up wrote: »
    And replacing it with....? Worked a treat in Iraq.


    Unlike Iraq, there is a perfectly functioning democracy next door in South Korea. Even if the Koreas are not unified, the South could certainly help a new democratic government to be elected. It is similar to East Germany which worked quite well.

    North Korea is not Iraq.


  • Options
    #265
    czx
    Registered Users Posts: 544 ✭✭✭czx


    First Up wrote: »
    Don't disagree with you that NK is a dreadful place but what do you want to do about it?

    At an absolute minimum, not absolve it's leadership of responsibility by claiming that it's 'their country, their business'


  • Options
    #266
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    What country "aspires to be a low standard"? How countries run themselves, under whatever political, cultural, religious or governance system they chose is essentially their own business. You can have whatever opinion you like of how they do things but interfering in it is a different matter. That applies just as much to the US as it does to Russia or anyone else.

    The US's track record in liberating (i.e interfering in) others is not exactly stellar and it's list is as long as anyone's.

    Actually on a global or historical scale you would be wrong in the last assertion. Japan, Western Europe and many other states are what they are because of massive American interference. Ireland is one of the very few places that employed what we would see as the "ideal" before American pressure, and even that was based upon and supported by the States at the time and now.

    Sure, plenty of places are not, but in any of them - Iraq Afghanistan they were hardly "stellar" before any interference either.

    Even the case of Iraq, despite the disaster the invasion was, Saddams regime in the ten years previously actually accounted for more deaths. The ten years before that many times the number of deaths.

    Many people make the assumption that all these places would be Norway without any interference - history and fact does not support that assertion.

    To many people feel comfortable making the assumption that no interference = a fully developed democratic state and base their projections on this. The fact is very few states have even made it to that position without massive outside interference at various times.


  • Options
    #267
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    And replacing it with....? Worked a treat in Iraq.

    The Kurds and Marsh Arabs would very much disagree with you that it wasnt worth it. Even though it was a disaster, and I disagreed with it then and now, I do not agree that Saddams regime was suddenly going to make massive changes that would have dramatically lessened the suffering in the last ten years.

    About the only difference is it would have been quieter, perhaps even for people in Iraq who were not directly targeted but certainly for people in The West who routinely assume everything is fine unless a Western country is involved. That's just not the reality.

    In the case of North Korea it is doubtful that any massive intervention is possible or even desirable. I don't know if it would descend into chaos like Iraq but it is far too different economically and culturally to just be integrated with the South (many of whom are comfortable with the status quo, whatever the morality of that). North Korea also may have functioning nuclear weapons, but the extent of the fanaticism there may put the middle East to shame,

    Though that is not at all an endorsement of the status quo, anyone that knows anything about that regime knows how god awful it is and how very difficult it would be to make things perceptibly worse for a prolonged period of time. The instability though, is just to unpredictable for a full on invasion or massive regime change to be viable.


  • Options
    #268
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    recedite wrote: »
    No, its not clear.
    I agree there is no status quo option,

    So it is clear. End of debate.
    The missing status quo option, that of simply remaining a part of Ukraine with no independence, was an unpopular situation that was imposed on them since 1992.

    On the contrary, it was the most popular situation in the surveys:
    http://i62.tinypic.com/15hbl2b.gif

    It's the one that says (as today)


  • Options
    #269
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    View wrote: »
    Russian wasn't downgraded. The law on its status remains unaltered.

    The President was voted out of office by the Ukrainian parliament - including by his own party, the one that Russian-speaking Ukrainians (including the Crimean ones) strongly supported.

    I note you have no problem with the democratically elected government of Crimea, the one that Crimeans had overwhelmingly voted for, having been "run out of office" as soon as those "unidentified" soldiers appeared in Crimea.

    Running governments out of office is okay in Crimea but not in Kiev, is that it?

    Motion to downgrade Russian passed by parliament but not yet signed into law.
    Ukraine is divided and neither street protests or military intervention are ideal mechanisms to solve political problems. The US, EU, NATO and the rest have been happy to ignore - or endorse - both when it suits them but gets all outraged and sanctimonious when others do.
    Sauce for the goose and gander and all that.


  • Options
    #270
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Godge wrote: »
    Unlike Iraq, there is a perfectly functioning democracy next door in South Korea. Even if the Koreas are not unified, the South could certainly help a new democratic government to be elected. It is similar to East Germany which worked quite well.

    North Korea is not Iraq.

    Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    First Up wrote: »
    Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?

    Which is probably the best argument against direct intervention. There are many regimes, now and throughout history, that would be far better (from a human suffering standpoint, and even political) taken out were their a guarantee of a short, sharp war followed by a quick transition to functioning democracy. Fact is, it's rarely possible to completely, or even partly, be sure of what will happen.


Advertisement