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

hatrickpatrick

So we have several countries, most recently the UK, refusing to accept ye result of the Crimea referendum to join Russia. With turnout supposedly hovering around 80% and an apparently definitive result, I'm curious as to what specifically would cause the international community to boycott a referendum like this.

Is it because there was so little time between its announcement and voting? Is it because the country is currently in a chaotic state? Is it because there are fears of fraud or voter intimidation? Is it a case of the west wanting the "right" result and making up excuses to dismiss it? Is it because Ukranian law with regard to referenda was broken?

I've seen many articles outlining the fact that many countries regard the referendum as illegitimate, but none which go into the reasons thereof.
I am as many know a fairly cynical fellow and part of me is jumping to the conclusion that it's a case of the west not respecting a result it isn't pleased with as we've *cough* seen here in Ireland in the not so distant past, but I can also see a legitimate argument that any poll should be postponed until the turmoil has eased. What's swinging me towards the cynical end of the spectrum is the turnout - if 80% of the population did indeed turn out to vote, then arguably this referendum has been more democratic than any Irish referendum I've lived through.

Thoughts?
(btw I'm not on one side or another just yet, I'm not agreeing with any particular argument because I literally haven't seen any proposed in the media or by the people objecting to the referendum - the potential reasons for the boycott are my own musings since I haven't seen any put forward by anyone else

ardmacha

A referendum preceeded by armed men from one of the factions taking control of the place is not legitimate. One organised in a week without proper campaigning is not legitimate. One that does not allow the continuation of the present situation as an option is not legitimate. One without OCSE observers is not legitimate.

comongethappy

When the ballot lacked an option to remain part of Ukraine, it lacks legitimacy.

When Russian armour is driving down streets, civic offices taken over by troops & militia & Ukrainian forces held prisoner within their bases.... It doesn't feel legit.

Though, no doubt the locals would like to be part of Russia, the way it was executed was ridiculous.

greyfox56

ardmacha wrote: »

A referendum preceeded by armed men from one of the factions taking control of the place is not legitimate. One organised in a week without proper campaigning is not legitimate. One that does not allow the continuation of the present situation as an option is not legitimate. One without OCSE observers is not legitimate.

Nonsense, those armed men never prevented anyone from voting no. USA would be quick to send in troops if its people were in danger of Neo-nazi fascists.

Endlessly sucking from the teat of US propaganda as usual.

Oh, and btw, I laughed at Kerry's horse face when he talks about illegitimate actions, and invading sovering nations.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ...

Memnoch

greyfox56 wrote: »

Nonsense, those armed men never prevented anyone from voting no. USA would be quick to send in troops if its people were in danger of Neo-nazi fascists.

Endlessly sucking from the teat of US propaganda as usual.

Oh, and btw, I laughed at Kerry's horse face when he talks about illegitimate actions, and invading sovering nations.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ...

I agree with you about American hypocrisy, and it is certainly on full display here. But the idea that this referendum can be considered fair or legitimate is laughable.

Those are Russian troops controlling the streets. They don't have to shoot anyone or directly stop anyone, their mere presence is a strong deterrent and clear intimidation.

Look at it this way. If you were in Crimea and wanted to vote no, and there were armed troops outside. Russian troops with a clear agenda. Would you feel safe or enabled? Maybe you would, but many others would not. Or maybe you recgonize that russian might is going to rule the day and now is not the time to stand out. Not if tou want to live there or keep your family safe. How can you know if they vote will even be anonymous? I can't fathom how this would not be obvious to anyone.

American hypocrisy is not a justification for Russia's behaviour in this.

Ardent

I think Lincoln said it best:

"Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy,” Lincoln had said in his somber inaugural address a month earlier. “A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left."

He's right. And that's why we don't have a confederate states of america today, with Richmond as the capital.

gandalf

greyfox56 wrote: »

Nonsense, those armed men never prevented anyone from voting no.

They didn't have the option to vote no :rolleyes:

comongethappy

Anti-American 'whataboutery' is so pointless.

Why does condemning Kremlin actions make one a US stooge in the eyes of so many posters?

hatrickpatrick

comongethappy wrote: »

When the ballot lacked an option to remain part of Ukraine, it lacks legitimacy.

When Russian armour is driving down streets, civic offices taken over by troops & militia & Ukrainian forces held prisoner within their bases.... It doesn't feel legit.

Though, no doubt the locals would like to be part of Russia, the way it was executed was ridiculous.

Ah, I misunderstood the referendum then, I assumed that restoring the 1992 constitution would effectively keep the status quo but having just read up on it, it simply gives the government the right to make the decision. So the referendum was basically "join Russia or let the government decide who we join".

That's pretty messed up, certainly. Seems bizarre that they'd do it that way as well, given that from what I've read the referendum would almost definitely have carried the motion to join Russia, so why did they feel the need to set up an incomplete referendum to do it? Jet seems like if the choices had been to join Russia or remain part of Ukraine, they'd be joining Russia anyway without accusations of a rigged referendum...

Manach

Ardent wrote: »

I think Lincoln said it best:



He's right. And that's why we don't have a confederate states of america today, with Richmond as the capital.

So the initial US 13 States did not have a right to cede from the British Polity?

The referendum, based on news reports, is illegal under Ukrainian law. However ignoring procedural irregularities, there is very little precedent for such a state breaking like this apart from Kosovo which the OESD helped run after the NATO action. In Crimea so far there were no allegations of voter fraud and it seems to be an accurate reflection of the will of the people. As international law at this level a gloss on the power dynamics of interstate actions (my reading of Eric Posner), then to a certain aspect it is a legitimate aspect of Russian having a stake in the region and not polities like the EU.

First Up

The only thing the Russians need to say to the US, UN, NATO or EU is "Kosovo".

comongethappy

First Up wrote: »

The only thing the Russians need to say to the US, UN, NATO or EU is "Kosovo".

The equivalence you are trying to draw is not valid.

1) Kosovo voted to become independent, not simply join another nation.

2) the level of violence & killing of Kosovan ethnic Albanians was horrifying.
There was no campaign of state violence against ethnic-Russian or Russian speakers in Crimea prior to the Russian invasion.

recedite

ardmacha wrote: »

A referendum preceeded by armed men from one of the factions taking control of the place is not legitimate.... One without OCSE observers is not legitimate.

A referendum can't be held during a riot; all the armed men were doing was maintaining a state of peace conducive to holding the vote.
OCSE observers were invited but refused to attend.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ah, I misunderstood the referendum then, I assumed that restoring the 1992 constitution would effectively keep the status quo but having just read up on it, it simply gives the government the right to make the decision. So the referendum was basically "join Russia or let the government decide who we join".

That's pretty messed up, certainly. ...

No that's not true. You can read the wording here. It plainly gives a choice for Crimea to remain "a part of Ukraine".

And if you look at the history of their 1992 Constitution, they have already had several referendums in which the people consistently voted for autonomy or "devolution" from Ukraine. Each time Kiev stepped in afterwards to overturn the democratic vote, because it went the "wrong" way.

The main difference between Crimea and Kosovo is that Nato "indirectly helped" Kosovo to secede by bombing the $hit out of Belgrade from the air, killing thousands of Serbians and destroying the infrastructure of the country.
In contrast, the Russians have gone in on the ground to protect Crimean civilians and keep civil society intact. They have not killed a single person, Ukrainian or Crimean. And for this achievement, they are condemned by the western media.

First Up

comongethappy wrote: »

The equivalence you are trying to draw is not valid.

1) Kosovo voted to become independent, not simply join another nation.

2) the level of violence & killing of Kosovan ethnic Albanians was horrifying.
There was no campaign of state violence against ethnic-Russian or Russian speakers in Crimea prior to the Russian invasion.

It is immaterial whether a unilateral secession is for independence or something else. Crimea's case for secession on ethnic grounds is at least as strong as Kosovo's. Kosovo was an integral part of Serbia before the Ottoman empire and is central to Serb identity. Crimea has been part of Ukraine for sixty years and then only as a "gift" by Khrushchev. Half a dozen other civilisations have as much of a historical claim to it as Ukraine.

Milosevic's campaign in Kosovo ended nine years before the secession was ratified and Milosevic was processed by the international courts for his actions. Secession stopped nothing and was neither necessary - or justified. The Kosovar Albanians were no saints either and it remains one of the most corrupt and criminal places on the planet - no great advert for the "West's" selective devotion to sovereignty.

the_syco

recedite wrote: »

A referendum can't be held during a riot; all the armed men were doing was maintaining a state of peace conducive to holding the vote.
OCSE observers were invited but refused to attend.

From the article;

For the past week, OSCE military observers have been unable to enter Crimea, which is controlled by Russian forces.

On Monday, Sergei Aksyonov, Crimea's newly appointed Prime Minister contested by central authorities in Kiev, said that the pro-Russian authorities in the region "have cordially asked" OSCE observers to leave.

recedite wrote: »

They have not killed a single person, Ukrainian or Crimean. And for this achievement, they are condemned by the western media.

When the pro-Russian forces took over the Crimea military bases, the Crimea military decided to not fight the Russians, as doing so would risk civilian bloodshed. I think I'll congratulate the Crimea military for that instead.

Jonny7

recedite wrote: »

A referendum can't be held during a riot; all the armed men were doing was maintaining a state of peace conducive to holding the vote.
OCSE observers were invited but refused to attend.

The OCSE observers were repeatedly and continually blocked at the border

the Russians have gone in on the ground to protect Crimean civilians and keep civil society intact. They have not killed a single person, Ukrainian or Crimean. And for this achievement, they are condemned by the western media.

How is the above possible when Putin has denied Russian troops are in the country?

I'm not sure what you mean by western media exactly, apart from the hundreds of outlets it encompasses, is it reporting the situation any different from Asian, African, South American etc media..?

What I am really saying is - when media all over the globe are reporting one thing, and Russia entirely another - does that not indicate something to you

goose2005

comongethappy wrote: »

The equivalence you are trying to draw is not valid.

1) Kosovo voted to become independent, not simply join another nation.

2) the level of violence & killing of Kosovan ethnic Albanians was horrifying.
There was no campaign of state violence against ethnic-Russian or Russian speakers in Crimea prior to the Russian invasion.

Moreover, there was time, and negotiation. This is a rush to establish the legitimacy of Russia's conquest of Crimea.

greyfox56 wrote: »

Nonsense, those armed men never prevented anyone from voting no. USA would be quick to send in troops if its people were in danger of Neo-nazi fascists.

Good thing, then, that there are so few neoNazi fascists in Crimea. What do you mean by "its people", anyway? Are all ethnic Russians / Russian-speakers to be "rescued" in the same way?

Oh, and btw, I laughed at Kerry's horse face when he talks about illegitimate actions, and invading sovering nations.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ...

phobia2011

can someone explain this to me, with maybe a comparison between the north and south of ireland?

Jonny7

phobia2011 wrote: »

can someone explain this to me, with maybe a comparison between the north and south of ireland?

Let's say there's a large riot in the UK..

We move the troops into Northern Ireland under the guise of protecting "the Irish citizens" there, have a very quick referendum that we know the Catholic majority will vote for, and hey presto - it's Ireland again..

Completely ridiculous? well that's essentially what just happened

First Up

Jonny7 wrote: »

Let's say there's a large riot in the UK..

We move the troops into Northern Ireland under the guise of protecting "the Irish citizens" there, have a very quick referendum that we know the Catholic majority will vote for, and hey presto - it's Ireland again..

Completely ridiculous? well that's essentially what just happened

You think there is a Catholic majority in Northern Ireland?

comongethappy

First Up wrote: »

You think there is a Catholic majority in Northern Ireland?

In an imagined hypothetical scenario.

Previous poster was seeking context.

oscarBravo

First Up wrote: »

You think there is a Catholic majority in Northern Ireland?

There would be if the Protestants boycotted the referendum.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So we have several countries, most recently the UK, refusing to accept ye result of the Crimea referendum to join Russia. With turnout supposedly hovering around 80% and an apparently definitive result, I'm curious as to what specifically would cause the international community to boycott a referendum like this.

Is it because there was so little time between its announcement and voting? Is it because the country is currently in a chaotic state? Is it because there are fears of fraud or voter intimidation? Is it a case of the west wanting the "right" result and making up excuses to dismiss it? Is it because Ukranian law with regard to referenda was broken?

I've seen many articles outlining the fact that many countries regard the referendum as illegitimate, but none which go into the reasons thereof.
I am as many know a fairly cynical fellow and part of me is jumping to the conclusion that it's a case of the west not respecting a result it isn't pleased with as we've *cough* seen here in Ireland in the not so distant past, but I can also see a legitimate argument that any poll should be postponed until the turmoil has eased. What's swinging me towards the cynical end of the spectrum is the turnout - if 80% of the population did indeed turn out to vote, then arguably this referendum has been more democratic than any Irish referendum I've lived through.

Thoughts?
(btw I'm not on one side or another just yet, I'm not agreeing with any particular argument because I literally haven't seen any proposed in the media or by the people objecting to the referendum - the potential reasons for the boycott are my own musings since I haven't seen any put forward by anyone else

Shure the referendum wasn't a patch on the vote in North Korea, if they had managed to get 100% yes to joining Russia, I would have been fair impressed.

First Up

comongethappy wrote: »

In an imagined hypothetical scenario.

Previous poster was seeking context.

An entirely inaccurate one. The issue in all the examples raised is where "self determination" starts and where "sovereignty" ends. There is a parallel debate about "nations" ( ethnically defined) and "states" (politically defined). You can mix and match all these to suit whatever argument you want to make.
History, lands won and lost in wars (or traded between kings and empires) leaves us with a hotch potch of countries and a very imperfect map. There is plenty more of this to come; the best thing would be for countries with no dog in the fight to stay out of it. That goes for Crimea as it should have done for Kosovo.

sarumite

First Up wrote: »

That goes for Crimea as it should have done for Kosovo.

Does that apply before or after a campaign of terror against a particular ethnic group?

Dannyboy83

Why stop at Crimea?

Plenty more people in need of 'protection'

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140317/188516456/Russia-Urges-Ukraine-to-Adopt-Federal-Constitution.html

Moscow on Monday called on Ukraine to draft a new federal constitution granting broadened powers to the country's disparate regions in order to protect minority populations.

Ethnic Russians in Ukraine's Luhansk also want closer ties with Moscow

After Crimea, east and south Ukraine ask if they are next for Russia

More 'referendums' impending?


(oh and just in case you disagree:
"Russia could turn U.S. ‘into radioactive dust,’ influential Moscow news anchor tells viewers"

I wonder if Mr.Kiselyov knows what the term "first strike capability" means?

comongethappy

I wonder will Chechnya have an imminent vote as to whether remain a part of the Russian Federation?

riffmongous

comongethappy wrote: »

I wonder will Chechnya have an imminent vote as to whether remain a part of the Russian Federation?

I was just going to say that, but I dont think that Moscow would be concerned anymore, it would be literally suicide for anyone to go against Kadyrov and Moscow nowadays

Manach

Given the rather large Russian population in the Baltics, one hopes no referenda are planned for our fellow EU citizens.

Black Swan

Manach wrote: »

Given the rather large Russian population in the Baltics, one hopes no referenda are planned for our fellow EU citizens.

If Putin gets away with annexing Ukraine's Crimea, he may try to do the same in one or more of the former USSR occupied nations; for example, in the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), where there exists large Russian origin minority populations from the old Soviet era occupation (and prosperous Baltic seaports, trade, etc.)? Of course, he would need a bit of civil strife in one of those nations to give the Russians a pretext for invading, followed by a "referendum," which shouldn't be a problem for him to devise; i.e., Act I: Crimea; Act II: Latvia; Act III ... etc.

The demographics of Latvia include 28% Russian origin citizens said to be unhappy with their minority status. But Latvia's NATO and EU memberships (2004) may pose problems not exhibited in Crimea for a Putin Strife-Occupation-Referendum Model intervention.

This Putin Model is not completely new. Although there were some differences, to what extent does this Crimea solution to political strife resemble the occupation and annexation by Germany of the Sudentenland of former Czechoslovakia in 1938? It had been claimed that over 3 million ethic Germans were unhappy with their minority status in Czechoslovakia (plebiscite in the Sudetenland), and the European leaders of the time signed (Munich Pact) away the Sudentenland in favour of avoiding war. Would the EU consider signing away some of the geography of member states to avoid war with Russia?

Einhard

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.