Posted on 04/10/2014 2:36:44 AM PDT by wetphoenix
What can the United States do to reverse Russia’s annexation of Crimea? The short answer is, not much. Inside President Obama’s administration, it’s hard to find much unfeigned optimism about getting Vladimir Putin to give up the strategic peninsula.
But Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., introduced legislation on Wednesday that aims to ensure that U.S. impotence doesn’t turn into complacency.
“The American response must be much greater than a verbal slap if we want Putin to understand his actions in Ukraine are unacceptable and will not be tolerated,” he said in a statement. (Coats is among the nine Americans on whom Russia slapped sanctions recently)
Coats’ measure doesn’t read like an effort to force Moscow to pull back so much as an effort to prevent Washington from slipping back into business-as-usual mode, which is largely what happened after Russia’s brief 2008 war with Georgia.
Some of the steps Coats is proposing are largely symbolic: One provision would tell the Government Printing Office it “may not print any map, document, record, or other paper of the United States portraying or otherwise indicating Crimea as part of the territory of the Russian Federation.”
Other provisions include a ban on facilitating any investment in Crimea that involves any Russian official, government agency or private-sector institution. Another section would apply those restrictions to any International Monetary Fund or World Bank loans.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“I’m from Indiana and I don’t consider Coats to be one of our guys. He’s a lifer DC politician who moved back to Indiana to keep Marlin Stutzman from getting the seat. Stutzman is one of our guys in the the house and Coats only makes enough tea party noise to get re-elected. He’s a RINO.”
It doesn’t matter whether he is Joe McCarthy, Dwight D. Eisenhower, or Ophrah Winfrey; there has been an international law in place since the Kellogg-Briand Pact in 1927 that mandates an obligation for official maps used for diplomatic purposes to recognize only lawful changes in the sovereignty of territories. This is typically accomplished by showing showing which part of a nation’s territory is under hostile and illegal occupation by another state.
This is the kind of stuff they do in the middle east. Whats Israe?!
“Lord God these people are trivial. In addition, this idiot wants to deny a reality brought on by Western ineptitude. Can’t people elect someone better than this creature? I think America “has lost it!””
Yes, and you are a prime example of how “America “has lost it” through sloth and rampant ignorance of the law of nations. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever who is sponsoring the bill, because the subject matter is the uncomplicated application of international law for some very serious diplomatic purposes that have repercussions in every territorial dispute and every challenge of a nation’s soveriegnty and territorial integrity around the world. It is truly sad to see so much willful ignorance about such a simple and straightforward principle of morality and the rule of law.
“Also, such maps could be used in schools. Our kids are going to now learn Mickey Mouse geography.”
Evidently you failed to learn anything while you were in schoool about the relation of international law to basic geography. If you will look at official U.S. and many foreign maps published before 1991, you will see they have recognized that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are independent states under illegal occupation by the Soviet Union. The Autnomous Republic of the Crimea will now be shown on such official maps to be the sovereign territory of the ukraine under illegal occupation by Russia, which exactly reflects the reality of the political geography of the Crimea today, just as it did for the Batlic States and their goverments-in-exile from 1940 to 1991.
I’m talking about his statement regarding the map. Not application of so called “International Law.” “International Law” are terms that can mean whatever the speaker wishes at any given moment. “International Law” is what is imposed by the victors upon the vanquished. There is no “International Law,” there are treaties between nations which have a similitude to contracts, that is “International Law.” Dump your spleen upon another person.
“Pretending to do something is foolish”
It is you who are “Pretending to do something is foolish” by suggesting it is “foolish” for a map to depict the reality that the Crimea is the sovereign territory of the Ukraine presently under unlawful occupation by the Russian Federation, just as the official maps used for political and diplomatic purposes formerly showed the sovereign states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were under unlawful occupation by the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991. Such mapping is in compliance with the mandatory law of the Kellogg-briand Pact of 1927.
And what color is Kosovo?
Your arguments are interesting. First of all, what you write justifies Crimea (and the majority Russian towns nearby) becoming part of Russia. Secondly, a vote that happened in Kiev was not a vote by the people who live in the areas protesting. A vote to stop a slide into chaos in Kiev does not negate what the people want. You cannot speak for those areas with a large minority Russian population, that speak Russian, as that government being representative of them. Let them vote.
white space is racist. should be black space.
Actually, the Crimea is Russia and has been for pretty much ever.
“I’m talking about his statement regarding the map. Not application of so called “International Law.” “International Law” are terms that can mean whatever the speaker wishes at any given moment. “International Law” is what is imposed by the victors upon the vanquished. There is no “International Law,” there are treaties between nations which have a similitude to contracts, that is “International Law.” Dump your spleen upon another person.”
Those are the words of a person who is behaving as an immoral outlaw who has no respect whatsoever for the humanitarian purposes of the rule of law. There is international law, and there has been for millenia. From time to time there have been people and nations who choose to force the rest of the world to use force to enforce such international laws, and you are a prime example of why it becomes necessary to do so from time to time. If and when there are people who refuse to exercise the self-discipline of respect for the rule of law and human rights, these people who would see the public peace maintained must take action to restore the peace by enforcing such international law. If you don’t like it, so much the better, because we have no sympathy whatsoever for people who have expressed your contempt for international law. You and your views are effectively irrelevant to any civilized discussions.
Take your spleen elsewhere.
“Actually, the Crimea is Russia and has been for pretty much ever.”
That is a flat out lie. Russia signed a number of agreements recognizing the Crimea to be the sovereign territory of the Ukraine and guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ukraine with the inclusion of the Autonomous REpublic of the Crimea as an integral part of the Ukrainian territories. Furthermore, the Crimea has had a slight majority of ethnic Russians for only a very short period of historical time, about 75 ears more or less, and then only by the use of brutal ethnic cleansing of the non-Russian populations during the Soviet period. There still exists a treaty dating from when the Russian Empire negotiated the acquisition of limited authority over the Crimea from the Ottoman Empire, which Russian later abrogated. This centuries old treaty still remains in effect with respect to the autonomy of the Crimean Tatars, and Russia is now in violation of those treaty commitments as well.
“Take your spleen elsewhere.”
Your argument is the same as the Fascist’s and the Stalinist’s, which also asserted as you do that international law is irrelevant to them and their will. You know what you can do with your arguments.
Doesn't he have more important things to deal with?
“Senator Coats must have ended up at the wrong meeting...again.”
“Doesn’t he have more important things to deal with?”
Senator Coats is acting in compliance with his duties as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which oversees the activities of the U.S. Government agencies responsible for the defense mapping activities of the Federal government.
We can ask the same question about you: “Doesn’t he have more important things to deal with?”, than to make false aspersions against a Senator performing his proper duties?
Leave WhiskeyX alone, he’s on a roll.
“And what color is Kosovo?”
Kosovo is currently shown as an independent state on Official U.S. maps since Ksosovo obtained independece from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under the United Nations UNMIK mission and the NATO KFOR mission. Previously, Kosovo has been more or less an autonomous province within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Serbia’s 1912-1913 conquest of Kosovo never officially annexed Kosovo to the Kingdom of serbia, because Serbia’s 1903 Constitution never authroized such an annexation, so Serbia occupied Kosovo until later events made Kosovo an autonomous province within Yugoslavia, often with an autonomous legislative body. With the breakup of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro attempted to usurp authority over all of the other autonomous governments of the former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, but failed to do so when the other autonomous governments rejected the claims of usurpation of their governments, including the autonomous government of Kosovo. To halt the bloodshed resulting from the attempts by Serbia to impose its government upon the other autonomous governments of the former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, UNMIK and the NATO KFOR intervened to halt the fighting by all sides of the conflict. The already autonomous government of Kosovo then exercised the authority it already possessed as an autonomous province and government within the former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia to enforce the autonomy of its government from the usurpation of its government by the aggressions of Serbia. In the wake of the dissolution of the former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, Kosovo’s existing autonomy resulted in its authority to choose full independence versus adopting dependence on Serbia, Montenegro, another former government within the former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, or Albania. This was accomplished within the authority of the Constitutional laws of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, the United Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and other international law. Consequently, the subsequent independence of Kosovo on official maps is fully consistent with international law.
There you go again with the false statements declaring 2 + 2 = 5 when it was said 2 + 2 = 4. Nothing I wrote, “justifies Crimea (and the majority Russian towns nearby) becoming part of Russia.” On the contrary, Russia had an obligation under international law to respect the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, and abrogated all such agreements in breach of the peace and in breach of numerous international treaties and customary laws. Russia's invasion, occupation, and annexation of the Crimea is a direct breach of the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the United Nations Charter. The United Nations General Assembly would be justified in terminating Russia's membership in the United Nations in much the same way as the League of Nations was about to do with japan and Germany before they withdrew from the League of Nations.
As I have observed many times before and you have disregarded many times before, the only votes that have ever taken place to determine what a self-determination referendum would decide is that the majority of the population of the Crimea wanted to become independent of Russia along with the Ukraine. The voters rejected being a part of Russia, and that included more ethnic Russians that were against joining Russia than ethnic Russians voting for joining Russia.
It has been argued that the ethnic Russian vote in the Crimea would be different today than it was in 1991, but that would d now be an irrelevant argument even if could be demonstrated to be true. As of 1991, the Crimea self-determined it wanted to be an autonomous republic within the sovereign domain of the Ukraine. The Ukraine, therefore, has lawful reason to oppose any and all efforts to alienate what has already become a territory within its sovereign domain. In the event the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea genuinely did want to obtain full independence from the Ukraine, there are lawful means of doing so within the Constitution of the Ukraine and the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea. None of those means have been attempted. No effort has been made by the occupation force of Russia and its Quisling Crimean insurrectionists to hold a referendum offering all Crimean citizens of the Crimea the opportunity to vote for remaining a republic within the Ukraine. Instead, Russia and its Crimean insurrectionists have conducted a sham referendum that offered no opportunity for anyone to vote for association with the Ukraine, and they committed massive vote fraud in the sham referendum. So, there has been no majority Crimean support for the Russian invasion and conquest of the Crimea, despite the orchestrated incitement of a militant minority.
“Secondly, a vote that happened in Kiev was not a vote by the people who live in the areas protesting.”
That is another false statement. The election of the Deputies representing the Oblasts were and are votes by the people of those Oblasts. What is not a vote of the people are the Russian FSB agents organizing violent riots, insurrection, and overthrow of the lawful Oblast governments representing the choices of the Ukrainian majority population. you are effectively arguing a violent minority of pro-Russian separatists are supposed to have some fantasy right to violently conquer with the assistance of foreign Russian military forces the majority populations of Ukrainians and other non-Russians within the sovereign territory of the Ukraine and the Oblasts.
“A vote to stop a slide into chaos in Kiev does not negate what the people want. You cannot speak for those areas with a large minority Russian population, that speak Russian, as that government being representative of them. Let them vote.”
The third largest minority population in Russia are Ukraiinian-Russian citizens. There are many communities in Russia where ethnic Ukrainians represent the majority of the population in the jurisdiction. By your false logic, the Ukraine and any of its allies would have the equal right to demand that Russia hand over to the Ukraine hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of Russian territories located between the western borders, Moscow, and Siberia where a majority and minority ethnic Ukrainian populations protest to be annexed to the Ukraine. Do you really want to make such an absurd and outrageous argument and claim when you know full well Russia would violently oppose any such attempts? Kharkiv Oblast: Ethnic Russian 25.6%; Voted against Ukraine independence from Russia 10% Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Ethnic Russian 17.6%; Voted against Ukraine independence from Russia 7% Donetsk Oblast Ethnic Russian 38.2%; Voted against Ukraine independence from Russia 12% Luhansk Oblast Ethnic Russian 39.0%; Voted against Ukraine independence from Russia 13% Zaporizhia Oblast Ethnic Russian 24.7%; Voted against Ukraine independence from Russia 7% Kherson Oblast Ethnic Russian 14.1%; Voted against Ukraine independence from Russia 7% Mykolaiv Oblast Ethnic Russian 14.1%; Voted against Ukraine independence from Russia 8% Odessa Oblast Ethnic Russian 20.7%; Voted against Ukraine independence from Russia 11% Autonomous Republic of Crimea Ethnic Russian 58.3%; Voted against Ukraine independence from Russia 42% Kyiv City Ethnic Russian 13.1%; Voted against Ukraine independence from Russia 5% Sevastopol City Ethnic Russian 71.6%; Voted against Ukraine independence from Russia 39%
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.