An international crisis has to be taken in the context of the political and legal realities leading up to it. Crimea has historically formed part of the heart of Russia since the days of Catherine the Great but this changed overnight in 1954 when Nikita Kruschev, a naturalised Ukrainian married to a Ukrainian, ceded Crimea to Ukraine, creating the seeds of today’s crisis.
Did this seal Crimea’s fate forever? No, because international law provides a remedy. The United Nations Charter is built on the principle of self determination, which led to the breaking up of empires and to our own independence.
This principle is enunciated in UN resolutions 1514 and 1541 and confirmed by the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo.
Scotland has also set a referendum to decide on independence.
Do the UN Charter and resolutions mean that any region has the right to decide whether it would like to break away from a nation? This is why the Kosovo decision is so important.
Yet, this has opened up a can of worms, which is every nation’s nightmare. The Basques would like to break away from Spain, Catalonia too, judging from its 480-kilometre human chain calling for independence.
Californians have spoken about leaving the US. What if some states, formerly part of Mexico, wanted to cede from the United States? They had been taken from Mexico in the USA’s largest expansion move in 1846-48. The US walked away with no less than half of Mexico, the size of Western Europe.
Thomas Woodrow Wilson subsequently declared: “People may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. Self determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action.”
But can you imagine the collective cardiac arrest in Washington?
While some western states cling tenaciously to their territorial integrity and past conquests, they seemed quite happy for the Soviet Union to break up when a pro-West, alcoholic, Boris Yeltsin, was at the helm. The Soviet Union was one of the last remaining empires, which should all have ended long ago.
No one should argue that the Ukraine, Belarus and others did not have the right to leave the Russian Federation. But neither should one argue that Crimea does not have a similar right to break away from the Ukraine.
A case of sauce for the goose.
Crimea, occupied mostly by Russians, was made to break away from Russia because it had been integrated with Ukraine. Should it not have been able to choose to remain within Russia? Why did the Ukraine deny it this chance? That changes the ball game entirely.
Essentially Ukraine was saying: “we do not care about the United Nations’ Charter and resolutions. You only have the right to self determination if we say you do and if we decide on your behalf”.
Hardly constitutional law respecting international law.
Things came to a head under Viktor Yanukovych, who, it now appears, has been following hot in the heels of Ferdinand Marcos, Hosni Mubarak and others in siphoning off enormous wealth from his country’s coffers to fill his own. Yet, only months ago he was trying to bring the Ukraine closer to the EU.
Had he gone through with it, he would still be in power today, with the full backing of the EU and the US, and his country would have continued haemorrhaging enormous wealth, oblivious to the world. He was ousted because he made a U-turn and moved closer to Russia. What prompted this U-turn in the first place?
We in the West sometimes want to have our cake and eat it. Europe wanted the Ukraine to move to the West while, at the same time, the IMF put the squeeze on it by withholding funds because of its deficit owing to increases in pensions and social benefits.
Europe, Ukraine and Russia need to step back and accept political realities in both Crimea and Ukraine
Did the IMF drive Yanukovych back to Russia, which agreed to give the required financial help? Ukraine also wants to have its cake and eat it. It wants to be welcomed into the European family while denying Crimea its own right to determine its future in the same way that Ukraine was allowed to do so by none other than Russia.
Despite Yanukovych’s apparently terrible track record on other counts, he did have the good sense to insist on Ukraine’s neutrality and stressed that he did not see the Ukraine in Nato. He signed a treaty with Russia to allow its Black Sea fleet to remain in Crimea, its traditional base, in exchange for favourable prices of gas.
He also addressed the language issue in Crimea by managing to pass a new law in 2012, despite great protest, establishing regional languages, recognising Russian as another official language in Crimea.
Events took a sudden turn in the February revolution, this year, when Yanukovych was ousted by a parliamentary vote that allegedly did not carry the constitutionally required 75 per cent to remove the President and had not been confirmed by the Constitutional Court. The constitutionality of his removal has therefore been challenged.
So, in light of the dubious constitutionality of the government of Ukraine and allegations that some of the factions seizing power contain extreme right and undemocratic elements, to what extent can one justify denying the right of the Crimeans to determine their own future and break away?
Add to this the undemocratic move by the Parliament of Ukraine to attempt to repeal the regional language law, in breach of the European Charter of Regional Languages, drawing criticism from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and others in the West. If the repeal goes through, minority language rights would be denied to the Crimean Russians who, ironically, make up a 60 per cent majority.
Add further the possible scenario Ukraine may make a U-turn and join Nato, leaving this Russian majority in Crimea suddenly looking at a Nato fleet anchored in Sevastopol on Russia’s doorstep instead of the Russian Black Sea Fleet and flying Union Jacks and Stars and Stripes.
The Russians would have been as horrified as would an American who suddenly saw a Russian base set up shop in Guantanamo Bay in lieu of the American base there.
It is not surprising that the Russian President used the analogy of the coil being pressed so hard that it recoiled.
Sending in military personnel that may exert undue influence is always dangerous and questionable, for plebiscites or parliamentary votes should never be influenced, either militarily or financially.
However, even the West acknowledged that the plebiscite was a foregone conclusion, seeing that most Crimeans are Russian. Could the plebiscite have taken place at all if the Crimean government had not taken the precautions to avoid being forcibly prevented by Ukraine from holding the referendum?
There is little doubt that the Ukraine wanted to move closer to Europe and, maybe, that is its destiny. But, however one may interpret international law, in the long term, the world should ask itself the real Crimean question: if it should have been Crimea’s destiny to also move into the European, and possibly Nato, camp as part of the Ukraine, and be denied self determination, and whether this would have created far more problems and tension, only lighting a fuse for an even greater time bomb.
Europe, Ukraine and Russia need to step back, accept political realities in both Crimea and Ukraine, and work together for understanding, cooperation and tolerance in one greater pan-European family without being unduly influenced by other regions in the world that may cause greater division.
The worst wars have all been fought on European/Russian/Mediterranean soil and the region has said: never again.
Let us remember this and work together through the many things that unite us, rather than clash on our differences.
Rodolfo Ragonesi is a lawyer.