PART 1:
In a speech to the Russian parliament right after invading and annexing Crimea, at the time a part of Ukraine, the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin said this:
“…The total population of the Crimean Peninsula today is 2.2 million people, of whom almost 1.5 million are Russians, 350,000 are Ukrainians who predominantly consider Russian their native language, and about 290,000–300,000 are Crimean Tatars, who, as the referendum has shown, also lean towards Russia.”
He explained his decision:
“We had to help create conditions so that the residents of Crimea for the first time in history were able to peacefully express their free will regarding their own future. However, what do we hear from our colleagues in Western Europe and North America? They say we are violating norms of international law. Firstly, it’s a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law – better late than never.
Secondly, and most importantly – what exactly are we violating?”
He then cited international laws:
“Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN International Court agreed with this approach and made the following comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: ‘No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence,’ and ‘General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.’ Crystal clear, as they say.
“I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: ‘Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.”’End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.”
He was righteous and indignant, the reaction and action of a Russian patriot. The first time you heard it, it sounded reasonable and balanced. The speech had the effect of lowering the decibel of the criticism from the West, which took no significant action against Russia.
But coming from the head of a major and influential country who had vowed to democratize Russia (but in a slower pace), it is dubious, nearsighted, and dangerous. His geo-political stand is unsupportable. His statement without stating pre-conditions is irresponsible because it advocates instability and riots in many parts of the world as almost all countries have enclaves of different ethnic groups. Mr. Putin advocates any ethnic group in any country, the American Indians, the Muslims in France, the Poles in Germany or the Germans in Poland, the Chinese in Eastern Russia or the Korean in Japan, to organize a referendum and declare independence or become part of their original countries. No one seriously believes he meant what he said and would happily and helpfully allow, say, the Chinese in Eastern Russia to form an independence nation or become a part of China.
He could have adopted the correct approach, in fact the only approach in our modern and more enlightened time, that is true Democracy where the voice of EVERYONE can be heard, the majority has consideration for the minorities and the minorities respect the majority’s decisions.
He could have adopted the method used in solving the Kosovo problem to solve the supposed grievances of the Russians in Ukraine or even in Crimea, and he could have won the hearts and minds of not just the Russian and Ukrainian people but the world.
(Next, Part 2)
