The increasing involvement of the Russian military in Crimea, a pro-Russian region of Ukraine with strategic importance because of it's location on the Black Sea, has caused many to fear the renewal of Cold War tensions, uncertainty and brinkmanship. Obviously this situation is different in that Russia is no longer the superpower it once was (although Putin likes to think they are), but it still bears striking similarities. Russia has, in the last few days been playing a difficult diplomatic and military chess game. They have brought in troops for "self-defense" of ethnic Russians and have since withdrawn, stating that military action would be a 'last resort.' Meanwhile, the US and EU have been in talks to draw up sanctions if Russia continues to involve themselves in what the West views as a legitimate overthrow of a corrupt Ukrainian government. Putin disagrees, calling it an "unconstitutional coup."
What are your thoughts? Read up here or really anywhere, as it is an international headline, and post any insights or comments that relate to what we have been learning in class.
Now, I've done some work on the specific legality of this impeachment and have come up with a few interesting points. Ukraine's constitution goes into great detail about the impeachment process. For anyone who wants to follow along, prepare for some legalese. The actual words can be found through the Constitute link on the blog, then Ukrainian Contitution Article 111
ReplyDeleteUkraine's constitution outlines that the first step of the impeachment process is the appointment of a special commission to investigate the President for crimes. This requires only a simple majority, and passed through the Rada easily. The next step is for the commission to collect evidence of the President's crimes (Mass Murder in this case). The comission did so, and forwarded the investigation to the Ukranian Supreme and Constitutional courts.
At this point, the Rada can choose to wait for the Supreme and Constitutional Courts to pass a review of the facts or proceed forward without their help. The Rada did so at this point. HOWEVER, this is where procedure began to erode.
Rather than call a vote for discussion of the impeachment (requiring 2/3 of the rada 325 votes) and then a direct vote on impeachment (Requiring ¾ of the rada 338 votes), the Rada introduced a bill, calling for Yanukovych to resign and setting a date for elections (May 25th) as authorized by the Ukrainian constitution (Article 85, Section 7). This bill was passed 328-0. Note that this lacks the 338 votes required to formally impeach Yanukovych.
The bill has no real teeth. While Yanukovych will most likely be removed May 25, he technically should still be in power. However, by fleeing the country, he is in a very gray area, possibly confirming his inability to lead, which would justify the transfer of power. However, as it stands now, Yanukovych is the proper ruler of Ukraine, though this will most likely end once the Ukrainian courts rule on his crimes.
TL;DR: The Parliament took some shortcuts in ousting Yanukovych, meaning that he is not technically out of power. Keep in mind this is coming from an aspiring political student and news on these specifics are very scarce.
Correction, 2/3 of the rada is 297 votes, apologies. Math Studies.
DeleteIn response to Will's post:
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that view is that the 'legalese' itself doesn't have real teeth. There is a difference between de jure and de facto, and no matter what way you spin it Yanukovych is de facto out.
I'm going to get a little ToK here, but I want to look at the concept of legal and illegal. What makes something illegal? At its most basic form, for something to be illegal means that there is some higher governing body that has both the power and desire to enforce a specific rule. With this idea, legality only exists in the context of the body that has that power. As examples, look at both the United States Government, the Jewish faith, and the NFL. Tax evasion is illegal according to the government, and it is legitimately illegal because the state has the physical ability to arrest you if you do it. Easting pork is illegal in the Orthodox Jewish Faith, and is legitimately illegal in that context because religion has a moral authority over the people of a particular faith. In the NFL a face mask penalty is illegal because the NFL sets the rules for the game it plays and has financial power over teams, coaches and players. None of these rules overlap, however. The US Government has nothing against bacon, the Jewish Faith mentions nothing about football penalties, and while it may be rule, the illegality of tax evasion in the NFL stems ultimately from the government making such an assertion.
So what does any of this have to do with Ukraine? Simply put, something is only illegal if someone with any real authority says so and the people subject to such a rule are complacent. Was the impeachment process 'illegal' in the sense that it went against the rules that were written down? Yes, so technically Yanukovych's impeachment was illegal and he should still technically be head of the government.
But to pretend he's still in power is foolish.
Yanukovych is out of power, no matter what the rules say he should be. The impeachment process was illegal, but under what authority? Yanukovych? He's lost any legitimate authority he may have had when he fled the country. Ukraine's? That's the government that performed the impeachment. Russia's? They have no authority in Ukraine aside from certain part of Crimea with their troops. The point I'm trying to make is that you can look at all the legal jargon and the policies and various articles, but Yanukovych is out of power, and anyone who thinks he isn't is sorely mistaken.
TL;DR No, he's out of power.
There are many ways to claim that there is a higher power above the Ukraine, the U.N. Now, I am fully aware that the U.N. is about as effective as crying for a grade, but the fact remains that it was created explicitly to defend the due process of each country, and to mediate disputes exactly like this.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, there is the International Criminal Court which is at this point hearing petitions from both sides, the new government who wants Yanukovych charged for his crimes, and Yanukovych who wants the new government disbanded for their illegal coup. Now, if Yanukovych's case is heard, it will demonstrate the importance of due process.
I personally agree that Yanukovych is in power in name only. He clearly has lost control of half of his country, and fled to avoid charges and in fear for his life, which is all but an admission of guilt. He has lost the will of enough of the people to lose the ability to rule.
I agree that Yanukovych will never rule Western Ukraine again. But there is a strong possibility that Crimea, and other regions in the East, may find him as a heroic leader. Let us not forget that in his most recent elections, he won 48% of the vote, and almost all of it came from the east, Many urban high population areas are found in the East, and it would not at all be surprising to see more regions seek autonomy after Crimea.
I agree with William (his post after Matt's) about Yanukovych being powerful in name only at this point. His country is in turmoil and there is nothing he is able to do to regain control. The people are in control now, though without leadership is surely to turn toward anarchy (as though it already hasn't begun leaning that way.) In the last post about Ukraine, I mentioned that I think Yanukovych is guilty for the deaths of the people, especially after running into hiding, which is a sign of a guilty mans mind weighing on him. I've begun to rethink it a tad though, with my belief more heavily now on Yanukovych being guilty for not being able to control his people, rather than him being directly responsible for their deaths. It's like when Buddist Thich Quang Duc decided self immolation was the best manner of protest in 1963 Vietnam. It wasn't as though he could really be stopped, so if the people in Ukraine think the cause is worth dying for in their own sort of 'immolation' then that's what they choose and Yanukovych can't be held responsible for their actions. However, he can be held semi-responsible for the way his law enforcement has handled the protesters, and those deaths he can be held in part responsible for.
ReplyDeleteYanukovych, like Matt said, is out of power. His time is up and that is that. Therefore, I disagree with Williams point that other countries will think he's a great leader. To me, there's too much that could go wrong. I mean, if that's the kind of damage he's done to his own country and this is how he is reacting to it, imagine what he would do in a country he doesn't have such strong ties to - elected official or not.
I'm not so concerned with Yanukovych not liking the new government of the International Criminal Court, as he is guilty, and he knows it. Though I'm sure that won't stop him from trying to peg something on them to say they are unjust and he is being wrongly accused.
And, as William said, the effectiveness of the U.N. is.. .well, it's questionable, so they may or may not be able to handle this dispute in a way that resolves the conflict peacefully, but I think this has already gone far beyond peace.
I didn't mean other countries would think of him as a strong leader, its doubtful that anyone in the International community (barring Russia) will support him. However, many regions in Eastern Ukraine are following Crimea's example, and pushing for greater autonomy. The referendum on Crimean autonomy goes to the people March 30, so it will be interesting to see what will happen (it most likely will be autonomous whether it is rigged out nahh). These regions, who supported Yanukovych fervently in his elections, likely still view him as a strong leader because of their strong ties to Russia. Should one of these regions attain a high level of autonomy, we might well see Yanukovcyh appear again, at the head of one of these regions.
ReplyDeleteNormally I would side with the new gov, but since I have heard that eastern Ukraine still supports the former president, I think that it is a illegitimate coup of the giverment because the pres was democratic ly elected.
ReplyDeleteRussia's desire to occupy the Crimean region dates back. Russia is trying to maintain influence in Eastern Europe by securing a warm water port. The Ukrainian incident has provided a medium for Putin to expand his power and there are justifications on both sides. The Crimean region is about 60% ethnically Russian and if we follow Wilson's ideals it is ethically sound to allow them to vote for their independence. It is self determination all over again. It is questionable whether the overthrow of the government was legal but the people have spoken out. The government needs to represent the people and the upcoming vote will show what the people want. The problem however is how Russian troops are influencing this vote. It needs to be independent of any outside intervention.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the comments concerning the UN:
ReplyDeleteI think the critical point about the UN potential in Ukraine's current crisis is that it gives the situation a global status- and given the title of the blog post, the UN could have a major influences on other countries deciding to become involved in the conflict. This could ultimately turn into a showdown between Russia and Western Europe over which economic sphere Ukraine will eventually join. Whoever replaces Yanukovych will decide this, and thus also decide the fates of Ukrainian people living in poverty.
I agree with William's comment that Yanukovych could possibly assume power in another region- simply because of the history of Eastern Europe. If a group of people are desperate enough for food and housing, they are willing to listen to anyone promising those things. However, given the fact the Yanukovych has fled, knowing what he's guilty of, I doubt it would happen.
I view the coup as illegitimate due to the fact that a democratically elected president was overthrown. However, the people have a right to be represented, and this coup now allows them that opportunity. However, what Putin is doing is not justified. He is placing restrictions on residents in Crimea and has even taken local news stations off the air. Crimea should be allowed a vote, but that vote can not be influenced by Russia and should not take place until Putin backs off.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Russia's role in Ukraine:
ReplyDeleteA democracy (semi-presidential republic, in Ukraine's case) is supposedly representative of the people. In order to assume these democratic roles, the Ukrainian government should be left untouched by Russian/external forces. Although the Russian government is asserting its power in Crimea to acquire territorial sovereignty, the Russian's should allow for the Ukrainian people to decide whether it should be independent or not. Those who are pro-Russian sympathizers should ideally abide to the democratic decision. Even though a tyranny of the majority may rule in favor of pro-independence and pro-Russia individuals should have a right to protest, the Russian government should be sidelined and avoid all military, political, and other involvement (passive or active). Even though protests might occur, external elements should not be factors in the decision-making process of the Ukrainian people who must declare independence. Popular sovereignty, not external presence, should dictate Ukraine's course of action.
In response to those opposing the coup:
In America, the people have a right to revolt (preserve individual liberties and the US Constitutional rights) if the government does not adequately preserve the rights, carry out its capacity, or overstep its autonomy- similarly, the Ukrainian people should decide whether or not they are represented properly. In this sense, the revolt may have been slightly over-the-top; however, in the eyes of the revolutionaries, it was justified. I believe the right to revolution is a natural law (validity everywhere), not a positive law (set by proper authority).
I don't really understand why Russia needs to send in soldiers to protect people of Russian ethnicity...Ukraine purposely broke away from the USSR awhile ago along with many other countries so Russia has no responsibility to those who are not their own citizens. Russia needs to back off in my opinion. Their interference is preventing Ukraine from solving their own issues as an independent nation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Megan in that although the people of Crimea identify as ethnically Russian and speak Russian doesn't mean that Russia has legitimate control over them. However, I do believe that they are taking a diplomatic approach by allowing the people to vote on Russian involvement.
ReplyDelete