[Note: today I emailed my friend Alexander Mercouris to ask him a question about the UN General Assembly vote on the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Alexander’s reply was so interesting that I asked him if I could post it here, to which he has kindly agreed. I am most grateful to him for that. The Saker]
Dear Alexander
I just read this: http://theduran.com/general-
Where the author mentioned that:
“the UN General Assembly convened today under the extraordinary procedure created by UN General Assembly Resolution 377 (V) (A) on 3rd November 1950. This procedure – known as “Uniting for Peace” – can be invoked by the UN General Assembly whenever the UN Security Council is unable to reach a consensus on any issue which affects peace.”
the author further writes:
“However though a resolution of the UN General Assembly made in accordance with the “Uniting for Peace” procedure is legally binding on UN Member States, there is no mechanism to enforce it, as there is when the UN Security Council votes for a resolution made under Chapter VII of the UN Charter”
I was not aware of this procedure and I wanted to ask you this: has the Russian protection of the Crimean referendum and the subsequent admission of Crimea into the Russian Federation ever been condemned by the UN General Assembly under that procedure?
Specifically, is Russia currently in violation of international law regardless of any issues of enforceability.
Last but not least, do you know of other instances when the UNGA voted under this procedure to basically overrule the UNSC?
If you could clarify this for me I would be most grateful.
Kind regards,
The Saker
——-
Dear Saker,
I can answer all these questions.
(1) “Uniting for Peace” was a device sponsored by the US in 1950 in order to circumvent Soviet vetoes during the Korean war. At the time it was legally controversial and as Professor Tomuschal (quoted in the article) has pointed out, it actually contradicts the UN Charter. However in 1950 the US controlled the UN and the international court system as totally as it ever has done since (thus the Soviet vetoes) and it was able to get the “Uniting for Peace” procedure accepted.
(2) It has however only been invoked very rarely, in total no more than eleven times (the UN General Assembly vote on Jerusalem being the eleventh).
(3) The point about a “Uniting for Peace” Resolution passed by the UN General Assembly is that it becomes a part of international law. I can therefore be cited as legally binding in cases before the International Court of Justice (“the World Court”) or indeed other international courts. However it is not legally enforceable except through the UN Security Council. Since the “Uniting for Peace” procedure is by definition only invoked when the UN Security Council cannot agree this has robbed it of its effectiveness.
(4) Now comes the key point.
The UN General Assembly has NEVER declared the the Crimean referendum and the unification of Crimea with Russia illegal under the “Uniting for Peace” procedure.
To my knowledge the only time the “Uniting for Peace” procedure was used against Russia was in 1980 to declare the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan illegal. Though Russia is in a consistent minority in the UN Security Council the US has never succeeded in mobilising sufficient support against Russia in the General Assembly to secure a “Uniting for Peace” resolution against it on any issue since the 1980 vote on Afghanistan.
The UN General Assembly did vote on the question of the Crimean referendum in March 2014 but the resolution was non-binding and was not brought under the “Uniting for Peace” procedure.
Moreover only 100 out of the 193 UN Member States supported it (11 states including of course Russia voted against it; 58 states including India and China and totally 58% of the world’s population abstained, and 11 states including Iran and Israel failed to take part in the vote, which is a form of abstention).
This was virtually a defeat for the US and Ukraine because for a resolution to pass the UN General Assembly it must have the support of more than half of all UN Member States ie. – since the UN has 193 Member States – at least 97 UN Member States must vote for it.
In other words the resolution on the Crimean referendum was not merely non-binding but it only just squeaked past with just 100 votes in favour.
Given that the US had the automatic support of all the NATO/EU states in the voting that underscored how little support for the US/Ukrainian position on Crimea there actually is outside the Western Alliance with key countries like China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Pakistan and Vietnam refusing to support the resolution.
Needless to say the US has not risked another vote on Crimea since then, whereas during the 1980s it staged UN General Assembly votes criticising the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan regular as clockwork every year.
Needless to say the March 2014 UN General Assembly vote on Crimea is not something that you hear Western commentators bring up precisely because it was so close to being a debacle.
The result is that there is NO legal finding either by the International Court of Justice or by the UN General Assembly or by the UN Security Council that Russia is in violation of international law on the Crimea issue and those who say it is have no international consensus on this issue behind them.
I presume you are familiar with the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on Kosovo which says quite clearly that unilateral declarations of independence such as the one made by Crimea in 2014 are not contrary to international law even if made in contravention of the constitution of the country the region making them is seceding from?
That too means that the Crimean declaration of independence of 2014 and Crimea’s subsequent decision to join Russia is NOT contrary to international law. Putin repeatedly points this out but the US – which lobbied the International Court of Justice hard for the Advisory Opinion on Kosovo (just as it lobbied in 1950 for the “Uniting for Peace” procedure) prefers to forget it and you never seen the Advisory Opinion on Kosovo ever brought up in any Western discussion of the Crimean issue.
It is of course because of the Advisory Opinion on Kosovo and the UN General Assembly’s failure to pass a binding “Uniting for Peace” resolution declaring Crimea’s union with Russia illegal that Ukraine has never brought legal action against Russia on the Crimean question in the International Court of Justice.
I trust this answers your questions? Please do not hesitate to contact me is there is any other point you want me to clarify.
Best Wishes,
Alexander
Excellent expository from Mercouris.
The legal basis for Crimea goes back to Lenin separating Ukraine from Russia, I read recently. That was illegal, as this story goes. And thus, too, the 1954 separation of Crimea from Russia, which definitely was illegal according to the Constitution of the USSR.
So, even if the fact that three referendums by the people of Crimea that they wanted to be back within the Russian Federation is not enough worthy evidence, the legal basis for considering who Crimea belonged to seems self-evident. Russia.
It never in any way was Ukraine. Ukraine was Russian and Crimea was always Russian. That the vote was always, in all three elections, 95% for Russia seems to ice it.
It’s really an internal matter. Constitutionally, before and after the USSR, and subsequently, after the Russian Federation was constituted.
Ukraine and the World don’t get a say. Period. The people of Crimea and their fellow citizens in Russia proper decided.
Done and done.
In addition to your points Larch445 – I remember reading around the re-unification of Crimea with Russia that the other issue facing the US/NATO and its allies was the fact that Russia and Ukraine have never ratified their borders since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
To add further to Alexander’s points above – recently there was another vote in the UNGA 3rd committee around “human rights” in Crimea. “The UN General Assembly’s Third Committee approved a resolution decrying human right abuses by Russia on the Crimean Peninsula. Delegations from Russia, China, Iran and Syria voted against the measure.”
This is the only area where Ukraine/US/EU/NATO gets any traction at the UN – though they never visit the Crimean peninsula and base it on lies by Ukraine.
One other point. When Ukraine withdrew from the USSR in 1991(?), the Crimeans requested that they return to Russia. This was denied by the Ukraine regime.
At one point I got interested in studying old maps of the region.
Ukraine of course was usually a part of someone else’s empire, and rarely appeared on maps. For example, for a long time they were under the Polish-Lithuanian empire, before they became part of Russia.
On the other hand, Crimea existed as a seperate state for almost that entire time until Catherine the Great conquered them.
I do believe that Russia did annex Crimea. But that happened in 1793, not recently. And I’ve waited for baited breath for someone to quote me from Washington (then President of the USA) or Jeffereson (Secretary of State) stating their opposition to the action.
But the key point is that if you look at maps back over the centuries, Crimea was always a separate state before it was annexed into Russia. And it was almost never a part of the same empire as Ukraine. For example, during the long stretch when Poland had conquered Ukraine, Crimea was an independent state, IIRC.
—————
and this ties into my slogan for the week, which is about people claiming their historic lands as some sort of right because they lived their ages ago…….. “Canaan for the Canaanites!!!!!”
Crimea has Never been “annexed” by Russia, but conquered by Russia during the war with Ottoman (Turkish ) Empire . There were 12 wars between Russia and Turkey all together . A score 9:3 , in favour of Russia.
If you want to go back to separating Ukraine from Russia, IIRC the White Russians did this before Lenin did.
Please can you give factual proof for your comment. Mod
Notice the area shaded “maximum advance of anti-bolshevik forces”.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_civil_war_in_the_west.svg
It was not Lenin , but Khrushchev who gave as a (gift ?) a big part of Russia’s territory (up to the Dniper river + Krimea) to Ukraine.
Note: Actually Lenin did add six regions of Russia to Ukraine in the 20’s and Krushchev Crimea in 50’s.
The Saker
I know that Khruschev separated Ukraine from Russia in 1954, but never heard that Lenin had already done that. So, would you please link to (or provide URL to) documentation of that assertion, “goes back to Lenin separating Ukraine from Russia”?
Dear Saker,
this is a very interesting article!
Would it be possible to ask Mr. Mercouris on our behalf to produce a (preferably, lengthy) introduction on the subject?
International law is almost never brought up in the media, and I would think that many of us would like to learn more on what its says on the subject.
Thanks
I second this request! Mr Mercouris clearly has a deep understanding of this subject and strong writing skills.
A third on this request.
International law is ‘nearly’ always ignored as being ‘too boring’ or unable to fit into a commentary that can be published as a short read on a website.
I am hanging with baited breath for an in-depth of the law surrounding Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk as well as Kharkiv (which I believe also tried to cede to Russia during the 2014 military coup.
Ok, am I missing something here? I just can’t figure this one out maybe someone could explain it to me?
“since the UN has 193 Member States – at least 97 UN Member States must vote for it”
But it says that “moreover only 100 out of the 193 UN Member States supported it”
That’s clearly over 97 right?
What am I not getting?
Thx
Apparently, you’re missing the part where Mercouris says: “In other words the resolution on the Crimean referendum was not merely non-binding but it only just squeaked past with just 100 votes in favour.”
The point being that even in a non-binding vote of no real consequence, an opinion poll really, the US couldn’t strong arm enough support to win convincingly.
You are also missing this:
“The UN General Assembly did vote on the question of the Crimean referendum in March 2014 but the resolution was non-binding and was not brought under the “Uniting for Peace” procedure. “
They took opinion poll, as Erebus said, which didn’t go well.
And if the vote had been binding, who’s to say that the Russian government couldn’t have turned 3 votes in their favor? I suspect that a binding vote would have gotten a more serious effort out of the Russian government than a non-binding vote did?
The point Mr. Mercouris seemed to make was that The Evil Empire didn’t try again to make it a binding vote. And since people count votes very closely, that tells you that The Evil Empire didn’t feel confident to make a major issue out of it and risk an embarrasing defeat.
And still, The Evil Empire did get an embarrassing defeat.
Ukraine tried to get around all this by attempting to get Russia declared something like a terrorist state or supporting terrorism at ICJ few months ago….logo
EUROPE
UN Court Rejects Provisional Measures on Russia Over Ukraine
April 19, 2017 8:30 PM
Daniel Schearf
FILE – The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the U.N., holds hearings in the case concerning the Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) at the Peace Palace in The Hague, March 6, 2017.
FILE – The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the U.N., holds hearings in the case concerning the Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) at the Peace Palace in The Hague, March 6, 2017.
See comments
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague has rejected Kyiv’s call to impose provisional measures against Russia for its support of rebels in eastern Ukraine, while acknowledging Kyiv has a case against Moscow for discrimination in Russia-annexed Crimea.
“At this stage of the proceedings, Ukraine has not put before the court evidence which affords a sufficient basis to find it plausible that these elements are present,” said Presiding Judge Ronny Abraham. “Therefore, the court concludes that the conditions required for the indication of provisional measures in respect of the rights alleged by Ukraine on the basis of ICSFT [International Council Supporting Fair Trial] are not met.”
The ICJ said Kyiv had failed to provide evidence that Russian funding was connected directly to civilian deaths in Ukraine, where 10,000 people have perished since fighting broke out in February 2014.
Kyiv filed a lawsuit against Russia at the ICJ for intervening militarily in Ukraine, financing separatists that Kyiv labels “terrorists,” the shooting down of civilian passenger plane MH17 in July 2014, and discriminating against Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in the annexed peninsula.
Ukraine asked the United Nations-established court to take provisional measures to stop Russia from fueling the conflict, as it can take months for the court to decide if it will take a case.
FILE – The Agents of the Russian Federation, Roman A. Kolodkin, Ilya Rogachev and Grigory Lukiyantsev, attend the opening day of hearings at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, March 6, 2017.
FILE – The Agents of the Russian Federation, Roman A. Kolodkin, Ilya Rogachev and Grigory Lukiyantsev, attend the opening day of hearings at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, March 6, 2017.
‘Supporting terrorism’ rejected
The court’s ruling Wednesday means the ICJ will make no immediate demand against Russia for violating the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing Terrorism, as Kyiv was seeking.
“From the very start, there was an incorrect approach in determining the status of both the [self-proclaimed] LNR [Lugansk Peoples’ Republic] and DNR [Donetsk Peoples’ Republic] as terrorist groupings, but they are no Islamic State,” said Kyiv’s Institute of Global Strategies’ Vadim Karasev. “They are rather classical separatist groupings.”
While evidence has accumulated in reports of Russia’s military support for the conflict, analysts and observers say calling it terrorism hampered Kyiv’s case.
While the ICJ rejected provisional measures against Russia, it demanded Moscow ensure the rights of minority Tatars and Ukrainians in Russia-annexed Crimea and said Kyiv had a case showing otherwise.
“With regards to the situation in Crimea, the Russian Federation must comply in accordance with its obligation under International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,” said ICJ’s Abraham.
Crimean Tatars were some of the most vocal opponents of Russia’s annexing of the peninsula in March 2014. Thousands have since fled as Russia took control of Tatar media and banned the highest body representing the minority group, the Mejlis.
The ICJ urged Moscow to end its limitations on the Crimean Tatar community’s representative institutions, like the Mejlis. The judges said Russia must also ensure there are no limits on access to Ukrainian language education on the peninsula.
FILE – The Agent of Ukraine, Olena Zerkal, speaks on opening day of hearings in the case of Ukraine v. Russian Federation at the International Court of Justice, The Hague, March 6, 2017.
Welcomed decision
Despite the court’s rejection, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, speaking during a visit to London, welcomed the ruling.
“The international court in The Hague recognized its jurisdiction over both court cases. We are confident that today we are pursuing the right course, and hope for a successful hearing of these cases,” he said.
“For us, this decision of the court is a positive one,” said Ukraine’s deputy foreign minister, Olena Zerkal. “We proved our position and we see that we have a very good perspective for the hearings on merits, and we’re going to actually put forward all our intentions and efforts in order to prove our position on merits.”
Russian officials also welcomed the interim ruling.
The State Duma international affairs committee’s first deputy chairman, Dmitry Novikov, said it was “quite natural” the court made such a decision.
“If any court demonstrates minimal objectivity in pronouncing judgments, it should make these decisions on the basis of certain evidence. The fact that there is no evidence of Russia’s support to terrorism, it is quite a natural thing, and the fact that the court has to agree on it, is quite a natural thing,” Novikov told Russia’s Interfax news agency.
“Submission of a lawsuit by Ukraine, it is clear that it is a part of an information and political war, which the Ukrainian authorities are waging against Russia, involving different international institutions, such as the U.N. International Court in The Hague,” he added.
Analysts described the ruling Wednesday as balanced and expected.
“Meaning that, well, it’s a pretty well-balanced decision when neither Ukrainian nor Russian side can feel like they’ve been somehow, well, humiliated by the decision,” said Nickolay Petrov, head of the Center for Political Geographic Research. “And, at the same time, it’s only the beginning of a long-term process.”
Russia has already rejected the authority of the court, which does not have the ability to enforce any of its rulings.
“Yes, but symbols do play a very important role in international politics,” noted Petrov. “That’s why Russian authorities do pay a lot of attention on different international court rulings. And, it’s understandable that they’re trying to avoid any cases where Russia can be really punished for violating international laws.”
While the ICJ rejected making immediate demands against Russia for supporting Ukraine’s rebels, it urged both sides not to take any actions that would aggravate the conflict.”
Doom Sternz • 2 years ago
Brian Boyenger is a US sniper in Mariupol, Ukraine. He is spearheading neo Nazi’s with the ethnic cleansing of Donbass. He is currently located on the frontline in Mariupol where the neo-Nazi battalion “Azov” and right sector fascists are continuing the ethnic cleansing campaign as directed by the US state department and CIA. He must be arrested and tried for murder. I would like to know his history of trips to Ukraine, was he there in February 2014, and did he shoot police and civilians in the Maidan?
Today we learn………………..
In a dramatic development in the trial in Kiev of several Berkut police officers accused of shooting civilians in the Maidan demonstrations in February 2014, the defense has produced two Georgians who confirm that the murders were committed by foreign snipers, at least 50 of them, operating in teams. The two Georgians, Alexander Revazishvili and Koba Nergadze, testify by video from Tbilisi, as they feared for their lives if brought to Kiev.
Journalist Gian Micalessin revealed that 3 Georgians, military trained army snipers, engaged by Mikheil Saakashvili, were ordered to travel to Kiev from Tbilisi during the Maidan events. It is two of these men that are now being called to testify in Kiev. This of course ties the US Government to the Georgian military attack in South Ossetia, a US attack on Russia.
The Georgians met with an American soldier in uniform, a member of the US Army’s 101st Airborne Division, who gave them orders, as the person in charge. The name of the American soldier was Brian Christopher Boyenger. He showed up later as an adviser to the Ukrainian Georgian Legion.
Brian Boyenger, a sniper, from the 101st Airborne Division, must be arrested for multiple counts of premeditated murder. This of course ties the US Government directly to the cold blooded premeditated murder of police and civilians in Ukraine.
re: “The Georgians met with an American soldier in uniform, a member of the US Army’s 101st Airborne Division, who gave them orders, as the person in charge. The name of the American soldier was Brian Christopher Boyenger. He showed up later as an adviser to the Ukrainian Georgian Legion.”
Very interesting. I really want more information on this. Link please…. Publications..?
When rails run under Bearing Strait Alaska might vote. As rails run South – Vancouver, Washington State, Oregon, California down to the Mexican border…which will be at Sacramento… If that’s the way the rails run. Law follows the rails playing catchup.
Interesting to remember that there is no question of Justice except between equals of Power – over the long period. “Law” runs along nearby as Power moves – and there is Latency.
Old Laws can be a Problem. As is pointed out in the posted essay.
Good and Welcome essay. Thanks!
It would be interesting to watch the response in Washington DC if the Alaskans got serious about saying they’d prefer to be a part of Canada?
Of course, history tells us that the peaceful, kind, generous, indispensible United States of America killed some 250,000 people the last time a part of the nation said they’d prefer the freedom to make their own decisions. And that’s only a count of the dead soldiers. We have no idea how many civilians died during crimes against humanity such as the Burning of Atlanta or Sherman’s March to the Sea.
Alaska was Russia’s. It was sold to US ( I guess by Nicholas II of Russia) , but US never payed for it. So, Russia has to take it back.
I’m a little curious about this comment. During one of his Q & A sessions, President Putin answered a lady who wanted to know why Russia wasn’t taking Alaska back. Apart from the comment “what would you do with it: we’ve got quite a lot of frozen, snow covered land [ :-) ] ” Putin detailed the amount Russia “got” for Alaska [ was it $7 mill. ?? I forget, quite a lot though, for the time] and said that, basically, that was “it”. He made no comment about never having been paid for it, something I am certain he would know – and I assume he would have mentioned.
Very interesting.
Also answers one of my own questions:
Why did Haley emphasize UNSC decisions so strongly. That is, Israel is in compliance with UNSC decisions.
Of course, all controlled by the USA.
I still don’t quite get the difference between abstaining and not showing up to vote;
The end result seems to be the same. What is the rhetorical point here?
Katherine
Thanks so much for this crucial information, which will surely come in handy in the next few days around putative family dinner tables. The q/a is truly an article in itself.
PM Netanyahu just rocked the world in this 2 minute speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGIg8hryaPE
Netanyahu: like king David – we will destroy any enemy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AMPbP2Qpyg
Israel’ Netanyahu calls U.N. “house of lies” before Jerusalem vote
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-israel-un-netanyahu/israels-netanyahu-calls-u-n-house-of-lies-before-jerusalem-vote-idUSKBN1EF14U
Question to the second video “like king David…..” – Has Bibi coloured his hair?
What do you think?
Sophie and Co on RT interview a former UN lawyer today…who did not make the point focus as given above, but also did not contradict it. He would be seen as adding to the legal argument…
When these matter arise as scandals, which they are, it often happens that war flows from it.
Warplan Rainbow five was leaked to the Chicago Tribune…just prior to Pearl Harbor – for example.
The influence of MI6 on the FDR period and on CIA “in utero” suggests much…but it is a pattern we see classically in Shakespeare and so on.
While our journey home to Russia was not without difficulty, the reality is it was not Russia that did it, it was the citizens of Krimea and Sevastopol. Trouble was brewing here in early February as the coup in Kiev was approaching fruition. Already activists from up north were showing up in Sevastopol a month before Yanukovich ran in the middle of the night, quietly nosing around. There were a few rallies and such, one of which degenerated in to a shoving match near City Center but nothing really serious happened until the Friday after the coup of the previous evening. We had all watched the mess in Kiev since it started in October of ’13 but no one at the beginning thought Yanukovich would get tossed out although you can rest assured there was no love lost for that worthy lad from down here.
The meetings in Sevastopol were spontaneous on that Friday and the following morning but to quote a famous quote, the clans were gathering and the first planning sessions were held. Sunday, 23 February, was the catalyst in Sevastopol. It was that day that many tens of thousands of Sevastopol citizens attended a mass rally in Naxhimova Square in City Center, directly across the street from what is in essence City Hall. It was in that meeting that a local and well respected businessman, A. M. Chalyi, was elected the peoples governor, read mayor, by the acclamation of the crowds. And the fight was on. Also on that day Opolchensya, the Local Defense Corp, was activated and volunteers signed up by the hundreds at a hastily erected table in a corner of Naxhimova Square.
Monday, 24 February 2014, a live interview was conducted on Channel 5 TV in Kiev, this channel owned by P Poroshenko, now the president of Ukraine. In this interview, Oleg Tyagnibuk, a sitting deputat in Kiev Rada, clearly stated, live and on camera, that he would bring his three thousand fighters, the victors of maidan, to Sevastopol and ‘make the streets run red with blood’ to teach ‘them’, read us, how to be proper Ukrainians. Not to be outdone, Dmytro Yarush, the leader of Right Sector Party, live and on camera, stated that he would bring his two thousand five hundred fighters, the other victors of maidan, to Krimea and ‘put every Russian there to the knife’. Both parties are avowedly Nazi and both parties cleaned their web sights by early March of 2014 but not before the sites were copied and archived for posterity.
Needless to say, the citizens of Sevastopol and Krimea were aghast at these open threats of extreme violence to them, they armed up (often complements of the local Militsiya, aka cops, generally unwillingly), set up barricades that by midnight of 25 February had blockaded Sevastopol, Simferopol, parts of Kerch, Dxhankoe and most of Yalta and put blockades at the roads coming in to Krimea from Ukraine plus blocked Belbek Aerodrome just north of Sevastopol and the Ukrainian Spetznaz base in Feodosya on the south coast (home of and S 300 battery by the by) and all other Ukrainian military bases and facilities.
For the rest of that week, Russia stood back and watched. The CO of the Black Sea Flot, based in Sevastopol, did give a short off the cuff interview to a local TV channel and in the interview, when asked if he would defend Sevastopol, clearly stated that his Prehkassa, his orders, were to defend the Flot and Flot bases, his orders said nothing about the city. Common sense says they are one and the same but that statement put some worry in to the locals but no one stopped their preparations to defend Sevastopol.
By the end of that week, the governments of all cities and localities in Krimea, Sevastopol Region and Sevastopol Proper, had been seized by locals, the Ukraine police and SBU were emasculated and reduced to the laughing stock they were and are, and plans were afoot for referendums to give the citizens of Sevastopol and Krimu a choice as to what to do, break away from Ukraine or stay put.
With the statements and informations provided by Mr. Mercouris, it is proven, which was already known locally, that what was done here was totally within international law and norms. Not that the locals cared, they had the choice of ever increasing and vitriolic threats from Kiev of violence and mayhem or break away from that illegal government and right an illegal wrong done to them in 1954 by Krushchov. They chose the later course, held the referendums and then asked for acceptance in to Russian Federation.
The appearance of armed Russian troops in Krimu and Sevastopol on 28 February was the icing on the cake but, as in Syria, they were invited to protect the locals and the majority of the Russian troops, Marines and Spetznaz were already stationed in Krimu and Sevastopol. The landings at Kerch and Feodosya and the Antonovs gliding in to Simferopol Aerodrome were the icing on the cake and the first inklings Da West had of them was when local social media in Kerch, Balaklava and Simferopol started coming alive with photos of landing ships disgorging their troops and cargoes of polite young men in green or said young men showing up in Balaklava to assist in blockading a particularly troublesome Ukraine coast guard base. At no time during this entire process did the numbers of Russian servicemen in Krimea and Sevastopol exceed the allowed numbers of the treaties with Ukraine for units stationed in both regions.
Whilst it is nice to have the informations we’ve had since ’14 verified in that what was done was within the boundaries of international law, you can rest assured that after what was seen in Kiev and other areas of Ukraine and what was clearly threatened to Sevastopol and Krimu, the locals would have left anyway and fought to defend this island and this and other cities. We give thanks that active fighting did not happen in this city or this island but the transition was not bloodless, 8 lives were lost. It could have been a lot worse but Praise Him it was not. Now we live in peace and calm and happily go about our lives.
Auslander
Author
Never The Last One http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZGCY8KK A Deep Look In To Russia, Her Culture And Her Armed Forces
An Incident On Simonka https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ERKH3IU NATO Is Invited To Leave Sevastopol, One Way Or The Other.
I’ve had a thought about Sevastopol that I’d like to have someone who knows the area see if they agree with.
I’ve never had the good fortune to visit. But I have visited the Norfolk, VA area on a couple of occaisions. Norfolk and Sevastopol seem similar in that they’ve both been important naval bases for a very long time.
A visitor to the Norfolk area is quickly given the impression that this is a very patriotic area. American flags in front of homes, and as stickers on cars. Other patriotic bumber stickers on cars. And this was before 9-11 and the uber-patriotism that became fashionable.
That made sense, since Norfolk has long been an important naval base. Many of the people who lived there did 6 or 20 years in the USN. Then they liked the Norfolk area and stayed after the retired from the Navy. Its not surprising that this is a very patriotic population.
I’ve imagined that Sevastopol might have been the same way. That over the years a number of people who served their in the Soviet or Russian navies have stuck around. Even more so since the Black Sea seems to be a traditional resort/vacation area in Russia. Norfolk has a little of that with Virginia Beach, but snow birds seeking warmth in the winter keep driving south to sunny Florida. I’m guessing that as people left their service in the navy at Sevastapol, that sticking around might seem attractive to some of them. As such, I imagine that Sevastapol, like Norfolk, is a very patriotic place as a home to many who’ve served their country.
Just a thought, perhaps an over-active imagination. Just curious if anyone reading this knows Sevastapol well enough to confirm my guesses?
Auslander has lived there for more than a decade, I believe.
His books fiction/but truth-filled.
It’s bed time there now. Perhaps, he’ll reply tomorrow.
Anon 5:40 PM
Patriotism does, indeed, run very deep here. The city and surrounding villages were destroyed during the war, both in the bombardments and the house to house fighting during the German/Romanian assault and the following two years later Russian assault to retake the city. To this day, 75 years after the initial German/Romanian assault on Sevastopol, we are still finding the dead from both sides. All are buried with dignity, many Russian soldiers at 35th Battery on southside. Dead we find from the other wars in this city and this island are also buried with dignity and treated as fallen heroes, side does not matter.
Our Victory Day parades on 09 May are the stuff of legend. The city is packed to the rafters for that event since 2014, for instance it is estimated that for the 2015 parade, there were over 300,000 citizens and visitors lining the parade route and I would say that estimate is pretty close since my wife and I were in that parade as part of Red Army. Not bad for a city that had a population of roughly 350,000 at that time. It’s the same with all events and ceremonies here, our soldiers and sailors past and present are honored for their service and for some their sacrifice.
Sevastopol has been considered a plum stationing for our Navy and Army since the days of Empress Ye’katarina and many do either stay when they retire or come to live here after they retire. They bring with them their patriotism and the born and raised here locals are the same, steeped in local culture and events from birth. All you have to do is watch vids of the Victory Day Parades on Youtube. Pay attention to the children and youngsters, how they carry themselves and how our sadly depleting cadre of veterans of that war are honored before, during and after the parade and other ceremonies during the year.
Kindest regards
Auslander
Auslander – thank you for filling in some of the detail regarding this time. Putin was very clear in the documentary, “Crimea, the Way Home”* that the locals were the driving force that Russia was always following behind – sometimes indeed Russia had to restrain the locals to keep things calm. Your testimony here is a priceless witness to these events.
In some ways, the Ukrainians should be glad that the polite green men stood between the two forces. This acted to preserve the lives of people in Crimea, but also I think maybe one day the story can be told how this also preserved the lives of some of the Ukie thugs.
* Crimea. The Way Home. Documentary by Andrey Kondrashev
Grieved,
After the initial shock of Tyagnibok’s and Yarosh’s comments in that live interview, the locals within hours were seething and arming up rapidly. It didn’t help the Ukrainians at all when our Berkut and Militsiya arrived on that Saturday after literally fighting their way down here from Kiev after Yanukovich betrayed them and ran, bringing their dead and wounded with them. Their welcome in Naxhimova Square in City Center was tumultuous and huge.
All the Ukrainian military bases and facilities were blockaded from that Tuesday and Wednesday after the coup in Kiev, this action by unarmed locals. There was no ‘behind the curtain’ armed backup, it was just local citizens, many of them pensioners, who in essence locked up the Ukes behind their own gates.
As the situation progressed that week, Ukraine SBU, their version of the old NKVD, tried to arrest A. M. Chalyi. That effort failed, stymied by crowds of citizens around City Hall, but he was then ‘invited’ to walk up to SBU HQ at the top of Lenina Street for an ‘interview’. A goodly crowd of citizens walked up there with him and when he was not out in an hour and some citizens had found the Black Maria parked in the walled lot behind SBU, the citizens reacted.
The tyres on the Maria were flattened in front of the SBU guards who were invited to try to stop the locals as they literally knifed the tyres. At the front, an ultimatum was verbally given to the SBU armed guards and told either Chalyi was out in five minutes or the building would be taken and Chaly freed. By this time the armed with Kalashnikov guards at the front had been literally pressed up against the building and immobilized by the crowds. Mr. Chalyi was produced and freed in the allotted time and there was a growing and expressed desire by the crowd of several thousands to have at SBU in their HQ. It is my understanding that a representative, from who and from where I don’t know, arrived on the scene and he with Mr. Chalyi calmed the crowd, Mr. Chalyi did an impromptu interview with local TV and he with the crowds of supporters walked back to City Hall. SBU in Sevastopol was destroyed that day, relegated to being a laughingstock if that.
While I will never know, officially, who that ‘representative’ was, I have a good idea that he was asked, told or ordered to go to restrain the furious crowds at SBU HQ who were a gnat’s hair from taking the building and having at SBU. One can draw one’s own suppositions as to who sent him.
Auslander
If declarations of indepedence by regions against the wishes of the larger government that they want to leave are against international law, the Americans better learn the words to God Save The Queen.
King George III made his views clear in the speech to parliment where he urged parliment to send troops to crush the rebellion and arrest the traitors. “hoping that my people in America would have discerned the traitorous views of their leaders, and have been convinced, that to be a subject of Great Britain, with all its consequences, is to be the freest member of any civil society in the known world.”” https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/king-george-iii-speaks-to-parliament-of-american-rebellion
When people try to say that no one can declare independence except under the consitution of their ruling power, then almost no one can declare independence. Almost all nations declare that that they are indivisible and that its a vital national interest to defend the nation and the unity of the nation. The DC neocons just said similar in their recent Loony-Bin Security Strategy document.
Pretty much by definition, a declaration of independence is almost always going to be against the constitution and wishes of the ruling power that’s watching part of its tax base walk out the door.
Thank you. And please feel free to post more from your friend. He’s an excellent and knowledgeable writer. He’s the only one I miss now that I will no longer visit The Duran.
I visited Crimea in 2013, staying in Yalta and travelling around. Everyone we met said they were Russian. Not in an anti-Ukrainian way, just as a statement of fact. Of course they voted to join the Russian Federation. What I saw of Crimea was beautiful. The countryside is lovely. I’d love to go back but my Government tells me not to. I live in a Western democracy and have my freedom. Hahaha.
Slightly OT: “I presume you are familiar with the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on Kosovo which says quite clearly that unilateral declarations of independence such as the one made in Crimea in 2014 are not contrary to international law even if made in contravention of the constitution of the country the region making them is seceding from?”
Yet Mr. Mercouris claims in a November 6 article in The Duran (and many times previous to that) that Catalonia’s independence referendum was illegal (and that Puigdemont’s bluff had been called and that there would be “a heavy swing of support back to the Spanish state when the elections happen in Catalonia in December”). Which is it? He seems to be contradicting himself on the legal issue of a region’s right to declare independence, and his power of prognostication has proven to be quite poor on this particular issue. I appreciate and agree with many of Mr. Mercouris’s articles, but when it comes to the situation in Catalonia, he has been on the wrong side since the get go: supporting the thugs in Madrid over the call for independence by the Catalan people.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/2014_UN_Security_Council_vote_to_condemn_Crimean_referendum.png/1280px-2014_UN_Security_Council_vote_to_condemn_Crimean_referendum.png
On 15 March 2014, a US-sponsored resolution that went to a vote in the UN Security Council to reaffirm that council’s commitment to Ukraine’s “sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity” was not approved. Though a total of 13 council members voted in favor of the resolution and China abstained, Russia vetoed the resolution.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/UN_Resolution_regarding_the_territorial_integrity_of_Ukraine.svg/940px-UN_Resolution_regarding_the_territorial_integrity_of_Ukraine.svg.png
On 27 March 2014, the UN General Assembly approved a resolution describing the referendum leading to annexation of Crimea by Russia as illegal. The draft resolution, which was titled “Territorial integrity of Ukraine”, was co-sponsored by Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine and the US. It affirmed the council’s commitment to the “sovereignty, political independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders.” The resolution tried to underscore that 16 March referendum held in Crimea and the city of Sevastopol has no validity and cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or of the city of Sevastopol. The resolution got 100 votes in its favor, while 11 nations voted against and 58 countries abstained from the vote. The resolution was non-binding and the vote was largely symbolic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation
Canada’s federal government lives in fear of independence referendums, since: (1) Quebec, its French-language province, recently attempted to declare itself sovereign and as having the right to secede from Canada – the attempt narrowly failed to achieve majority support in Quebec; and (2) some of Canada’s aboriginal First Nations might similarly seek to declare themselves sovereign and as having the right to secede from Canada.
This may explain Canada’s enthusiasm for a UN resolution declaring the Crimea independence vote to have no validity and cannot form the basis of any status of Crimea as part of Ukraine.
@ SG; Anonymous; Others
With kind deference in advance to Anonymous, SG, and many others regarding their quest for greater understanding of international law, the main problem is that presently there is no international law. None. Might is right and he who controls the media gets to say whatever he chooses to. The strong have always bent the law to their ends, but the cynicism, lying and duplicity of our times has no parallel in history. The western media twists and bends its reporting of UN proceedings and resolutions any way it finds expedient. Many times, it simply omits to report what it doesn’t like and of course plays up what it wants to.
Those at the receiving end of the law may perhaps be wiser to just toss it aside and focus on creating circumstances in which international law can be discussed with real objectively and truth. In the absence of international relations based on some semblance of power-equality, mutual respect and fear, and some basic decency, the whole subject of international law is an exercise in counting angels on a pinhead.
Ali Kahn at Washburn Law School wrote along these lines after bush 41..”George W Bush as the Augustinian Sovereign” the thesis was that the Westphalian System had, with the Iraq 2.0 and afnamistan affairs, ended. This is to say that the contractual nature of States’ relations ended. He did not continue the logic beyond this, however it is obvious now that absent the Westphalian System there is no law between states. By default, one may see the new reality – that the world by ending the Peace of Westphalia resumed the previous condition _ world war.
some may recall that the bush 41 period began with a coup…they did not count the votes, then destroyed the uncounted…a fix followed by the demolitions of major buildings, and now major icons…eh?
His bar review essay is, I think, still available – and Saker might email him at Washburn to get a nice copy…
It is worth reading
Dear Moderator, a poor text copy of AK bar review article which adds to posted essay about ItLaw.
ABOVE AND BEYOND INTERNATIONAL LAW:
GEORGE W. BUSH AS THE AUSTINIAN SOVEREIGN
Professor Ali Khan
Washburn University School of Law
President Bush has gone to war on Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council. The question remains whether the United Nations, has now, in the President�s own words, become �irrelevant.� President Bush�s unilateralism has offended many nations, including China, Russia, and France. The President�s departure from the United Nations Charter, however, makes perfect sense in the domain of Austinian jurisprudence, as it does in the realm of power.
In the realm of power, international relations flow from the dynamics of superior military and economic power. In the Security Council, Cameroon has a vote but no power. France has a veto but its power is not the same as that of the United States. Therefore, the logic of power would dictate that permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council submit to the United States might rather than play games with the mechanics of voting. The five vetoes have collapsed into one, recognizing an already well-known reality that there exists only one super-power, the United States of America. In this new realm of power, the �democratic authority� of the majority is confusing, if not outright meaningless. (It was this positivist logic upon which the apartheid in South Africa was established.)
The arguments of power are not always devoid of law. In the domain of Austinian jurisprudence, the matter is even more lucid. George Walker Bush is willing to be guided by the principles and maxims of the United Nations Charter. He would have been pleased to obtain a resolution that supported his option for war. But international law cannot be allowed to restrain his options, for President Bush, as the Austinian Sovereign, is fully empowered to �abrogate the Charter at his pleasure.�
One might further argue that a new norm has been established in international jurisprudence. International law is now subject to the authority of the United States President. International law may still be learned and taught, using the metaphor of partnership. It may still contain elements of the law of contracts. But its fundamental nature has changed. The norms of international law are valid only if the President says so. And if the President says a norm of international law is binding on other nations, it is, even if the same norm is not binding on the United States.
Iraq, for example, must adhere to the Geneva Conventions and treat American prisoners of war accordingly. This is so because the President says so. And no one can question the President (the Austinian Sovereign) as to why the same Conventions do not apply to the prisoners of war detained in see-through cages at Guantanamo Bay.
This analysis is not offered as a jest or satire, but as a serious presentation of a possible development in the theory of international law. One wonders, however, whether President Bush has thought through the consequences of his approach. Does he appreciate that Austinian jurisprudence – in name, or in fact – could not sustain the British Empire, on which the sun has now definitely set? And does he appreciate the irony of the fact that Austin himself was never formally trained in international law, but rather obtained his legal understandings, as the famed English legal historian William Holdsworth has somewhat snidely put it, “by means of undirected reading and discussion”?
Ali Khan is a professor at Washburn University School of Law in Kansas, and is the author of A Theory of Universal Democracy: Beyond the End of History (Kluwer, 2003).
January 24, 2003
http://jurist.org/forum/forumnew104.php
ABOVE AND BEYOND INTERNATIONAL LAW: GEORGE W. BUSH AS THE AUSTINIAN SOVEREIGN, by Professor Ali Khan (washburn law school) http://jurist.org/forum/forumnew104.php. Published in 2003…
” It is not widely known that in 1998 Albright had explicitly stated that the UN Charter respecting the international sovereignty of states was no longer recognised by the United States.
Instrumental in the anti-Serb plan of action was the then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, whose life was saved by the Serbs in 1939 after she escaped from the Nazis and found refuge in the Serbian village of Varnatchka Bana. 60 years later this village was bombed by NATO and the same people who hosted her as a child were forced to flee. An unexploded bomb in the village was adorned with the graffiti message “Thank you, Mrs Albright, for the gift sent to us in exchange for our hospitality.” ”
https://off-guardian.org/2017/12/18/nato-the-tool-of-european-neo-fascism-and-popes-blessed-silence/
all very awful.
Small correction: UN res 68/262 had 24 absent nations, not 11. 100 yaes + 11 nays + 58 abstentions + 24 absent (including Israel) = 193. Given US coercive tactics at the UN, this slim victory amounts to a defeat for the US, ironically assisted by Israel. Israel could not support the language of 68/262 without underwriting Palestinian claims for an independent state in Palestine that includes Jerusalem.
Very interesting article and comments. Thing is, the USA have never ever respected any treaty of any kind nor Israel. So, since we know they are the usual predators run by the worst kind of crooks, we can only wait for them to be eradicated once and for all… They are the cancer on earth we need to cure!…