© Photo: pxhere.com
Crimea’s breakaway from Ukraine and rejoining Russia
is treated in the US-and-allied world as being justification for the explosive
re-emergence in 2014 of America’s Cold War NATO alliance as being a restored
war against Russia; and, so, whether or not that ‘justification’ is truthful is
the paramount geopolitical issue in our era; and it will therefore be discussed
and (via the links here) documented in this article.
Though international law is generally an unenforced
mess that is interpretable far more by partisanship than by any clearly
applicable principles, the US Government does quite blatantly violate it on a
routine basis, by means of coups and invasions against countries that never
invaded nor threatened to invade the US; but, if anything at
all is clear in international law, it is that Crimea’s breaking away from
Ukraine and rejoining Russia in 2014 was entirely legitimate, as will be
documented here, by exposing the lies that are adduced on the US side, in order
to allege that it’s not legitimate.
First, however, will be a bit of essential historical
background, which is commonly ignored in arguments by the pro-US-regime liars
on this matter: From 1783 to 1954, Crimea was part of Russia. Crimea was
arbitrarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by the dictator of the
Soviet Union, Nikita Khruschev, who was a Ukrainian and didn’t consult the
residents of Crimea about this handover of them to Ukraine. Crimeans were so
opposed to being ruled from the foreign-language-speaking and largely pro-Nazi
(and anti-Semitic and anti-Russian) Ukrainians to their north, so that as soon
as the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the only way that Crimeans would tolerate
any continuation of their formal association with Ukraine was by being declared
Ukraine’s “autonomous republic” (the only one) in Ukraine. This situation of
partial Crimean independence continued until Ukraine was conquered (via coup)
by the US regime, in order to be handed over first to the European Union, and
then, after the EU would accept Ukraine, to NATO, which military alliance with
the US was extremely unpopular in Ukraine until the American conquest and the
immediately subsequent takeover of Ukraine by pro-US oligarchs, who were eager
to buy more privatized and formerly Soviet state-owned properties, in basically
insider deals with the now US-controlled Ukrainian Government. Those oligarchs’
‘news’-media successfully propagandized most Ukrainians to switch from being
anti-NATO to pro-NATO. However, right at the time of the coup, Crimeans
demonstrated in Kiev against the CIA-organized Maidan demostrations, and on the day of the coup, February
20th, those Crimeans in Kiev were forced by the US-supported nazis to flee
there, but the eight buses carrrying them were blocked en-route, and an unknown
number of the fleeing Crimeans were killed. Many of the surviving ones were permanently injured. Crimeans were terrified and some of them wrote to
friends in the West regarding the terror and their fears. All of this information is ignored by the proponents
of the illegality of Crimea’s separation from Ukraine, because, clearly, the
basic human rights of Crimeans were then under very palpable and severe threat
by the US-imposed forces; and, so, any ‘legal’ argument for forcing Crimeans to
remain Ukrainians was and is fake. But, still, legal arguments for forcing
Crimeans to be Ukrainians again are presented; and, so, here is a quick
introduction to those frauds.
The least politicized of the pro-Western (i.e.,
pro-US-regime) articles regarding the relevant international laws on this topic
concern the cases of Kurdistan and Catalonia, because in the US-and-allied
international dictatorship (that is, the countries that are ruled by
billionares who are allied with US billionaires), no unanimity exists regarding
those two breakaway-movements (Kurds and Catalonians); so, the legal principles
aren’t such a threat to the US-and-allied lies about Russia. Here are
highlights from this article, and I boldface what I consider
key statements there:
—
ASIL [American
Society of International Law] Insights, v. 22, issue 1
Milena Sterio, 5 January 2018
The theory of self-determination, as justifying the
secession of a people from its existing mother state as a matter of last resort
only, in situations where the people is oppressed or where the mother state’s
government does not legitimately represent the people’s interests, has remained
constant throughout the 20th century development of international law. Two
United Nations’ declarations, in addition to the United Nations Charter itself,
have addressed the issue of self-determination. …
Both declarations … envisioned self-determination leading to
secession as a matter of last resort only within the decolonization paradigm:
here, both conditions for a right to self-determination were met insofar as
colonized peoples were oppressed and their colonial governments did not
adequately represent their interests. Both declarations also confirmed the
importance of the principle of territorial integrity of existing states, [8]
and thus embraced the idea that self-determination could lead to the
territorial disruption of existing states only in extreme instances of
oppression or colonization. …
Peoples who are oppressed or colonized, however, have the right to external
self-determination, which they may exercise through secession from their mother
state.[9] This view of self-determination was confirmed in 1998, in the
Canadian Supreme Court opinion regarding the proposed secession of Quebec from
Canada, where the Court held that all peoples are entitled to various modes of
internal self-determination, but that only some peoples, such as those
subjected to conquest, colonization, and perhaps oppression, may acquire the
right to external self-determination through remedial secession.[10] Today, it
may be concluded that international law bestows on all peoples the right to self-determination,
but that the right to external self-determination, exercised through remedial
secession, only applies in extreme circumstances, to colonized and severely
persecuted peoples.
While international law embraces the principle of
self-determination, it does not contain a right of secession.[11] It may be
argued that international law merely tolerates secession in instances of
external self-determination, where a people is colonized or oppressed (like in
the case of Kosovo). In addition, secession is prohibited under international
law if the secessionist entity is attempting to separate by violating another
fundamental norm of international law, such as the prohibition on the use of
force (like in the case of Northern Cyprus).[12] In other instances of
attempted secession, where the relevant people is not oppressed, as in Quebec
or Scotland, international law is neutral on secession—it does not support a
right to secession nor does it prohibit secession. Instead, the secessionist
dispute is left to the realm of domestic law and to political negotiations
between the mother state and the secessionist entity.[13]
—
Following are two influential articles reaffirming the
US regime’s view, that the breakaway was and is illegitimate. In the first, the lie is simply presumed true that the overthrow
of the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, during
20-26 February 2014, was a domestic democratic revolution, instead of a
foreign-imposed coup. In the second, international law, as was just summarized above
here, is simply ignored.
—
#1:
Netherlands International Law Review
December 2015, Volume 62, Issue 3, pp 329–363| Cite as
“Crimea’s Separation from Ukraine: An Analysis of the Right to Self-Determination and (Remedial) Secession in International Law”
December 2015, Volume 62, Issue 3, pp 329–363| Cite as
“Crimea’s Separation from Ukraine: An Analysis of the Right to Self-Determination and (Remedial) Secession in International Law”
Simone F. van den Driest [whose 404-page 2013 Ph.D dissertation,
at Netherlands’ Tilburg University, was “Remedial
Secession”],
First Online: 30 November 2015
16k Downloads
Abstract
This article considers the (il)legality of Crimea’s
unilateral secession from Ukraine from the perspective of public international
law. It examines whether the right to self-determination or an alleged right to
(remedial) secession could serve as a legal basis for the separation of the
Crimean Peninsula, as the Crimean authorities and the Russian Federation seem
to have argued. The
article explains that beyond the context of decolonization, the right to
self-determination does not encompass a general right to unilateral secession
and demonstrates that contemporary international law does not acknowledge a
right to remedial secession. With respect to the case of Crimea, it argues that
even when assuming that such a right does exist, the threshold in this regard
is not met. In the absence of a legal entitlement, the article subsequently
turns to the question whether Crimea’s unilateral secession was prohibited
under international law. It contends that while the principle of territorial
integrity discourages unilateral secession, it does not actually prohibit it.
Nonetheless, there are situations in which an attempt at unilateral secession
is considered to be illegal in view of the circumstances. It is argued that it
is precisely this exception that is relevant in the case of Crimea. …
[Text now:] The Russian Federation
(implicitly) relied on the doctrine of remedial secession, which is seen to
encompass a right to unilateral secession in case of serious injustices
suffered by a people. [which were unquestionably present] President Putin
advanced remedial arguments in his speech of 18 March, contending that
those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives […]. [N]aturally, we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress.7
To the same effect, the Russian Federation claimed in the Security Council that there had been ‘threats of violence by ultranationalists against the security, lives and legitimate interests of Russians and all Russian-speaking peoples’ in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and that ‘the issue is one of defending our citizens and compatriots, as well as the most import[ant] human right—the right to life’.8
those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives […]. [N]aturally, we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress.7
To the same effect, the Russian Federation claimed in the Security Council that there had been ‘threats of violence by ultranationalists against the security, lives and legitimate interests of Russians and all Russian-speaking peoples’ in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and that ‘the issue is one of defending our citizens and compatriots, as well as the most import[ant] human right—the right to life’.8
The accuracy of these views presented, however, is
highly questionable under contemporary international law [and all the rest of
the article discusses none of the allegations that Putin asserted there, but only internnational law. Not even once
in this article is anything like the word “coup” used in relation to the
overthrow of Yanukovych — the overthrow that had sparked Crimeans to
demand restoration to Russia. Instead the article simply assumes that there was
no coup whatsoever: “The Ukrainian Revolution of 2014, which was initiated by
the Euromaidan movement in the capital of Kiev, had significant effects in
Crimea.” That’s all. However, that statement was false: It
was no “revolution,” and it clearly was a coup. Furthermore: even if it had been a “revolution,” it
was not “initiated by the Euromaidan movement in the capital of Kiev — it was
initiated by the Barack Obama Administration in the summer of 2011, and started
to be implemented inside the US Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013. The Euromaidan movement started on 21 November 2013. So, this author is merely assuming that “the
Euromaidan movement” wasn’t part of a coup-operation by the US regime.]
CONCLUSION
All in all, it should be concluded that the arguments
involving an alleged right to self-determination and (remedial) secession as
advanced by the Crimean and Russian authorities in attempting to justify the
events on the Crimean Peninsula cannot be upheld. On the contrary: Crimea’s
unilateral secession from Ukraine clearly was illegal under international law.
#2:
Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review, 2015-2016, v. 14 [published by General Jonas
Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania]
Erika Leonaitė & Dainius Žalimas, both of Vilnius
University
it is essential to point out that a coup
d’etat and the issues of constitutionality in general are matters of national
rather than international law. In terms of international law, importance falls
not on the constitutionality of the government, but on its effectiveness, i.e.
its capability to efficiently control the territory of the state and to ensure
compliance with international commitments. [In other words: any
national government that can suppress and crush a secession movement is
adhering to international law, according to these writers.] Even where the
government is unable to carry out effective control (in political science, the
concept of a “failed state” is used to refer to these cases), relations with
such a state must be continued based on the principles of sovereign equality,
the prohibition of the use of force [the writers mean “use of force” by any
foreign govertnment, not “use of force” by the given nation’s government in
order to suppress and crush any secession movement], respect for territorial
integrity, and other fundamental international legal principles; other states
are not released from the obligations with respect to this state [in
other words: foreign nations must never side with nor support a secession
movement within a country. Blatantly false allegations like that are
publishable by General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania.]
—
US President Barack Obama restored in full the Cold
War that his predecessor George Herbert Walker Bush had only secretly
extended into the future on the American side covertly on 24 February 1990, and he did this in two main steps. In 2012, he
pushed and signed into law the Magnitsky Act which was based on the fraud by
Bill Browder, who functioned in coordination with George Soros, another
billionaire who leads in ingtensifying America’s war against Russia. Then, in June 2011
at the latest, he started the planning for the February 2014 Ukrainian coup.
In June 2013 (well before the ‘democratic revolution’
in Ukraine started), NAVFAC, the US Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
published on its website, a “Project Description” for “Renovation of School#5,
Sevastopol, Ukraine,” under the euphemistic title “EUCOM
Humanitarian Assistance Program”. EUCOM is the US European Command — it is purely
military, not “humanitarian,” at all. The 124-page request for proposals (RFP)
showed extensive photos of the existing school, and also of the toilets, floor-boards,
and other US-made products, that the US regime was requiring to be used in the
renovation (by some American corporation, yet to be determined) of that
then-Ukrainian school in Crimea, which at that time was a Ukrainian Government
property, not at all American-owned or operated. So: why were US taxpayers
supposed to fund this ‘humanitarian’ operation, by the U.S. military?
Eric ZUESSE
American writer and investigative historian
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.