President Obama continues to express outrage at the idea of the Crimea seceding from the Ukraine, and today insisted that an impending referendum on whether Crimeans want to secede itself “violates international law.”
Obama went on to insist that “in 2014 we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders,” leaving open the question of how Ukraine’s interim government, installed in the wake of violent protests just over a week ago, amount to “democratic leaders.”
Obama’s interpretation of international law also didn’t appear to be based on anything concrete, as indeed international law is pretty vague on the matter and secession through referendum has been treated as a valid option in the past.
The most noteworthy recent example was the 1991 independence referendum in Croatia, which likewise came over the objection of the recognized sovereign nation, in that case Yugoslavia.
Croatia’s route is strikingly similar to Crimea’s, with its regional parliament similarly preceding the referendum with votes supporting the secession policy. The referendum was overwhelmingly supportive of secession.
Recognition after the vote remained a struggle, with the question of whether people have a right to secede unanswered under international law. In that case, Britain and France similarly argued they did not, though German backing eventually led to international recognition of the Croat nation. Ironically, among the first nations to recognize Croatia’s independence was the Ukraine.
As a practical matter secession is not so much a question of law as a question of whether the suzerain power can crush the secession movement by force. The Russian deployment into the Crimea effectively keeps Ukraine from doing so, and means the Crimea secession, assuming it is approved by referendum, will be a matter of fact even if East-West brinksmanship keeps the US or others from officially recognizing that fact for some time.
Cooperating with fascism, Saudis barbarians using them for regime change has been illegal for centuries, actually slavery was forbidden back in 17th century, but us practiced by USG partners at wars, Saudis are for one, Israel apartheid is another. IMF is a Neo modernized Slavery economic system, the modernized fascism in Ukraine is the tool.
The USA demanded and killed to break apart Yugoslavia, for one thing.
Obama sounds like a person literally going crazy with power. Either that or a pouting child.
The USA demanded and killed to break apart Yugoslavia, for one thing.
Obama sounds like a person literally going crazy with power. Either that or a pouting child.
If it were only that, things might not be so desperate. When a person or nation decides to rule by total and brutal power, then it can not tolerate any opposition. Because since it rules by fear and intimidation, then if anyone dares to stand up and oppose it, they have to be crushed or else the fear and intimidation might turn into hope for change for a future. Thus, the person or nation who tries to rule by violence and fear must fight anyone and everyone that challenges them in anyway.
If only it were so simple that Obama is a pouting child. Its much deeper and much more dangerous than that. Because a nation that tries to rule the world in this way keeps pushing the rest of the world to unite and build the strength to fight back. And since a nation that tries to rule by fear and violence is in a position where they must win any fight or the whole scheme collapses, such a fight has to be a fight to the end. When a mobster rules in this fashion, usually the only way it ends is with the death of the mobster.
It certainly sounds like mobster rule and an irrational one at that.
It was actually Germany which started the breakup.
"In 1992, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States pressed for the breakup of Yugoslavia. In 1999, it went to war against Serbia to secure the secession of the province of Kosovo. Washington’s position on one or another issue is never determined by the principles of international law, but rather by its calculation of US geopolitical and economic interests."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-crisis-in-ukrain…
I don't think he's going crazy "with power"…but I do think he's going crazy by power. He's in way over his head and is proof that just because one is an "eloquent speaker" it does not translate into an effective leader. I think this has been the case from day one and that the real power in the government has had him under thumb from the start.
I believe that he thought he could manage the managers, for awhile but realization that he will never actually control the machine is finally setting in and you can see the "deer in the headlights" look more and more.
This is not to excuse the really stupid things he's done though…
Isn't it more likely that those who installed him, bankrolling the rise of someone so obscure, have now come asking for his soul?
It strikes me that in the days of the American Civil War, Britain might have decided that secession violated international law. But it didn't. The contest was decided by arms.
If the Ukraine were to put Russia to a test of arms, it would fail perhaps faster than the Confederacy. If it were to contest the secession of Crimea and its alliance with Russia, it would require that other nations make war on Russia, and that would apparently include the US. This does not form a perfect analogy with the North-South conflict – after all Ukraine did not secede. But if they attempt by arms to contest the secession of Crimea, they will find they are just as vulnerable as the South was in terms of men and materiel. Pipelines run through it, but the source appears to be Russia and a cut-off is possible. This could (if we press and Europe does) result in all out war with Russia, not a happy prospect for anyone.
Well, the burnt child fears fire. Perhaps, having followed all the fools in history into Afghanistan and learned for ourselves firsthand what that was all about, we can now follow Napoleon and Hitler into Russia to complete our initiation into being big time losers.
Well, you've got to understand: When Obama references "international law," he means the imaginary law in his head that says he's in charge of every person, place and thing on Earth. Oh, and in heaven, too.
Obama is anti-American. Because the following is the authentic American response to such a situation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -American Declaration of Independence (of course)
I think Obama got a little confuse, that speech was meant for Benjamin Netanyahu and was to be presented at that AIPAC conference.
Now the US is planning sanctions, asset freezing, etc., all the tricks in the book. But, who believes in the US any more? Superpower militarily? A bill to cut commissaries, but build two subs a year; great for wars in Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, (Africa?). If the bill offered two submarine sandwiches apiece, a day, to commissary veterans, it might be worth more than a retirement plan for congressmen with shares in The Electric Boat Company.
As for international law, Obama must know that when the Members of Parliament of a semi-autonomous region vote 78 to 1 (try to get that from congress, Obama) for secession, then offer a referendum on this issue to its own people in two weeks… Then the Crimeans are following distinct democratic processes. (Sort of like the elections in Egypt, when the US got Morsi thrown out so they could put in a dictatorship friendly to Israel.)
As for sanctions, etc., if the Scottish Parliament votes, then has a referendum, to separate from the UK, would the US put sanctions on Scotland? If so, I had better put up a good stock of whisky.
I suppose if the US does impose sanctions the Russians will comply 100 percent and shut off the oil and Gas to all of those NATO and EU countries! Russia HAS TO comply with the wishes of a Foreign Government doesn't it! Lets see without the Iranian oil and Gas and without the Russian Oil and Gas how expensive will the remaining supplies cost, how many Europeans and Americans will die of cold and how long will it take for the US/Eu economies to fail!
The Obama administration sound like a bunch of idiots when its
stooges complain Mr. Putin has violated International Law when
he (invaded) the Crimea. I would probably need this entire blog
to highlight the number of places on this planet where the US has
violated International Law.
Bush and his Right-wing flunkies' invasion of Iraq violated
International Law. US drone strikes and extrajudicial killings
in Lybia, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan violate
International Law.
If it wasn't for Russian intervention, the US would have bombed
Syria on trumped-up chemical weapons charges concocted by the
rogue state of Israel.
Hillary Clinton and her Right-wing pals are a complete joke
when they compare Mr. Putin to Adolf Hitler. If these clowns
(knew) their history, they would discover (people) like Prescott
Bush, Joe Kennedy, and Henry Ford openly supported Hitler.
That topic is for another discussion.
I read somewhere that we are endowed by Our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That in order to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Seems like the Crimeans are consenting as to by whom they shall be governed. Anything less would be unjust. Right?
Or, am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing something. The current government in Ukraine is the same government they had 2 weeks ago, the head of state has been impeached by the elected governing body and some ministers have resigned/been removed by vote of said body, other than that, the same elected government is still in power. The government of Autonomous Crimea is the new one, installed by force of arms.
I support separatist movements anywhere in the world if they have the backing of large majorities, but there is no support to join Russia among the Tartars or many ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea, and lots of evidence that this is driven by and controlled by Moscow.
Soooo, when Nikita "gave" Crimea to Ukraine in the 50's that was OK? And the hired guns, literally, of the "protesters" spoke for the "majority"? http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ukraine-protests-leaked-…
Besides, what business is it of the United States taxpayers(me) that a side be taken? http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/846882.shtml#.U… We certainly are not to be governed by Ukraine of Russia. Support our troops by bringing them home.
This whole kerfluffle reminds me of a debate my father – a died-ih-the-wool Jarhead — and I – a rebellious teenaged punk at the time — used to have.
"The Soutth had a right to secede from the Union," I would announce rebelliously.
"Of course they had a right," my father replied, "provided they had the military force to back it up!"
In this case, bleating about 'international law' — dead and in the funeral home since at least March 20, 2003 — is a 'false canard.' Does Crimea have the military or allies sufficient to enforce its right to secede? Of course it does.
This whole kerfuffle reminds me of a debate my father – a died-in-the-wool Jarhead — and I – a rebellious teenage punk at the time — used to have.
"The South had a right to secede from the Union," I would announce rebelliously.
"Of course they had a right," my father would reply, "provided they had the military force to back it up!"
In this case, bleating about 'international law' — dead and in the funeral home since at least March 20, 2003 — is a 'false canard.' Does Crimea have the military or allies sufficient to enforce its right to secede? Of course it does.
Actually, maybe he's anticipating another secessionist movement in the U.S.
Not unreasonable under the circumstances.
I don't think Crimea lacks for military might because it is doing this as a Russian state, and Russia is far stronger than Ukraine. Had the South seceded and been completed back up by the British Empire, it might have won.
there will be Serbs, i guess, enjoying DC's hysterical cries of violated borders, for a couple minutes anyway.
A US president should have a better memory!!
Just one word: Kosewo!!
Kosovo. But, you are spot on!
If one wants to know the difference in attitude between the US and most Western European countries one needs only read the headlines of the major news papers on both sides of the Atlantic. Most European people do not want confrontation.
I think that Obama's regime change Ukraine was a violation of international law. Obama is out of his freaking mind and a world class hypocrite to boot.
There is no doubt that the Crimean Russians have the same right of self-determination as, for example, the Kosovo Albanians. There's hardly a country in Europe, not least my own, that would even exist if frontiers couldn't be changed. Look at a map of Europe and you'll see what I mean. The objection is much more with unidentified armed men (whom the Russians say are not their soldiers) on the streets of Crimea, it is doubtful if the 16 March referendum will be acepted by anyone. But, of course, the Crimean Russians are just pawns in the neocons' attempt to set off World War III.
Hmmm, why was Obama 100% in favor of South Sudan's secession?
Interesting point snowshoe. Obama seems to be experiencing some cognitive dissonance on this issue.
Cool it Obama!
The only "democratic " recourse would be to reinstate the democratically elected government.
wonder how Obama would go if a right Wing bunch decided that they were going to have a Coup in the US, what would he do and how long do you think it would take for those leaders to be considered TERRORISTS and we all KNOW that under US Hegemony all terrorists are bad and can be attacked anywhere in the World even their own soil!
Like, the governing body that impeached the president when he fled to Russia? Or if you remove a president then all other elected lawmakers also have to leave office? What the hell are you talking about? The people who are governing in Kiev are not armed masked vigilantes that stormed the capitol, they are the same people who got elected in the last elections.
I'm talking about Ukrainian law regarding impeachment, which wasn't followed at all, because they didn't have the votes.
The kind of government USG and EU governing body is looking for are idiots with criminal background as the Neo fascist forces in Ukraine. It doesn’t stop there, tyrants regimes, apartheid regimes, Islamic or other religious fascism, Neo or old ones, hitlerism of all kind including the Neo liberal fascism in Europe. NATO is a militarism regime and head of the organization is non but anders fog Rasmussen, leading NATO grabbing land and disrespecting the sovereignty and integrity of Eastern European nations. They have no other option but to create and cooperate with their kind.
Not much he can do except moan and cry and stamp his feet that he got played by a master chess player.
This has to be the worst and most embarrassing bunch of foreign policy losers I've ever seen, even with remembrance of GWB!!!
Shut the fuck up, Obama. You're out of you're element.
Kosovo is a "special case", "unique", "not a precedent", there "won't be any consequences", right ?
"A referendum of the Crimean people is against international law. The correct way to change governments is through foreign sponsored coup or proxy wars." Obama. 2014
For Obama the legal scholar to pronounce an action as violative of law is one of the most disgustingly hypocritical things ever. Remember this guy refuses to abide by OUR Constitution. Besides that, anyone who has studied law knows that there is in reality no such thing as an actual body of International Law, so making the statement is like saying "So and so is bad for violating something that does not truly exist." I kid you not, do some research into supposed international law and what it was derived from; it's all BS that governments and politicians ( the banker's BJ boys) use when they want to start a war over some BS THAT IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.
While there may be no such thing as international law, there are treaties which can be violated. Nothing usually happens in that circumstance, unless some nation wishes to declare war on another. Then it is the treaty they both have entered into that constitutes international law.
I really like Antiwar.com, but I wish they would keep the opinion pieces in opinion section and leave the news for the news section. Case in point, the sentence from the article:
*leaving open the question of how Ukraine’s interim government, installed in the wake of violent protests just over a week ago, amount to “democratic leaders.”*
The current government in Ukraine is the same government they had 2 weeks ago, the head of state has been impeached by the elected governing body and some ministers have resigned/been removed by vote of said body, other than that, the same elected government is still in power. The government of Autonomous Crimea is the new one, installed by armed men who took the building by force of arms.
This would be the equivalent of saying that if you impeach president of the United States, then congress and the supreme court are no longer “democratic leaders" and therefore cannot make laws and decisions about the country. No more donations for Antiwar.com.
Saying falsehoods over and over in an internet comments section doesn't make them true.
zhivago6-what is your thoughts–Ukraine's government abolishing the use of Russian. Like most Russian breakway countries have done?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independenc…
This administration gets more comical by the minute.
black comedy…take that how you will.