UN Vote on Crimea: Some Thoughts on the Issue

Donate

Written by Alex Gorka; Originally appeared on strategic-culture.org

A Ukraine-initiated resolution, condemning alleged human rights violations in Crimea, has been approved by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian & Cultural Issues) of the UN General Assembly (UNGA). The text is openly hostile toward Russia. The peninsula is supposedly “annexed” and “occupied” as a result of “military conflict” – the term used for the first time to toughen the wording as compared to the two previous UN resolutions on the issue.

UN Vote on Crimea: Some Thoughts on the Issue

Has anybody heard about combat actions in Crimea? Definitely not, but the authors of the document think otherwise. The resolution affirms that Crimea was “seized” and offers its readers concocted stories about detentions, tortures and the usual stuff about “human rights violations”. According to it, the rights of people in Crimea to have Russian citizenship with all the social benefits it implies, to vote or serve in the armed forces go against international law. It says minorities are oppressed and not allowed to speak their native languages, which is evidently not true. Many Western delegations have visited Crimea. None of them saw anything to show that were any problems with human rights or the plight of minorities.

A group of German politicians visited the peninsula in February. What they saw made them call for lifting the sanctions against Russia. A delegation from Norway went to Crimea last month to express its satisfaction with the progress the region had made. This year, Matteo Salvini, Vice Prime Minister of Italy, told the Washington Post that he believes that Crimea’s re-unification with Russia is legitimate and branded the Ukraine’s 2014 “revolution” as fake and funded by other countries. Mr. Salvini is a staunch opponent of the sanctions imposed by the EU on Moscow for incorporating Crimea – the region he visited himself in 2014 after it became Russian. The Yalta International Economic Forum – 2018 brought together a large number of high-level guests on April 19-21. In August, a Slovak delegation of businessmen led by Peter Marcek, a deputy of the National Council of Slovakia, was in Crimea to study business opportunities.

The document calls on all international bodies to use the term “the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine, temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation.” The Secretary General is to ensure the implementation of the resolution, which will be put to vote in December to be endorsed by UN General Assembly.

The resolution was supported by only 67 votes, with 26 nations voting against, including Russia, China, India, South Africa and Serbia, and 87 abstaining. Totally, 108 out of 193 UN member states did not vote for it. The results deprive Ukraine of opportunity to affirm that its stance on Crimea enjoys wide international support. Last year, a similar resolution with a “milder’ wording was endorsed by 70 states (26 voted against and 76 abstained). The first Crimea resolution in 2016 was backed by 70 UN members with 71 abstaining and 26 voting against. So, the approval has gone down a bit while the number of abstentions grew with the number of nations backing Russia to remain unchanged. As one can see, the support for Ukraine’s position is growing weaker.

The principle of responsibility to protect (R2P or RtoP) adopted at the World Summit in 2005 is omnipresent in all UN documents. Suppose Crimea was Ukrainian today, would the people living there be protected? It’s important to be impartial. No way could anybody accuse the famous British Chatham House think tank of having anything to do with “Russian propaganda”. Here is its report published on Nov.8 devoted to the threat coming from Ukraine’s radicals and the violence they spread. It’s horrible. Even Atlantic Council admits Ukraine’s Nazi problem. It expressed its alarm in the report published in October. As a UN member, Russia was obliged to protect the people of Crimea from this threat. That’s what it did in strict compliance with its international commitment.

Nazism on the rise in Ukraine is an acute problem for all. On Nov.15, the Third Committee approved a draft on combating the glorification of Nazism by a recorded vote of 130 in favor to 2 against with 51 abstentions. Guess what countries said no. The only ones to object were Ukraine and the United States. The UN resolution expresses concern over the influence and intensified activities of ultra right and neo-Nazi groups. It calls for the universal implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. If Ukraine thinks the vote on Crimea was a victory, the vote on Nazi glorification was a big loss. Everyone can see where the threat comes from and who tried to obstruct the UN resolution, which was first of all targeted at Kiev, even if it did not say so directly.

Also in December, the UNGA will vote on an Azov Sea resolution. The area has turned into a real flashpoint where a spark can easily ignite a big fire anytime. Here again, Ukraine pins its hopes on the West, hoping its pressure, not negotiations with Russia, will help solve the problem. Perhaps, the West exerts its influence to make push through a “tough language” Azov Sea resolution to condemn Russia. So what? Is Moscow in violation of the 2003 agreement with Ukraine on the Azov Sea? Certainly not, nobody says it is, even Kiev. Ship inspections are allowed under the document.

The Azov Sea situation is artificially created by Ukraine to distract the attention of international community from what’s happening in the country. Neo-Nazis gain prominence in Ukraine – that’s the gist of the problem. This fact is key to understanding why re-unification of Crimea with Russia was a step in the right direction. The people of the peninsula expressed their will in a referendum. One of the reasons the idea of re-unification received overwhelming support was the search for protection against the Nazi threat – the problem addressed in the recent UN resolution that Kiev vigorously opposed. Russia fulfilled its international duty in line with the UN guiding principle, stating that “all states have a responsibility to protect.” The time is right for the UN to adopt a special resolution to condemn Ukraine as a state where neo-Nazism is thriving while the US and some other states, who sponsor the Ukrainian government, hush up the burning problem.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Neo Onh

    Crimea was liberated from the Kiev nazi junta. Now it is time to liberate Novorossiya and Malorossiya too!

    • VeeNarian (Yerevan)

      They will liberate themselves when they realise that they have been had by the false glitter of the West. Russia and the Free Donbass can only help in their liberation.

  • VeeNarian (Yerevan)

    Who would have thunk it? The US and its slave states like Ukraine are opposed to the right of self-determination of people?
    Same old Nazis, Neo-Nazis and their modern sympathisers.

    • AM Hants

      Especially when the US used self determination on 4 July 1776, to gain independence from Great Britain.

  • AM Hants

    Interesting, when you consider the UN Charter is based on self determination. Ironically, it was in Yalta, Crimea, Russia, where Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin met, to discuss setting up the UN, based on self determination, demilitarisation of Germany, plus, the de-Nazification of Europe. Remember, 4 July 1776, the US used self determination, to gain independence from Great Britain. In fact the UK used self determination for BREXIT, Scottish Referendum, plus, the Falkland Isles Referendum. The argument is explained in the 1970 UN Resolution 26/2625, plus, Nato used the same argument, concerning Kosovo. So the UN, plus, Nato Member States cannot say they do not understand the concept of self determination. Specifically when over 80% of the electorate vote, with over 90% wishing to go home to Russia.

    Not forgetting the UN Secretary General, of the time, confirmed that Ukraine has never ratified her borders, in accordance with international law, since the fall of the Soviet Union. So, doesn’t that mean the borders go back to pre-Soviet times, which would remove the argument? Ukraine and Europe have ratified the borders, but, not Ukraine and Russia.

    Remember, there are 193 UN member states. Back in 2014 100 supported Ukraine and the US view, but, how many of them were Nato member states (Nato were measuring up the carpets and curtains, to move into Sevestapol, plus, sending a fleet to kick Russia out), or nations, heavily reliant on US aid. 11 voted against, with 58 states including India and China (58% of the world’s population) abstained, 11 states including Iran and Israel failed to take part in the vote, which is a form of abstention. So around 53%/47% – which in a court of law, where facts, plus, evidence are demanded, would be thrown out. How would they vote today, over in the UN? Would they risk it?

    The Saker poses a legal question to Alexander Mercouris (email exchange)… http://thesaker.is/the-saker-poses-a-legal-question-to-alexander-mercouris-email-exchange/

    Ukraine – human rights – Crimea, ironic, when it was the Korsun Massacre, back in February 2014, which was instrumental in the people of Crimea turning their backs on Ukraine. Then you have the language problem, evident in Ukraine, but, not in Crimea. The first thing Russia did was rehabilitate the Tatars, including having three official languages in Crimea, Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar. What did the Soviet Union do for the Tatars, when they realised they were working with Hitler? What did Krushchev do for the Tatars, when the Ukrainian leader of the Soviet Communist Party took Crimea from Russia and handed it to Ukraine? What did Ukraine do for the Tatars, when the Soviet Union fell? The first thing Russia did was rehabilitate the Tatars.

    EXCLUSIVE: The famous Russian documentary on Crimea with Putin FINALLY with SUBS… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mw4Y9jRwCQ&t=6753s

  • Lazy Gamer

    One should have never given it away, if it was this important in the first place. Both sides are in violation of their obligations. Nato for creeping to warsaw countries and Russia for breaking its guarantee.
    I am however mystified in the lack of long term play in the russians. If they view the succeeding govt as hostile, surely there will be lots of opportunities to court the next ones. But this is reasonable as ive never seen a Nato country revert back to neutral status. Germany though it asserts its sovereignty is still under the military leadership of the US, ongoing for scores of years now.
    R2P is just an excuse for geopolitical intervention.

    • AM Hants

      Russia has not broken it’s guarantee? I assume you mean the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, plus, UNSC agreement, that went with it. Signed by Sergey Lavrov, who was the Russian permanent envoy to the UN, back in 1994.

      Remember, article 3, which states ‘no coercion’, which the US admitted violating. Together with article 5, giving Russia the right to defend it’s people, from being attacked by nuclear and non-nuclear nations.

      Remember, the Ukrainian Krushchev, the leader of the Soviet Communist Party at the time, took Crimea from Russia and gave it to Ukraine. Plus, over 80% of the electorate of Crimea voted and over 90% wanted to go back home to Russia. Third time lucky (they also voted to return home to Russia in 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union, plus, again in 1994).

      1954 transfer of Crimea… https://www.revolvy.com/topic/1954%20transfer%20of%20Crimea&item_type=topic

      Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the NPT
      Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons sign by Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America…

      5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclearweapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,

      except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State;

      https://www.msz.gov.pl/en/p/wiedenobwe_at_s_en/news/memorandum_on_security_assurances_in_connection_with_ukraine_s_accession_to_the_treaty_on_the_npt?printMode=true

      • Lazy Gamer

        Article 1 says otherwise. Both sides violated it anyways with US’ fuck the eu involvement

  • AM Hants

    The article below, complements the above. Why does the US support the Nazis, together with Ukraine?

    ROSTISLAV ISHCHENKO: 67 COUNTRIES REGRET THAT THERE ARE NO FASCISTS IN CRIMEA… http://www.stalkerzone.org/rostislav-ishchenko-67-countries-regret-that-there-are-no-fascists-in-crimea/

  • Sinbad2

    Ukraine is more of an issue for the EU than Russia.
    The EU is being flooded with drugs weapons and refugees that originate from Ukraine, a lot of the refugees are fascists and criminals.
    The US has done untold damage to Europe via the refugees it has created.
    I’m sure that in the Kremlin they laugh at how the Europeans thank the Americans for anally raping them.

  • Call it double standards.
    In Kosovo it was labeled as “right for self determination”
    In Crimea it was labeled “military occupation”
    and surprisingly in Spain the local Catalonia government was arrested and it was labeled “democracy”

    UN is bunch of idiots, but it seems they are not idiots BIG ENOUGH to support Super Idiots sitting in Washington.

    But don’t forget. The UN idiots backed migration as “human right” recently.
    So never underestimate them. Half of them are brainwashed and second half corrupted by Soros’s – Rothschild – Rockefeller thinktanks and money.

  • AM Hants

    Blowback: An Inside Look at How US-Funded Fascists in Ukraine Mentor US White Supremacists
    Not only are white supremacists from across the West flocking to Ukraine to learn from the combat experience of their fascist brothers-in-arms, they are doing so openly, under the nose of a shrugging law enforcement — chronicling their experiences on social media before they bring their lessons back home.

    by Max Blumenthal… https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-backed-fascist-azov-battalion-in-ukraine-is-training-and-radicalizing-american-white-supremacists/251951/

  • MikeH

    I wonder if the UNGA is going to help heat the homes in Kiev? Soon, that is all that will matter

  • occupybacon

    “Has anybody heard about combat actions in Crimea? Definitely not” of course not, little green are seen only by conspiracy theorists that see UFO’s and other things.