“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
The Ukrainian Constitution was abolished by the terrorists.
The Constitutional Court of the Ukraine was also dismissed by these terrorists who threatened the judges.
If the Ukrainian Constitution was still in force, then the terrorists would have been arrested and persecuted, but this was not the case.
The terrorists were the one who abolished the Ukrainian Constitution, and now the old constitutional order does not exist any more, and the Russian population of the Russian Crimean peninsula (that was sold to the Soviet Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev) does not have to stick to any constitution.
If the terrorists have already violated the existing constitution, how on earth can the others stick to this constitution?
Are you kidding?
Well, American constitution still exists, there was no Putsch in the USA yet, was there?
What would Obama do if armed terrorists overthrew the constitutional order in the USA?
The answer is obvious.
If some armed terrorists abolished the constitutional order in the USA, and then China, India and Russia recognised the terrorists as representatives of the USA, then the vote of the population of Texas would be perfectly acceptable and understandable.
BTW, that happened in Kosovo, nobody cared about the constitution of Serbia or Yugoslavia any more.
And the USA supported this process.
You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.
The hypocrisy of American elite is tooooooo right in your face, only fools and liars can deny that.
Last edited by Art_Allm; 03-14-14 at 05:49 AM.
The thing to remember in international relations is that there is no higher authority than the nation state. If make and I make a legally binding agreement and one of us doesn't follow through on their end, there exists the room for legal recourse to be exercised. A judgement would be made and it would be likely be financial reparation enforced under the threat of imprisonment. That threat of imprisonment is itself enforced via the legalization of violence that states, in our modern system, have a monopoly on: if you refuse to be pay, you'll be imprisoned; if you refuse to be imprisoned, we'll forcibly imprison you and continue to escalate the violence until that's accomplished. That's how a nation-state is hierarchical in nature.
What does that have to do with anything? Well, none of that exists in the international system. There's no legalization of violence because there is no power large enough to be the arbiter of what's legal and what's not (the UN isn't even close to being there and probably will never). You can take your "case" to the UN, but it's up to the member states if they want to enforce what the UN finds, and the UN might- because of political considerations- not "find" anything, anyway. So treaties, agreements, memorandums, etc...they're only "good" if they're encompassing the spirit of what they meant anyway. What other good could one possibly have? There's no judge to take the treaty before and administer some sort of "justice" regarding anyway.
This isn't to say the US should become involved. Nor is it to say the US should do absolutely nothing (already beyond that point anyway). Only to say that if you're not going to honor the spirit of an agreement, you may as well be violating it in letter, because there's nothing else (in the international realm, mind you, I understand there are legal considerations internal to nations) to look at anyway.
So if many of you on different sides are agreeing that the spirit of the agreement was broached...there's no point in arguing about the letter. The West needs to privately convince Ukraine (yes, that means the posters of debatepolitics- experts in international relations, all- won't know about it and will argue ad nauseum in ignorance of it) that while fighting a war over Crimea is not in the best interests of the West, it's definitely not in the best interests of Ukraine, which would become a smoldering wasteland. Meanwhile it needs to continue to hold a firm line with Russia so that when it does eventually secure some more codified hold on Crimea it can look like a sufficient victory of sorts in their eyes.
Since it's so reminiscent of the Cold War, something along the lines of secretly removing the missiles from Turkey in exchange for removing the missiles in Cuba. A quid pro quo that was kept secret for some time.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.