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

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm sure there's also a Six Nations effect here, too. If England win the rugby, we have to put up with hearing about it for the next year, and they're intolerably smug and entirely insufferable. If the French do, then for all that the English will say the French are waaaay more arrogant winners than they are, it's largely "off the radar" for those of us In These Islands.

(Those of you with no interest in sports, or who live in a media bubble in which the UK TV and newspapers don't intrude at all, please discard this analogy.)

I guess this was what I was saying, only you put it more colorfully.

Everyone frames their foreign policy (and domestic) in moral terms. We don't get front page news usually of Swedens response to Russian aggression, even though they most certainly have one. We don't get Swiss movies where the Swiss guy saves the day and we don't care if Uzbekistan's leader boils people alive. Like I said though, it's an illusion, one that only makes me roll my eyes when people actually base all their politics on it. Even if it WERE true, it would be a piss poor reason to support aggression in other cases. Can you imagine a worse reason than "The things that third party says ANNOY me, so I'm throwing the second party under the bus and cheering on the first".

alaimacerc wrote: »

There are interesting parallels, though: David Cameron describing both votes as "illegal" if held without the express permission of their "parent" entity. In other words, he's consistent (at least between these whole two instances!) on the right of self-determination of "autonomous" entities: there simply isn't one.

I think the debate here is less about how far the Crimean situation falls short of "ideal" and "democratic norms", and more about how accurate Western responses like Joe Biden's "land grab" are. Accounts that erase the context and motivation for this happening are all too common.

Is that not the position of international law, however? We have created a system by which the state is the unit on which international and many other relations occur, that these must be to some extent stable is imperative. Were it merely possible for any group to decide among themselves that they would like there own state the obvious problems that would ensue are obvious.

I can think of many situations where the parent nations go ahead would not be required, however they would be exceptions rather than the rule.

For me it certainly was how far it fell short of democratic norms, but I think your right that how others reacted more from the perspective you describe, I don't think this was a good idea but I see why. Far more countries have an interest in maintaining the state as the unit at which decisions like this are made than care about how democratic or legitimate a particular referendum was. Most notably, perhaps, China.

Do you not believe it was a land grab? I think that was part of the motivation, another was to punish the Ukrainian government for turning from their sphere and yet another was to send a message to others in the region (many of which have substantial Russian minorities) that this is a possibility.

By and large, however, I think it is both preferential and the norm that a separation of one state from another is a decision taken in consensus with the whole nation. The problems with just a free for all are too obvious and uncontrollable - for example how big does a movement have to be for their wishes to be valid, can a single town not decide to pack up? Could an oil rich region of a poor state with a small part of the population not just leave and use the wealth for themselves? The potential for conflict and chaos is just to high for it to be up to local authorities what they would want to do in this regard.

For me that is all secondary however in this situation as the poll was just too flawed in too many ways to be taken seriously. If that were not the case I would have reservations, for the reasons above, but would not bother even arguing with the people that support this action as I would care so little.

And I disagree that there are "no rights" for such entities, they just cannot take the decision alone. Which makes sense given that it may have a dramatic impact on other people in the state not in the region.

SamHarris wrote: »

As in you see it as something that is lost, not something that is gained? I agree.

If Bush had cancelled the Iraq war before it began no one would say "Well the US DIDNT invade Iraq, so Russia has no right to invade Crimea" or at least, none of the people claiming this is all legitimate would acknowledge it as a good argument.

I'm still getting my head around the fact the biggest defence for all this is that the West invaded countries. They then go on to say how bad that was, usually, or imply it. Then point out the hypocrisy. That so many people can do this, including Putin and people jaws are not hitting the floor is very irritating.

Now THAT is re-writing history!

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think that on the contrary, you've lost track of said "point" entirely. In the message I responded to, you were going on about Ukrainian constitutional changes in 1995 and 1999 and asking if Ukraine "agreed" to such an arrangement. I corrected and informed you on these matters. Your reply veers off without regard to the actual content of what I said.

You see this is the problem.
People are forming opinions while exhibiting an appalling lack of understanding of the facts.

I'll try to simplify this for you but you really must try harder.
It's not my job to educate you.


1. The claim was made that June 92 was the 'restore point'.
2. That's cannot be the case, because it would require restoration of a Ukrainian constitution which no longer exists (abolished in 98).
3. Therefore May 92 was the 'restore point' on offer, which is a unilateral declaration of independence, and didn't require any participation on the Ukranian side (and which was also the 'restore point' used in 1994)
4. Regardless, there was no status quo option on offer. (as agreed by recedite himself)


NB::
That is why the following graph shows a different colour (Blue) for the 'status quo' option.
And Green, for the new option.
http://i62.tinypic.com/15hbl2b.gif


Now I don't mind whatever infantile claims people make in the thread, people can waffle and spin to their heart's content, it's not influencing anyone anyway.
But there are clear and undeniable facts, and they have been established, so unless someone can demonstrate that in fact June '92 was the 'restore point', (Given that I was the one who had to translate the source document from Russian to English for you - I can confirm you will not be able to do that.) then I won't be bothering to comment further on the various 'opinion(s)' in this thread.

The difference between the two 1992 unilateral "constitutions" is whether Crimea is part of Ukraine. The ballot option includes the phrase "status of Crimea as part of Ukraine". I don't see what could be clearer than that.

No it's not.
Yet again, you are factually incorrect, and forming opinions based on fallacies.

Here is the fact

i)5 May 1992 - parliament declared Crimea independent
ii) 6 May 1992 - new sentence into constitution - declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine.

ii) In June 1992 the parties reached a compromise and Crimea was given the status of "Autonomous Republic".[1]

Can it be made any clearer to you?

May 92 = Independence (and read Recedite's post where he correctly equated it to 'External Association', Devalera style)
June 92 = Autonomy

If you can demonstrate this to be factually incorrect - please, be my guest.
But no more 'opinion', thanks.

Are you View's backup group?

:rolleyes:
Comments such as that do not belong in an adult discussion.
Attack the post, not the poster, eh?

I've dealt with this point in detail, and what seems like half a dozen times by now. See this post.

I didn't bother to read it.
It's just another opinion formed on a lack of understanding of the facts.
It's of no consequence to anyone.

Unless you can provide evidence that anyone voted, or wanted to vote, on the basis you describe, then sure, by all means! But hardly in the way you seek to imply.

NB:
The reason there is no blue on the referendum graph, is because that option is not available.
The options are I) Yellow and II) Green.

http://i62.tinypic.com/15hbl2b.gif

p.s. please save the spin on wheter it's a blue-ish green or a greeny blue, I'm not interested.

recedite wrote: »

At the time of the Declaration of Independence, the Crimean parliament were asserting their full independence, ie that they were not "a part of Ukraine". But following threats from Kiev, they retrenched from that position and amended the 1992 Constitution to include the words "as a part of Ukraine". So this is a lesser status than full independence, while being the best that they thought they could "get away with" at the time.
In a sense this is very similar to the treaty that Michael Collins signed with the British; not a full independent republic, but an autonomous free state. A practical solution that allows for peace, and might lead to something more in time, if that is what the people want, going forward.

Agree.

It is plain from the wording on the ballot paper that was the restore point on offer. The text specifically included the words "a part of Ukraine".

Incorrect.

i)5 May 1992 - parliament declared Crimea independent
ii) 6 May 1992 - new sentence into constitution - declared that Crimea was part of Ukraine.

ii) In June 1992 the parties reached a compromise and Crimea was given the status of "Autonomous Republic".[1]

This is a fine legal debate lads but is anyone really suggesting that many (or any) of the 96% voters who opted for joining Russia would have voted otherwise if the wording on the alternative "restore point" had been different?

recedite wrote: »

No, but its important to establish that the voters did have an alternative.
They could have voted for some (admittedly difficult to pin down exactly because the goalposts were always shifting) "autonomous state within Ukraine". It was not a "yes and yes" referendum for "join Russia".

That is pretty obvious and using the ballot's wording to de-legitimise the whole referendum is a bit desperate in my view. It can be argued that holding the vote at that time was overly hasty but the main criticism seems to be that having a referendum at all was wrong.
That can be debated but when you get that sort of overwhelming expression in one direction, you can't claim to be a democrat and refuse to take it into account.
Crimea's very existence as part of Ukraine is so recent and so questionable in how it came about that, with everything else that has happened, a plebescite looks to me to be absolutely justified.

First Up wrote: »

That is pretty obvious and using the ballot's wording to de-legitimise the whole referendum is a bit desperate in my view.

You don't realise it has a legal definition?

In Constitutional Law, statutes that contain ambiguous language are void for vagueness. The language of such laws is considered so obscure and uncertain that a reasonable person cannot determine from a reading what the law purports to command or prohibit. This statutory ambiguity deprives a person of the notice requirement of Due Process of Law, and, therefore, renders the statute unconstitutional.

And precedent:

Clarity Act

The motivation behind the Clarity Act was largely based on the near separation vote of the 1995 Quebec referendum, in which the people of Quebec voted against the sovereignty option by a small margin (50.58% to 49.42%). Controversy surrounded the ambiguity and wording of the ballot question.

Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"),[1] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.

First Up wrote: »

It can be argued that holding the vote at that time was overly hasty but the main criticism seems to be that having a referendum at all was wrong.

I've already made it clear that I'm in favour of Crimea's democratic right to reunify with Russia, provided the referendum is legal and democratic.

Russia suffered 31 terrorist atrocities last year.
In my view it's naive to assume that territorial aggrandizement which subverts the legal & democratic process, will not produce a similar outcome which we have seen the world over (including on this island), not to mention the fact that Russia has fought 2 internationally publicized wars against separatists in the last 2 decades.

First Up wrote: »

That can be debated but when you get that sort of overwhelming expression in one direction, you can't claim to be a democrat and refuse to take it into account.

C'mon, that fallacy didn't even require thought to refute:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26483940
North Korea's Kim Jong-un in 'unanimous poll win'

First Up wrote: »

Crimea's very existence as part of Ukraine is so recent and so questionable in how it came about that, with everything else that has happened, a plebescite looks to me to be absolutely justified.

I agree with you, as does most of the rest of the world.
But a legal and democratic one - that's the catch;)

First Up wrote: »

So if I follow your argument, you agree that the Crimeans should decide

Yes

and you don't strongly dispute that a majority favours re-joining Russia.

I think it's a strong majority, my guess is 70%

You just don't like how the recent referendum was conducted.

Precisely.
And the Realpolitik is that this is the only issue which concerns the rest of the CIS (who have started building up their armies) , or the EU (who have too much to lose).

The US have their own agenda, but if it's above board, then there is nothing they can say.

OK - for the sake of argument let's start from there, apportioning blame a you see fit. So what do you propose happens now?

Rerun the referendum.
Clear and unambiguous choices.
No Russian troops at the border, No Western Troops at the border. Bring in the UN if nec.
OCSE monitor the referendum.

If Crimea chooses to join Russia (which it will), then Russia cancels the Ukrainian gas debt in return for the assets it forfeits.

Russia keeps Crimea and doesn't interfere with the rest of Eastern Ukraine.

Clarity Act

The motivation behind the Clarity Act was largely based on the near separation vote of the 1995 Quebec referendum, in which the people of Quebec voted against the sovereignty option by a small margin (50.58% to 49.42%). Controversy surrounded the ambiguity and wording of the ballot question.

Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"),[1] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.

The problem is that you have used common law examples for a civil law problem. The Clarity Act is a common law statute and the conta proferentem rule is a common law doctrine...Russia and all of the post-Soviet space ascribe to civil law, not common law.

Russia suffered 31 terrorist atrocities last year.
In my view it's naive to assume that territorial aggrandizement which subverts the legal & democratic process, will not produce a similar outcome which we have seen the world over (including on this island), not to mention the fact that Russia has fought 2 internationally publicized wars against separatists in the last 2 decades.

The second war was arguably fought mostly against wahhabis, but I agree with your assessment of the first Chechen war.

First Up wrote: »

I note that the language has now moved from "secession" to "invasion". Quite a bit of detail omitted there.

You don't think it was both? What is foreign troops entering another soverign nation en mass without that nations consent other than an invasion? The referendum was too flawed for the following annexation to be anything but from a legal perspective.

First Up wrote: »

So, as you seem eager to engage on the substantive issue, I offer you one more chance to comment on the contradictions that applied to western (most of) policies and actions on Kosovo and those they are now displaying on Crimea.

I believe everyone has engaged with this dozens of times. If you still think of it as a major issue, or a valid reason for your own hypocrisy or Russia's actions then so be it, I don't really care and am sick of saying the same thing to receive the same inane response.

First Up wrote: »

Of the two, Crimea had by a considerable margin, the stronger case for secession but the response could not be more different. Compare and contrast please.

You seem to believe so, the majority of those that do not use RT to get their daily dose of "the facts" or blindly follow the Kremlin line (one and the same?) disagree.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Clarity Act

The motivation behind the Clarity Act was largely based on the near separation vote of the 1995 Quebec referendum, in which the people of Quebec voted against the sovereignty option by a small margin (50.58% to 49.42%). Controversy surrounded the ambiguity and wording of the ballot question.

Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"),[1] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.

The problem is that you have used common law examples for a civil law problem. The Clarity Act is a common law statute and the conta proferentem rule is a common law doctrine...Russia and all of the post-Soviet space ascribe to civil law, not common law.



The second war was arguably fought mostly against wahhabis, but I agree with your assessment of the first Chechen war.

From a legal perspective you are obviously right, but would you not agree that from a logical and even moral perspective the massive ambiguity massively damages the validity of the vote, and is just another nail in it's coffin? Or, at the very least, raises yet another question along with the host of others?

First Up wrote: »

That is pretty obvious and using the ballot's wording to de-legitimise the whole referendum is a bit desperate in my view. It can be argued that holding the vote at that time was overly hasty but the main criticism seems to be that having a referendum at all was wrong.
That can be debated but when you get that sort of overwhelming expression in one direction, you can't claim to be a democrat and refuse to take it into account.
Crimea's very existence as part of Ukraine is so recent and so questionable in how it came about that, with everything else that has happened, a plebescite looks to me to be absolutely justified.

Not from many people here, anyway, but you may be correct for the basis of the argument on the international stage (ie that it should not be held at all without Ukrainian gov consent). But here I have only seen people call the actual handling of the polling being massively questioned - for many it being so flawed as to be well into the "near worthless" territory.

Again, democracy requires far more than being able to tick a box for the vast majority of people.

There are many outstanding arguments over territory left as a hang over from both the Soviet Union and (an enormous amount) from European colonialism. From a broader perspective this quick invasion-quick poll- quick annexation sets an awful precedent with how to deal with them all. It is a near miracle this has not become a blood bath already.

SamHarris wrote: »

You only asked me there. Previously you made vague references to Western hypocrisy. So, no, I think your confused. Of course, before I answer, why would your hypocrisy or Russia's be any less obvious if they are so similar, as you claim, and they support one but not the other? Even Putin made this laughable mistake in his speech - stating how similar the situations were and that the West were hypocritical for supporting Kosovo but not Crimea, all the whilst doing THE EXACT SAME THING. People actually cheered. Intellectually pathetic.

To answer your question I don't really have a position on it, I didn't follow it enough at the time or now. But as I've stated above for me the question was not whether or not people can ultimately vote on their regions future more were the systems and atmosphere in place that allows the decision to be made in a democratic fashion (again, democracy is about more than ticking a box).

I mentioned Kosovo in my first post in this forum and frequently since. It is a legitimate question, no matter who asks it, why Kosovo's secession from Serbia should be endorsed and supported militarily, while Crimea's is condemned. It is reasonable to condemn both but not just one of them. If your argument is based on moral values, then you need to be able to apply them consistently. Saying you didn't follow it is not an argument.

First Up wrote: »

I mentioned Kosovo in my first post in this forum and frequently since. It is a legitimate question, no matter who asks it, why Kosovo's secession from Serbia should be endorsed and supported militarily, while Crimea's is condemned. It is reasonable to condemn both but not just one of them. If your argument is based on moral values, then you need to be able to apply them consistently. Saying you didn't follow it is not an argument.

Sure, but you implied you had asked the question of me many times before. You had not. I don't usually read the many posts someone made before when addressing a single one.

Given that one of the few things I know about Kosovo's separation is that it's people were directly targeted for murder by the Serbian authorities I'm not exactly seeing why they must be treated identically given that even with my parse knowledge I'm aware of that massive difference, and that things inevitably become even more different as complexity is introduced I would not doubt there are many other.

It's not? I'm afraid it is, you can have a position on pretty much anything without having a position on every single event in the past that is similar. Given that you do not know about every war, do you find your position on Iraq's validity has any less weight, especially given that the values I used to judge the situation I have made entirely clear.

Given that even if what you say is true, that the two cases are almost identical and therefore everyone should take the same position on both or have their position be completely invalidated (a strange presumption, given that there really is no international affair that countries would say "well this is similar to a previous situation, so we will take the same tack regardless of national interests) would, regardless of which side is "correct", be applicable to both parties involved in this case equally and therefore a moot point.

What is your ultimate point, regardless? Say the West and Russia decide what constitutes a valid succession based upon the particular details of a given case, why is this important to your position?