What is your definition of self-determination? (illegal, borders, Obama, revolution)

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by katzpaw

At the end of the day Crimea will become part of Russia. The issue is that Putin is pushing the issue with military threats instead of waiting a couple of months for the constitutional process and parliamentary votes to occur.

What constitutional process? Is there even a legal process for secession? For that matter, what part of our constitution allows a part of the country to secede and join another country?

Furthermore, do you really think the so-called parliament in Kiev is going to allow Crimea to secede, ever? What country ever voted to allow part of itself to secede?

Seriously, if Crimea was ever going to leave Ukraine, this was its only opportunity. Do you not see that?


Thus a return of the real question. When Crimea seceded from Ukraine, was justice done? Does it make more sense for Crimea to be part of Russia or part of Ukraine?

In reality, I'm not a fan of Russia annexing Crimea. I would rather Crimea become an independent nation. But since everyone seems to think the majority has a right to bully a minority(you know, democracy), then as a general rule, secession only works if you are either annexed by a more powerful country, or at least heavily supported by a larger country. Which in my mind really defeats the purpose of self-determination.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

I get so tired of hearing about how Crimea doesn't have the right to secede from Ukraine. I get tired of hearing about international law(as if such a thing really exists or is useful), or whatever other argument made against secession.

In other words, you actually already know the answer to your question, but you're setting a pre-condition on answers to your question, declaring by personal edict that the correct answer (which, again, you already know) isn't valid.

So I guess that question mark at the end of your thread title was a lie - you're not asking to learn other people's definition of self-determination. You're looking for a way to legitimize imposing your definition on others.

Noted. And rejected.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

If 90% of a population votes for secession in a politically distinct region, is that a valid example of self-determination?

I think we can say that if 90% of a population votes a certain way, in a free and fair election, free from intimidation, then yes, that's valid self-determination. The issue here isn't the results of the election, but rather whether that result way brought about in an invalid manner. I know that rips apart your narrative, but that's just too bad.

One other thing: Separation needs to be done with respect from what's being separated from. Should this election ever be proven valid, or a valid election of this sort held, then that doesn't mean that Crimea, and therefore Russia, gets to just take Ukraine's assets in Crimea. A deal will have to be struck, accounting for what Crimeans have invested in Ukraine (and are giving up) and what Ukrainians have invested in Crimea (and are giving up). That deal must be mutually agreed to, without any pretensions of Crimea/Russia imposing any conditions on Ukraine.

In this context (after validating that the separation will take place), Ukraine rightfully has prodigious leverage in that negotiation. Remember that in this scenario Crimea is the instigator and therefore rightfully bears the full cost of what Ukraine loses, including the remarkably high value of Crimea's strategic location. Crimeans may not be as favorable toward separation in the clear light of day, when what it should cost them in this deal becomes evident (not that that would in any way affect the validity of the election).

What's more, a region deciding to separate from a nation means that region is giving up the succor that a nation has to a region within it. In this case, Crimea is highly dependent on Ukraine for power. If the trunks are severed at the border, Crimea goes dark. Separation cannot legitimately take place until Crimea has accomplished its first civic obligation to its people, i.e., arranged for uninterrupted continuation of power - again, without placing any expectation or burden on Ukraine for that. Again, Crimea will rightfully find itself with very little leverage in its efforts to make those arrangements.

[Dutchman01]

Originally Posted by katzpaw

If southern California or the border counties of Texas had a referendum, under Mexican supervision, 2 weeks from now to join Mexico would that be legitimate?

It would. Something for what passes as the leadership of this country needs to be mindful of.

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by bUU

I think we can say that if 90% of a population votes a certain way, in a free and fair election, free from intimidation, then yes, that's valid self-determination. The issue here isn't the results of the election, but rather whether that result way brought about in an invalid manner. I know that rips apart your narrative, but that's just too bad.

Ok, lets pretend hypothetically that Russia had no forces whatsoever in Crimea. What do you think the outcome of the referendum would have been? If you say 90% is self-determination, what exactly is the threshold for self-determination anyway? What about 80%? 75%? 51%? What happens to the 10% or more of the population who doesn't agree?

Originally Posted by bUU

In this context (after validating that the separation will take place), Ukraine rightfully has prodigious leverage in that negotiation. Remember that in this scenario Crimea is the instigator and therefore rightfully bears the full cost of what Ukraine loses, including the remarkably high value of Crimea's strategic location. Crimeans may not be as favorable toward separation in the clear light of day, when what it should cost them in this deal becomes evident (not that that would in any way affect the validity of the election).

Who paid for all of that originally, Ukraine or Crimea(or for that matter the Soviet Union)? Isn't Crimea already a largely autonomous province? So outside of some military bases, didn't the Crimeans pay for all the buildings there anyway? You are acting like Crimea is conquered territory and that its inhabitants are being kicked out.

Originally Posted by bUU

What's more, a region deciding to separate from a nation means that region is giving up the succor that a nation has to a region within it. In this case, Crimea is highly dependent on Ukraine for power. If the trunks are severed at the border, Crimea goes dark. Separation cannot legitimately take place until Crimea has accomplished its first civic obligation to its people, i.e., arranged for uninterrupted continuation of power - again, without placing any expectation or burden on Ukraine for that. Again, Crimea will rightfully find itself with very little leverage in its efforts to make those arrangements.

Are you saying countries don't sell power and water to each other? Because I'm pretty sure we not only sell water to Mexico, we actually just give them water. And I know we share power with Canada. For that matter, I would bet most of the electricity produced in Ukraine today, is produced from coal or natural gas which comes from Russia.


Look, you are obsessing about particulars, particulars can easily be worked out. The real question here is whether or not it should ever be legal for a region of a country to secede without the approval of the rest of that country. Because if you believe the 90% figure is all that should be necessary, then you should read about the regions of Somalia, read about Transnistria, read about Taiwan, read about many parts of the Caucasus, read about the Kurds, read about Republika Srpska, the list goes on and on. If the 90% threshold is all you believe is necessary, we could completely redraw practically the entire map of the world.


The reason for this post is, I had been arguing with a real-life friend about Crimea, and my position is simple. I feel like Crimea leaving Ukraine was perfectly fair. I think it would be significantly less fair to force it to remain part of Ukraine. Of course, my views don't merely stop at Crimea. I support self-determination around the world. For instance, Chechnya is 95% Chechen. I can guarantee if a referendum was held in Chechnya, that 95% of Chechens would vote for independence.

Which is my problem with Russia's recent annexation of Crimea, or America's support for the independence of Kosovo, or elsewhere. There is never any consistency. Only the secession movements that benefit us, we will support. And only the secession movements that benefits Russia, will Russia support.


I prefer to always have a more principled position when it comes to secession. Either it is good or it isn't. It can't only be good if America benefits from it, it can't only be good if Russia benefits from it. For that matter, it can't only be good if China benefits from it. If secession is good, we should support it regardless.

It seems that in regards to Crimea, American's position is less about what is right, and more about what benefits America. We seem to completely dismiss the fact that Ukraine was overthrown by undemocratic nationalist mobs, because we support the mobs. I mean, you should go read about the "Beer Hall Putsch", that is effectively what happened in Ukraine, and we just keep our mouths shut and pretend Russia is the bad guy. I cannot stand being a hypocrite, but it seems like everyone on both sides of this issue have no qualms with being hypocrites.

Can you not see?

[Futurist110]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

I get so tired of hearing about how Crimea doesn't have the right to secede from Ukraine. I get tired of hearing about international law(as if such a thing really exists or is useful), or whatever other argument made against secession. It ignores the fundamental question, why do governments even exist?


If we understand that in reality, the sole purpose of government is to provide justice. Then the question is, is Crimean secession just? Why or why not? If 90% of a population votes for secession in a politically distinct region, is that a valid example of self-determination?


Self-Determination in the Age of Putin

The short story in regards to this is that most countries only care about their own interests, including when it comes to avoiding territorial losses.

As for international law, the problem with using that as a justification is that some Western countries (the United States of America, Israel, et cetera) also violate or have also violated international law and have not been punished for doing so.

I am not sure that this referendum in Crimea was free and fair, but I would support holding a free and fair referendum in Crimea if it will ever be an option.

Also, for the record, I support (on the condition of the pro-secession side winning a majority of the vote in a free and fair referendum in the states/areas which want to secede) allowing U.S. states (but not U.S. counties, since this would just get too complicated) to secede from the U.S. as well, as well as allowing areas such as Chechnya to secede from Russia once Islamic extremism there significantly decreases.

[Futurist110]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

1. Ok, lets pretend hypothetically that Russia had no forces whatsoever in Crimea. What do you think the outcome of the referendum would have been? If you say 90% is self-determination, what exactly is the threshold for self-determination anyway? What about 80%? 75%? 51%?

2. What happens to the 10% or more of the population who doesn't agree?

1. I think that Russia would have probably won such a referendum, but I am not 100% sure about the margin of victory.

2. They should have the options of remaining in Crimea or moving somewhere else.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Ok, lets pretend hypothetically that Russia had no forces whatsoever in Crimea.

Let's finish discussing what I was discussing, the actual reality of what's happening now, first. Then you can raise your hypotheticals, and people can chime in if they're interested in that. The issue here is whether that result was brought about in an invalid manner. That has to be resolved, first.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Who paid for all of that originally, Ukraine or Crimea(or for that matter the Soviet Union)?

My words, which you replied to, contain the answer to your question, which indicates to me that you really aren't interested in discussing this, but rather simply want to have everyone posting agree with you. That's not going to happen.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Are you saying countries don't sell power and water to each other?

No. If I was saying that, I would have used words that said that. Yet again, my words, which you replied to, contain the answer to your question, which again indicates to me that you really aren't interested in discussing this, but rather simply want to have everyone posting agree with you. It's a rather ridiculous bit of nonsense that you're engaging in.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

For that matter, I would bet most of the electricity produced in Ukraine today, is produced from coal or natural gas which comes from Russia.

Read the words of the message you posted a reply to, before posting your reply. If you do this with integrity, you'll realize that you're talking about the wrong thing. If you just continue reacting to what is written instead of responding to what is written, then you'll never get it, and all my replies will simply be pointing out your inane games-playing.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Look, you are obsessing about particulars, particulars can easily be worked out.

Actually, I'm talking about vital issues, which I'm saying cannot easily be worked out. So what you're trying to say is that you disagree. Trying, but doing a really bad job of it.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

The real question here is whether or not it should ever be legal for a region of a country to secede without the approval of the rest of that country.

That's another question. It isn't the question we were discussing, and the fact that this other question exists doesn't mean the questions we were discussing don't exist, or that they aren't important. Even if you don't like that.

You may have to just come to accept that you and I aren't having the same discussion. I'm not going to placate your desire to have the discussion you want to have. So if you're not going to discuss what I'm discussing, then there's not much point in conversing.

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by bUU

Let's finish discussing what I was discussing, the actual reality of what's happening now, first. Then you can raise your hypotheticals, and people can chime in if they're interested in that. The issue here is whether that result was brought about in an invalid manner. That has to be resolved, first.

My words, which you replied to, contain the answer to your question, which indicates to me that you really aren't interested in discussing this, but rather simply want to have everyone posting agree with you. That's not going to happen.

My point in both regards is, there is nothing wrong with being concerned about whether or not Russian influence played a role in the outcome. There is nothing wrong with saying it was improper for the Russian military to be standing guard at voting stations. I mean, I remember people complaining about members of the Black Panthers intimidating people outside of voting stations here in America. It is a valid complaint.

All I am saying is, do you really think that if Russia didn't have military in Crimea, that the Crimeans wouldn't have voted to secede from Ukraine?

If you do, it makes me wonder why you feel that way. If you don't, then please stop pretending that the referendum is invalid for that reason.

In my opinion, Crimea would have voted for secession regardless of Russia's presence in Crimea. I mean, 40% of the people in Crimea wanted secession before their president Yanukovych was even ousted and the anti-Russian laws were passed by the new unelected parliament in Kiev. To believe that number wouldn't have jumped to at least 51% seems unreasonable.

Originally Posted by bUU

No. If I was saying that, I would have used words that said that. Yet again, my words, which you replied to, contain the answer to your question, which again indicates to me that you really aren't interested in discussing this, but rather simply want to have everyone posting agree with you. It's a rather ridiculous bit of nonsense that you're engaging in.

What you said was this, "Crimea is highly dependent on Ukraine for power. If the trunks are severed at the border, Crimea goes dark."... I felt like this was a specious statement, because if Russia cuts off the gas, Ukraine will go dark(and cold) as well. And thus, since there is no possible reason to believe that Ukraine is going to be cutting off power to Crimea, then there is no reason to even be concerned about it.

You act like Ukraine is just giving electricity away to Crimea for free. When the reality is, the Crimeans are paying for that electricity. And there is no reason to believe the power companies are going to shut off power to hundreds of thousands of customers.

My point is, you are creating problems where problems don't exist. And furthermore, Ukraine isn't stupid enough to intentionally cut off water and power to Crimeans anyway. Much of Eastern Ukraine is already talking about secession, and such an act would be begging for a Civil War(or a hot war with Russia).

If your concerns were real, shouldn't we have noticed them by now? I mean, why hasn't the power been cut to Crimea? Why aren't the Crimeans without access to water? The truth is, you are just looking for reasons to oppose Crimean secession, and I'm trying to explain why your worries are unnecessary.

Originally Posted by bUU

That's another question. It isn't the question we were discussing, and the fact that this other question exists doesn't mean the questions we were discussing don't exist, or that they aren't important. Even if you don't like that.

You may have to just come to accept that you and I aren't having the same discussion. I'm not going to placate your desire to have the discussion you want to have. So if you're not going to discuss what I'm discussing, then there's not much point in conversing.

Look, my discussion was about whether or not regions of nations should be able to legally separate from the rest of that nation without the approval of the central government. If you read your post, you should see how hostile you are to the idea of secession. You start off sounding fairly unbiased. Then you say that "Ukraine rightfully has prodigious leverage in that negotiation.... Crimea is the instigator and therefore rightfully bears the full cost of what Ukraine loses... Crimea will rightfully find itself with very little leverage in its efforts to make those arrangements."

That makes you come off very hostile towards secession, and hostile towards Crimea. You are effectively arguing that Crimea owes Ukraine some form of reparations for "taking Ukrainian land away", and so Ukraine should practically be able to demand whatever they want and Crimea should have to pay up. Which is what I find incredibly ironic about your whole argument, because at the end when you claim Crimea will be left with very little leverage in those arrangements, I would say that you are absolutely wrong. I would say Crimea and Russia have far more leverage over Ukraine than Ukraine has over Crimea.

The truth is, regardless of what happens, Ukraine is going to feel like it lost. But does that mean Crimea should be forced to remain part of Ukraine?

That is my only question. I mean, if Crimea was to re-vote in a month on secession, without Russian military anywhere near the voting booths, would it then be OK for Crimea to secede? If you agree that a 90% vote is an example of self-determination, what exactly is the threshold for self-determination in your opinion? 85%? 80%? 75%? 66.6%? 51%?


The truth is, nations are terrified of secession because almost no nation on Earth is either homogeneous, or isn't currently facing secessionist movements. There are dozens of secessionist movements right here in the United States. If any were ever successful, dozens more would suddenly appear. Thus the argument against secession is never about whether or not secession is a good idea in principle. The argument against secession is always a call for stability.

Which is why America will literally stand by while tens of thousands die in sectarian violence in country after country around the world, but never support a right to secession. And I just think that is a shame.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

My point in both regards is...

I guess I wasn't clear before. Just because you want to discuss some aspect of this that you're interested in doesn't obligate anyone else to spent time discussing those aspects. If I don't respond to something you write, you can assume that it isn't related to the aspects of the self-determination matter that I'm discussing, and so I have no interest in pursing a discussion about it.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

What you said was this, "Crimea is highly dependent on Ukraine for power. If the trunks are severed at the border, Crimea goes dark."... I felt like this was a specious statement, because if Russia cuts off the gas, Ukraine will go dark(and cold) as well.

Why would Russia cut off the gas? That makes no sense at all. The arrangements for the gas are already in place. The movement of Crimea to Russia would increase Russia's obligation in that regard, not decrease it. By contrast, in that situation, the obligation Ukraine has to subsidize the transmission of electrical power to Crimea goes away, given that there is no such arrangement in place between Ukraine and Russia now.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

And thus, since there is no possible reason to believe that Ukraine is going to be cutting off power to Crimea, then there is no reason to even be concerned about it.

I didn't come up with the idea myself. I read about it several of the numerous articles on this matter that I've read over the last week or so. Next time I run across another discussion of it, I'll try to remember to come back to this thread and post a link for you.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

If your concerns were real, shouldn't we have noticed them by now? I mean, why hasn't the power been cut to Crimea?

Because Ukraine doesn't accept the legitimacy of the separation.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Then you say that "Ukraine rightfully has prodigious leverage in that negotiation.... Crimea is the instigator and therefore rightfully bears the full cost of what Ukraine loses... Crimea will rightfully find itself with very little leverage in its efforts to make those arrangements."

That makes you come off very hostile towards secession, and hostile towards Crimea.

Not at all. Everything I wrote was coldly analytically and a reflection of true fairness. I couldn't care less about Ukraine versus Russia. I care about what's fair. I deliberately substituted other locations into my comments to validate the truth of what I wrote, including some American-based examples. I am talking only about fairness. Only about fairness. That's why I won't engage in a discussion about the things you would prefer to only talk about.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

You are effectively arguing that Crimea owes Ukraine some form of reparations for "taking Ukrainian land away", and so Ukraine should practically be able to demand whatever they want and Crimea should have to pay up.

It is easy to dumb down what others have said to make it say something easy for you to argue against. It is far more difficult to actually respond to what the other person has actually said, when its nuances and conditions make it effectively impossible to argue against. Some of what you've written could be construed, using no more liberties than you've taken here, as claiming that Crimea should be able to take from Ukraine whatever is already within Crimean land and coastal waters, including perhaps practically the entire Ukraine navy. That's ridiculous. And very easy for me to argue against, even though you didn't actually say it.

The reality is that separation doesn't have to be quick, easy and lucrative.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Which is what I find incredibly ironic about your whole argument, because at the end when you claim Crimea will be left with very little leverage in those arrangements, I would say that you are absolutely wrong. I would say Crimea and Russia have far more leverage over Ukraine than Ukraine has over Crimea.

You are talking about threat of power and the power of possession, not what's fair and just. That's my point. Once the guns are all that will determine what will happen, all that matters is who has the bigger guns.

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by bUU

Why would Russia cut off the gas? That makes no sense at all. The arrangements for the gas are already in place. The movement of Crimea to Russia would increase Russia's obligation in that regard, not decrease it. By contrast, in that situation, the obligation Ukraine has to subsidize the transmission of electrical power to Crimea goes away, given that there is no such arrangement in place between Ukraine and Russia now.

My point was, there is already an arrangement between Ukraine and Crimea to provide Crimea power, and it isn't the Ukrainian government providing them power anyway, its just power companies. If the currency changes, I assume they would just adjust their prices accordingly. It isn't a real problem. And it is highly highly highly unlikely that Ukraine is going to be doing anything to **** off Russia(such as cutting off power to Crimea), it wouldn't benefit them.

Whether or not Ukraine accepts Crimean secession, Crimea will secede, and life will go on. The best-case scenario at this point is that Ukraine and Russia work out a reasonable deal(which they will). The worst-case scenario, Westerners keep beating the war drum and plunge the rest of Ukraine into a Civil War.

Originally Posted by bUU

Not at all. Everything I wrote was coldly analytically and a reflection of true fairness. I couldn't care less about Ukraine versus Russia. I care about what's fair. I deliberately substituted other locations into my comments to validate the truth of what I wrote, including some American-based examples. I am talking only about fairness. Only about fairness. That's why I won't engage in a discussion about the things you would prefer to only talk about.

I am all for fair, but I don't agree that you were calling for fairness. You are arguing that Crimea should be required to give more to Ukraine than whatever Ukraine would give to Crimea. Basically you are arguing that Crimea should be punished for seceding. On the basis that Ukraine is losing such valuable land. But that entire opinion rests on the idea that Ukraine owned Crimea to begin with.

Look at it like this, let us go back to 1861. When the Confederacy split from the US government, it sent representatives to Washington D.C. to negotiate paying its share of the national debt. Your argument basically says that since America was going to lose so much prime farmland in the southern states, that the southern states should have had to pay a much larger share of the national debt, or possibly they should have to pay the US government for the land they were taking with them. Which begs the question, who owned the southern states? The states or the federal government?

Originally Posted by bUU

You are talking about threat of power and the power of possession, not what's fair and just. That's my point. Once the guns are all that will determine what will happen, all that matters is who has the bigger guns.

My point is this, there are secession movements all around the world. The only thing that prevents many of those movements from becoming reality, is a threat of force. For instance, I highly doubt you believed the south had the right to secede in the American Civil War. America didn't support the Chechens when they wanted to break from Russia. America sits silent on Tibet. We stood by while Saddam gassed the Kurds. And we have even assisted in the repression of breakaway regions in places like the Congo. You should go read about Somaliland in Somalia.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRET1fHLWdE

You are pretending only outside force matters, I believe both internal and external force matters. Which is my point about self-determination. I'll give you the names of dozens of areas around the world, where if you held a referendum on independence, they would most certainly vote "Yes" at over 90%.

I'm just saying, I want a consistent principle when it comes to secession. What are the necessary requirements for secession. And before you speak, did America in 1776 even meet those requirements when it seceded from Britain?