The harrowing truth of the 'forgotten' children caught in Putin's war with Ukraine?
You can read and trust the Daily Mail, or you can learn and accept the truth.
So you want to know the truth? Can you handle it?
Here's an inconvenient truth from a Ukrainian-Russian-American lawyer and former police officer who spent May and June of 2014 in Lugansk, East Ukraine with his family:
1. The vast majority of he people of East Ukraine's Donetsk Coal Basin (Donbass), have a strong ethnic, linguistic and religious connection with Russia.
Donbass became a part of Ukraine in 1922 only because Lenin and his Bolsheviks needed additional regions in Ukraine in ordere to have enough votes for Ukraine to "voluntarily" join the Soviet Union.
The people of Donbass have never supported radical West Ukrainian nationalists, such as the Svoboda party, who despise Russians and who consider Ukrainian Nazi war criminals and collaborators, like Stepan Bandera, Ukrainian heroes and patriots.
Donbass' residents have been told by their grandparents of the atrocities committed by radical Ukrainian nationalist Nazi collaborators during WW II not just in Western and Central Ukraine, but also in Eastern Ukraine where Ukrainian Nazi collaborators where brought in by the Nazis as local police ("polizei" in German) to maintain order and help neutralize anti-Nazi insurgents.
The Donbass region has very strong economic connections with Russia, including a substantial share of industrial goods being exported to Russia.
2. The people of Donbass were appalled by the violence unleashed by Ukrainian radicals during the Euromaidan protests at mostly unarmed Ukrainian police who were simply defending government buildings.
If these US-supported violent Ukrainian nationalist radicals were not afraid to attack Ukrainian police officers with chains, metal spikes, Molotov Cocktails, bleach, acid, pistols and rifles, then what would these people do to ordinary pro-Russian Donbass residents when they came to power?
The answer came soon enough:
Around February 22, 2014 the time that Ukrainian President Yanukovich, a resident and supporter of Donbass, was being illegally ousted from office, busloads of Yanukovich supporters (Anti-EuroMaydan activists) returning to Crimea were stopped and ambushed by Ukrainian nationalists. many passengers were beaten, tortured and killed while local police stood by, watched and even participated.
When Crimeans held their referendum in March of 2014 (under the protection of Russian troops) and overwhelmingly voted to return to Russia (Crimea was "administratively transferred" from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by Soviet Union's leader Nikita Khruschyev), many residents of Donbass preferred to be in Putin's Russia that in Ukraine ruled by pro-US/NATO Ukrainian Nationalists.
In the beginning of April 2014, Anti-EuroMaydan and pro-Russian supporters seized government buildings and authority in Donetsk and Lugansk regions.
In April of 2014 government authority was seized in Slavyansk, a 100K+ city in Donetsk region, by pro-Russian activists with the military support of Russian "volunteers" including former Russian FSB officer Igor Girkin (Strelkov).
Instead of negotiating, the new interim Yatsenyuk-Turchinov Ukrainian government sent in the Ukrainian Army, newly created National Guard and volunteer battalions staffed with Ukrainian Nationalists, who began a scorched earth siege of the city with disregard for civilian casualties.
The residents of Donbass watched in horror and began to create armed self-defense units.
On May 2, 2014 dozens of Anti-EuroMaydan activists were burned alive, beaten, choked and shot to death in Odessa's House of Unions by radical Ukrainian Nationalists -- while the local police stood by and did nothing.
With all this mind, on May 11, 2014 the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk voted overwhelmingly for "governmental autonomy" from the new Yatsenyuk-Turchinov government in Kyiv, a government that the residents of Donbass considered illegitimate and dominated by Ukrainian nationalists who, if necessary, would turn any town that refused to recognize their authority, into a Slavyansk or Odessa.
Unlike what we read in Western government and Corporate Establishment Media, the referendum was democratic, had a > 80% voter turn out and those who voted against governmental autonomy (no more than 10% of voters) did so openly and without fear of retribution. These are my honest personal observations.
Many residents of Donbass mistakenly thought that Russian would offer them voluntary annexation like Crimea or would bring in Russian peace-keeping troops to protect them like the Trans-Dniester Region of Moldavia. When neither of these things happened, the local population in Donbass became afraid of what would come next.
When President Poroshenko was voted into office on May 25, 2014, instead of trying to negotiate a peaceful political settlement, he escalated the anti-autonomy/federalist/separatist military operation (the so-called "Anti-Terrorist Operation", a/k/a "ATO").
On May 26, 2014 the Donetsk International Airport was heavily damaged by Ukrainian Air Force strikes.
After President Poroshenko's inauguration, many leading political, cultural, public and business leaders of Donbass asked him to hold negotiations withe the political leaders of the Donestk and Lugansk autonomy/federalism movements, but instead he labeled them separatist terrorists and escalated the ATO.
Villages, towns and cities of Lugansk and Donetsk regions were indiscriminately shelled and bombed by the Ukranian Armed Forces (UAF).
War crimes and crimes against humanity were committed by the UAF when civilian areas were shelled and bombed (even those residential areas where there were no insurgents) without prior warning and without any organized evacuation of local residents.
The ATO used infamous anti-insurgency tactics against the local population -- tactics espoused and perfected not only by dictators and authoritarian regimes throughout the 20th century but also by the U.S. military and intelligence communities -- meant to shell, bomb, starve and scare the local population into submission and abandonment of the insurgents.
The Ukrainian government did not care apparently that the local population included the innocent and vulnerable segments, such as the elderly, women and children.
Why? Because Ukrainian President Poroshenko and his government received approval from their foreign supporters & allies (U.S. first and foremost) for the ATO and assurances that the US/EU political establishment would turn a blind eye on the collateral damage (i.e. war crimes against civilians and crime against humanity) necessary to contain and/or defeat the pro-Russian federalist/autonomy menace that would threaten the new pro-US/EU/NATO Ukrainian government.
The Ukrainian and Western government and corporate media supporting US/EU/NATO policies and objectives in Ukraine also turned a blind eye on the UAF atrocities and engaged in blatant propaganda designed to falsely show the world that instead of the Ukrainian Army fighting local insurgents (who constitute at least 90% of the insurgent forces in Donetsk and Lugansk) and killing local civilians in the process, the Ukrainian people are battling a Russian invasion of East Ukraine.
This Daily Mail article on the consequences of war for East Ukraine's children has the same propaganda spin.
Instead of putting blame for war crimes and crimes against humanity on the Ukrainian government and armed forces -- the side that, thanks to superior government firepower, undeniably has committed the vast majority of such crimes against the local population -- the Daily Mail, attempts to place blame for such crimes against children on Russia and its President Putin.
How? For supporting and providing assistance to the DNR/LNR self-proclaimed republics and their populations after they were literally left to fend for themselves by the Ukrainian government without food, water, electricity, natural gas, heat, sewage, medical care, education, transportation, other vital government services and jobs.
If you think that I'm making up the ruthless & criminal approach of the Ukrainian government and President Poroshenko, then take a look at President Poroshenko's own words below .
So who's to blame for the death and suffering of Donbass' children, Daily Mail?
How about the hundreds of thousands of children of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria?
Russia and Putin?
I don't think so.
Gregory Krasovsky
******************************
"Poroshenko: "Their children will hole up in the basements - this is how we win the war!"
Published on Nov 14, 2014
Petro Poroshenko announced another cynical approach of the Ukrainian government to the recalcitrant residents of Donbass during his speech in Odessa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHWHqj8g7Bk
Ukraine’s Tragicomedy
Made in the USA
by Justin Raimondo, June 05, 2015
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/06/04/ukraines-tragicomedy/
"Unlike tranquil Crimea, east Ukraine is in blood-stained turmoil, with the inhabitants refusing to buckle under to rule from Kiev.
This may have something to do with the merciless pounding they have taken from the Ukrainian military, which has murdered thousands of civilians in aerial bombardments of cities and towns. Kiev’s attitude toward its citizens in the eastern part of the country was succinctly summed up by Poroshenko, who famously declared:
“Our children will go to school, to kindergarten, while theirs’ will hole up in basements. This is how we will win this war!”
His statement has got to be the first time in recorded history that a government leader has boasted about targeting children in wartime."
Showing posts with label referendum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label referendum. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Monday, July 6, 2015
Public debt, Greeks bearing gifts and Trojan horses from your international "friends"
Here are Greg Krasovsky's comments on
"The IMF Has Made €2.5 Billion Profit Out of Greece Loans."
Tim Jones, economist at the Jubilee Debt Campaign, said:
“The IMF’s loans to Greece have not only bailed out
banks which lent recklessly in the first place, they have actively taken even
more money out of the country. This usurious interest adds to the unjust debt
forced on the people of Greece .”
This story isn’t just about Greece
and its creditors, but very relevant today for pre-default Ukraine and debt laden United States ($18
trillion dollars of federal debt).
There is a good reason why charging of interest on loans -
usury - was prohibited in the Old Testament (The Hebrew Bible, The Torah) and the
Koran.
Making money on other people's misery and temporary weakness
-- by charging interest on loans made to
people, companies and governments who are in financial trouble (temporary or
permanent) -- is just wrong, especially
when perpetrated by an international financial institution that's supposed to
help countries not for the profit motive, The International Monetary Fund
As a former investment banker, I believe that Greece
accumulated its large debt thanks in part to
1. Greedy investment bankers who were more interested in
getting bonuses for making loans and underwriting Greek government bonds than
in the country's future ability to repay -- bankers, unlike destitute debtors,
don't pay back their bonuses -- and the consequences for the country's
population, including its financially vulnerable segments.
2. Greedy and corrupt politicians (and so called civil
"servants") who irresponsibly organized, received and distributed
loans.
Although I am a staunch believer in the principle of
innocent until proven guilty, I don't deny the occasional accuracy of
"where's smoke, there's fire."
So when it comes to bankers, politicians, civil servants and
public debt finance, especially in the developing world, one always need to be
on the lookout for
a. Bankers who ply politicians with favors (i.e. bribes) to
accept financing, sometimes on unfavorable or non-competitive terms.
b. Politicians and civil servants who take bribes from
bankers to burden their government and electorate with loans.
As you probably know, these bribes range from cash in
envelopes, anonymous bank accounts, subsidized real estate, written-off loans,
jobs (for the politician and/or his family in the present or future),
subsidized stock offerings and generous (often through anonymous and illegal)
campaign contributions.
c. Politicians and civil servants who then spend borrowed
money on pet projects and affiliated government contractors, where overspending
and non-competitive bids can be the norm to the detriment of the constituents.
This is where we see overpriced public works projects,
excessive military spending (always justified by a hyped-up military threat)
and no meaningful measures to curb government spending so that you could have
budget proficits (instead of permanent deficits) to start paying down massive
debt.
Even if the electorate is astute enough to be on the
lookout, bankers and financial institutions love lending money to governments
-- after all, there's no better collateral than public wealth as well as, if
necessary, the ability to raise taxes and reduce social spending &
benefits.
Moreover, there's no better negotiating partner when it
comes accepting and repaying loans than a politician or a civil servant. These
folks bear no personal responsibility and can be influenced to do the bankers'
bidding through all sorts of corrupt incentive schemes.
All of this results in towns, cities, counties, states
and/or countries owing a lot of money with relatively steep interest rates and
very little, if any, ability to repay both the principal and the interest out
often declining or permanently depressed tax revenues.
Now, I'm not saying that any or all of this took place in Greece , but I'm
inclined to suspect that probably a lot of what I've listed above happened.
So when a country like Greece can no longer afford to pay
what you could call sophisticated and fully legalized loan-sharks -- because
paying means cutting pensions, unemployment benefits, public medical care and
education sometimes by more that 20% to people who can barely survive on what
they're receiving now -- I'm not going to be rooting for the wealthy banks and
financial institutions.
The prudent way out of this public debt quagmire -- and not
just for Greece , but for any
country laden with unsustainable levels of public debt, including the United States
-- is for
A. The financial hit to be taken by the party that can
handle it the most, the institutional creditors.
After all, even if these creditors wrote off 50% of the debt
and had to accept a 10-20 year repayment plan on the rest after a several year
moratorium on debt payments, I'm sure no one (on their Boards of Directors or
among their wealthy shareholders) is going to be putting up for sale their
summer homes in Southern France, yachts, private jets or golf/country club
memberships.
But if these creditors and the politicians & political
regimes that advocate and defend their interests, have their way, then poor
Greeks may have to forfeit souvlaki and feta cheese for cheap pasta and
potatoes for a while, not to mention health care, education and acceptable
levels of public services.
This way, in the future, creditors will not be inclined to
offer additional financing at immoral rates or irresponsible terms, knowing
that they can lose not just their expected profits (interest) but principal as
well.
B. Prosecution, firing and kicking out of office corrupt and
reckless politicians and civil servants who created this mess, including
confiscation of all ill-gotten gains.
C. Enactment of laws, creation of independent, competent
government agencies with broad regulatory powers and permanent public oversight
of public finance and public spending to prevent the future accumulation of
public debt on bad terms or at irresponsible levels.
But the first step is the toughest -- an ultimatum for debt
restructuring (that's made, if necessary, by default in payments) through a
public refusal to abide by the draconian terms imposed by the international
public finance vampires and their government cronies.
If you think that I'm sounding too socialist and
anti-capitalist/globalist, then please read John Perkins' "Confessions of
an Economic Hit Man" for comparison
The second step, is as tough on the population as a heroin
addict's withdrawal symptoms the first week -- having to live within a government
budget that may not be augmented by additional public finance for a while.
Yes, it's hard to have an economic recovery without extra
government spending fueled by additional government debt, but sometimes there
is no other choice.
But you’re always better off suffering through painful withdrawal
than agreeing to the drug dealer’s terms for another dose at the expense of selling
your children and homestead.
You just have to make sure that the drug dealer is put in
his place and doesn’t take your home while you’re on your knees in withdrawal.
So here we need to put another spin on “Beware of Greeks
bearing gifts” – Greece, Ukraine and anyone else, beware of the IMF, The World
Bank, other international organizations and bank & creditor cartels/consortia
that bring you a “Trojan” horse – in the form of emergency loans (“bailout” packages)
– to “rescue” you from debt that they helped you accumulate in the first place.
Are there any other options?
You can leave your comments on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/URA.Observer/posts/1143842275629910
Thursday, July 2, 2015
What borders mean for democracy, Europe, Russia, Ukraine and the United States.
What borders mean for democracy, Europe, Russia, Ukraine and the United States,
a commentary on
What Borders Mean to Europe
By George Friedman, founder of Stratfor
Geopolitical Weekly
June 23, 2015
https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/what-borders-mean-europe
********
When it comes to the age-old argument of a state (a country's) right to territorial integrity vs. a local people's right to self-determination, I've always been a supporter of genuine democracy, that is a local population's inalienable right to determine -- through a local democratic election or referendum -- what state (country) they want to join, stay in or leave.
So if the local people of Scotland or Northern Ireland hold a referendum and decide to leave the UK, then we should respect their right and the rest of the UK's population should be able to prevent them from leaving, even on the typical grounds of territorial integrity and national security.
The same democratic standard should be applicable to
- Quebec in Canada,
- Basque country in Spain,
- Kurdistan in Turkey, Iraq & Iran,
- Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon & Egypt,
- Tyroleans in Italy,
- Darfur in Sudan,
- Igboland in Nigeria,
and countless other populations world-wide who'd like their own state (country) or genuine autonomy based on ethnicity, race, religion, language or other local cultural traits.
Holding a local population hostage in a country where they perceive discrimination, persecution or any other form of second-class citizen status is not democratic, but a vestige of past imperial and colonialist traditions.
When politicians and/or people from other parts of a country in question believe that they're entitled to dictate to a local population where it belongs, that's a perversion, if not an outright denial, of true democracy.
Such a litmus test can have scary repercussions.
What if Alaskans decided in a genuine democratic people's referendum that the government in Washington didn't represent their interests and they wanted to leave the Union?
What if a majority of Texans, residents of an independent republic (country) before it joined the U.S.A. decided to leave the U.S., should the residents of California, Vermont or Florida have the right to prevent them from leaving?
What if residents of a conservative state like Utah, decide that they don't want to accept gay marriage and leave the Union?
Sound familiar? It should, because I bet that any state which tries to leave the U.S. will find out (even at the receiving end of a gun barrel) what territorial integrity means and how even the self-proclaimed cradle of democracy just pays lip service to a people's right to self-determination.
Movements for governmental self-determination through autonomy or the creation of a separate independent state usually encounter resistance through the following:
1. Constitutional requirements or other state laws that prohibit any challenges to the country's territorial integrity by
- outlawing separatism or any individual or organized efforts that challenge the current governmental or constitutional regime through demands for autonomy or independence.
- demanding that any autonomy or independence be decided not just by the local population (true democracy) but by the majority of an entire country's electorate and parliament.
2. Prohibitions against local referendums on autonomy or independence.
- these can be constitutional or based on other laws. Regardless, even if the local population, through local political parties or acts of local (municipal) legislatures, decides overwhelmingly to hold a referendum, it will be prohibited by law.
As a result, the only alternative is to hold an unofficial people's referendum with all ensuing consequences -- legal invalidity, criminal prosecution of organizers & participants and, if necessary, military (national guard) intervention to prevent or stop the vote.
- some past movements for autonomy or independence, when confronted with a prohibition against a referendum and the bigger country's ability to enforce it, elected to first secure their local territory's borders with insurgents and then hold a referendum to affirm the local population's democratic choice for autonomy.
While this practical approach ensured the holding of a referendum unfettered, it also provided the bigger country's government and its allies with justification to fight the local separatist movement since the local separatists first staged an armed revolt, any subsequent local referendum should be considered null and void.
3. Refusal to recognize and deal with the results of a local referendum.
- if the referendum takes place anyway (even a verifiable democratic people's referendum with more than sufficient voter turnout), the the country's government, media and its foreign allies will refuse to recognize it, not only from a formal legal perspective, but also as a valid democratic expression of a people's will.
4. Police, military and economic crackdown on separatists
If, based on the results of a local referendum, the local population decides to declare autonomy or independence and refuse to accept the bigger country's government authority in the local -- now autonomous or independent -- territory, then the state will enforce its territorial integrity through the use of police and military power, no matter how brutal its application or consequences for the local civilian population.
Police and military measures are supplanted by an economic blockade of the insurgent territory, even it results in civilian deaths from starvation, disease, loss of shelter and utilities.
The above measures are always justified by a country's sovereign (almost holy) right to territorial integrity and self-defense on national security grounds, true or not, as the separatists could collude with the bigger country's enemies.
Now add economics into the mix. As they say, always follow the money trail, since money don't lie. What if the region that wants autonomy is wealthier than the rest of the country due to industry or valuable natural resources?
What are the chances that the bigger country would allow its population to have genuine economic & political autonomy or independence and take away the contributions to the country's economy -- often so substantial or irreplaceable that their loss could cripple the bigger country's economy or result in default before its foreign creditors?
So what does this all mean in the 21st century for countries (not just in Europe), their borders and a people's right to democratic self determination?
If you're a people living in a small and poor region without any strategic value (political, economic, military or cultural), then you may have a chance at securing greater autonomy or outright independence from your country, since it's probably tired of supporting your population without any clear returns in the present or future.
If you're a people living in a strategically important or wealthy region and you insist on autonomy or independence, then get ready to learn the true value of democracy in a brutal civil war -- a war that you're likely to lose militarily without substantial foreign military, economic and political assistance.
And that type of assistance, given its political and economic costs for the sponsor country, will only come from your former country's competitors (enemies) and/or countries where the local population will support you (and, if necessary, fight for you) as one of their own on ethnic, religious and/or political ideological grounds.
Now take the the above premises and apply them to any current civil conflict and movement for greater autonomy or independence.
So what do you think the future holds for those movements?
Do you think
- Iraq will just give up oil-rich Kurdistan in the name of democracy and historical justice for the Kurds?
- Nigeria will give up oil-rich Igboland?
- Ukraine will give up industrial & coal-rich Donestk Coal basin?
- The United States will ever give up Alaska or Texas if the residents of those states chose to leave?
Now, if you're a true supported of democracy and, consequently, a people's right to political and governmental self-determination, what do you think is the right thing to do, regardless of the economic consequences for you or the bigger country in question?
Will you act and vote with or democratic hearts & souls for self-determination or with our wallets and/or pride (committed to ethnic, religious or cultural allegiances) for territorial integrity?
Actually, many ordinary folks, especially those who know the horrors of war, will support the status quo and forfeit democracy just to avoid the prospect of bloodshed in a civil war.
Regardless of your position, the Strafor article is food for thought, including its discussion of Ukraine.
Contributor: Greg Krasovsky
See The Ukrainian-Russian-American Observer's Facebook page at
https://www.facebook.com/URA.Observer/posts/1143739658973505
******
Selected quotes from "What Borders Mean to Europe"
"The right of national self-determination has created many distinct nations in Europe. And, as nations do, they sometimes distrust and fear one other, which occasionally leads to wars. They also have memories of betrayals and victimizations that stretch back for centuries before the nations became states. Some viewed the borders as unjust, because they placed their compatriots under foreign rule, or as insufficient to national need. The right of self-determination led inevitably to borders, and the question of borders inevitably led to disputes among states.
...
Since the end of the Cold War, the principle of the inviolability of borders has been violated repeatedly — through the creation of new borders, through the creation of newly freed nation-states, through peaceful divisions and through violent war. The principle of stable borders held for the most part until 1991 before undergoing a series of radical shifts that sometimes settled the issue and sometimes left it unresolved. The Europeans welcomed most of these border adjustments, and in one case — Kosovo — Europeans themselves engineered the change.
It is in this context that the Ukrainian war must be considered.
...
The idea of borders being archaic is meaningful only if the nation-state is archaic. There is no evidence that this is true in Europe. On the contrary, all of the pressures we see culturally and economically point to not only the persistence of the idea of nationality, but also to its dramatic increase in Europe. At the same time, there is no evidence that the challenge to borders is abating. In fact, during the past quarter of a century, the number of shifts and changes, freely or under pressure, has only increased. And each challenge of a national border, such as the one occurring in Ukraine, is a challenge to a nation's reality and sense of self."
a commentary on
What Borders Mean to Europe
By George Friedman, founder of Stratfor
Geopolitical Weekly
June 23, 2015
https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/what-borders-mean-europe
********
When it comes to the age-old argument of a state (a country's) right to territorial integrity vs. a local people's right to self-determination, I've always been a supporter of genuine democracy, that is a local population's inalienable right to determine -- through a local democratic election or referendum -- what state (country) they want to join, stay in or leave.
So if the local people of Scotland or Northern Ireland hold a referendum and decide to leave the UK, then we should respect their right and the rest of the UK's population should be able to prevent them from leaving, even on the typical grounds of territorial integrity and national security.
The same democratic standard should be applicable to
- Quebec in Canada,
- Basque country in Spain,
- Kurdistan in Turkey, Iraq & Iran,
- Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon & Egypt,
- Tyroleans in Italy,
- Darfur in Sudan,
- Igboland in Nigeria,
and countless other populations world-wide who'd like their own state (country) or genuine autonomy based on ethnicity, race, religion, language or other local cultural traits.
Holding a local population hostage in a country where they perceive discrimination, persecution or any other form of second-class citizen status is not democratic, but a vestige of past imperial and colonialist traditions.
When politicians and/or people from other parts of a country in question believe that they're entitled to dictate to a local population where it belongs, that's a perversion, if not an outright denial, of true democracy.
Such a litmus test can have scary repercussions.
What if Alaskans decided in a genuine democratic people's referendum that the government in Washington didn't represent their interests and they wanted to leave the Union?
What if a majority of Texans, residents of an independent republic (country) before it joined the U.S.A. decided to leave the U.S., should the residents of California, Vermont or Florida have the right to prevent them from leaving?
What if residents of a conservative state like Utah, decide that they don't want to accept gay marriage and leave the Union?
Sound familiar? It should, because I bet that any state which tries to leave the U.S. will find out (even at the receiving end of a gun barrel) what territorial integrity means and how even the self-proclaimed cradle of democracy just pays lip service to a people's right to self-determination.
Movements for governmental self-determination through autonomy or the creation of a separate independent state usually encounter resistance through the following:
1. Constitutional requirements or other state laws that prohibit any challenges to the country's territorial integrity by
- outlawing separatism or any individual or organized efforts that challenge the current governmental or constitutional regime through demands for autonomy or independence.
- demanding that any autonomy or independence be decided not just by the local population (true democracy) but by the majority of an entire country's electorate and parliament.
2. Prohibitions against local referendums on autonomy or independence.
- these can be constitutional or based on other laws. Regardless, even if the local population, through local political parties or acts of local (municipal) legislatures, decides overwhelmingly to hold a referendum, it will be prohibited by law.
As a result, the only alternative is to hold an unofficial people's referendum with all ensuing consequences -- legal invalidity, criminal prosecution of organizers & participants and, if necessary, military (national guard) intervention to prevent or stop the vote.
- some past movements for autonomy or independence, when confronted with a prohibition against a referendum and the bigger country's ability to enforce it, elected to first secure their local territory's borders with insurgents and then hold a referendum to affirm the local population's democratic choice for autonomy.
While this practical approach ensured the holding of a referendum unfettered, it also provided the bigger country's government and its allies with justification to fight the local separatist movement since the local separatists first staged an armed revolt, any subsequent local referendum should be considered null and void.
3. Refusal to recognize and deal with the results of a local referendum.
- if the referendum takes place anyway (even a verifiable democratic people's referendum with more than sufficient voter turnout), the the country's government, media and its foreign allies will refuse to recognize it, not only from a formal legal perspective, but also as a valid democratic expression of a people's will.
4. Police, military and economic crackdown on separatists
If, based on the results of a local referendum, the local population decides to declare autonomy or independence and refuse to accept the bigger country's government authority in the local -- now autonomous or independent -- territory, then the state will enforce its territorial integrity through the use of police and military power, no matter how brutal its application or consequences for the local civilian population.
Police and military measures are supplanted by an economic blockade of the insurgent territory, even it results in civilian deaths from starvation, disease, loss of shelter and utilities.
The above measures are always justified by a country's sovereign (almost holy) right to territorial integrity and self-defense on national security grounds, true or not, as the separatists could collude with the bigger country's enemies.
Now add economics into the mix. As they say, always follow the money trail, since money don't lie. What if the region that wants autonomy is wealthier than the rest of the country due to industry or valuable natural resources?
What are the chances that the bigger country would allow its population to have genuine economic & political autonomy or independence and take away the contributions to the country's economy -- often so substantial or irreplaceable that their loss could cripple the bigger country's economy or result in default before its foreign creditors?
So what does this all mean in the 21st century for countries (not just in Europe), their borders and a people's right to democratic self determination?
If you're a people living in a small and poor region without any strategic value (political, economic, military or cultural), then you may have a chance at securing greater autonomy or outright independence from your country, since it's probably tired of supporting your population without any clear returns in the present or future.
If you're a people living in a strategically important or wealthy region and you insist on autonomy or independence, then get ready to learn the true value of democracy in a brutal civil war -- a war that you're likely to lose militarily without substantial foreign military, economic and political assistance.
And that type of assistance, given its political and economic costs for the sponsor country, will only come from your former country's competitors (enemies) and/or countries where the local population will support you (and, if necessary, fight for you) as one of their own on ethnic, religious and/or political ideological grounds.
Now take the the above premises and apply them to any current civil conflict and movement for greater autonomy or independence.
So what do you think the future holds for those movements?
Do you think
- Iraq will just give up oil-rich Kurdistan in the name of democracy and historical justice for the Kurds?
- Nigeria will give up oil-rich Igboland?
- Ukraine will give up industrial & coal-rich Donestk Coal basin?
- The United States will ever give up Alaska or Texas if the residents of those states chose to leave?
Now, if you're a true supported of democracy and, consequently, a people's right to political and governmental self-determination, what do you think is the right thing to do, regardless of the economic consequences for you or the bigger country in question?
Will you act and vote with or democratic hearts & souls for self-determination or with our wallets and/or pride (committed to ethnic, religious or cultural allegiances) for territorial integrity?
Actually, many ordinary folks, especially those who know the horrors of war, will support the status quo and forfeit democracy just to avoid the prospect of bloodshed in a civil war.
Regardless of your position, the Strafor article is food for thought, including its discussion of Ukraine.
Contributor: Greg Krasovsky
See The Ukrainian-Russian-American Observer's Facebook page at
https://www.facebook.com/URA.Observer/posts/1143739658973505
******
Selected quotes from "What Borders Mean to Europe"
"The right of national self-determination has created many distinct nations in Europe. And, as nations do, they sometimes distrust and fear one other, which occasionally leads to wars. They also have memories of betrayals and victimizations that stretch back for centuries before the nations became states. Some viewed the borders as unjust, because they placed their compatriots under foreign rule, or as insufficient to national need. The right of self-determination led inevitably to borders, and the question of borders inevitably led to disputes among states.
...
Since the end of the Cold War, the principle of the inviolability of borders has been violated repeatedly — through the creation of new borders, through the creation of newly freed nation-states, through peaceful divisions and through violent war. The principle of stable borders held for the most part until 1991 before undergoing a series of radical shifts that sometimes settled the issue and sometimes left it unresolved. The Europeans welcomed most of these border adjustments, and in one case — Kosovo — Europeans themselves engineered the change.
It is in this context that the Ukrainian war must be considered.
...
The idea of borders being archaic is meaningful only if the nation-state is archaic. There is no evidence that this is true in Europe. On the contrary, all of the pressures we see culturally and economically point to not only the persistence of the idea of nationality, but also to its dramatic increase in Europe. At the same time, there is no evidence that the challenge to borders is abating. In fact, during the past quarter of a century, the number of shifts and changes, freely or under pressure, has only increased. And each challenge of a national border, such as the one occurring in Ukraine, is a challenge to a nation's reality and sense of self."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)