Russia, the Budapest memorandum, and the crisis of representativeness

Steven Blockmans published today a short commentary on Russia and the Budapest Memorandum. It is an assault against Russia foreign politics, and he wrote in his conclusion:
"So far, the Kremlin has not bothered to seriously rebut allegations by the US and the EU that it has violated the terms of the Budapest memorandum.

More worryingly, the Moscow allows itself to be inconsistent with its own commitments and is reneging its own words.

This has all the trappings of a panicking dictatorship, which crushes dissent at home and portrays confidence in winning a great battle with the enemy abroad. How can anybody trust what Putin’s Russia says or commits to in the future?"
My comments:

1) As a Professor of Law, he started with the Budapest Memorandum, but he failed to discuss the Helsinki CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE (CSCE) Final Act mentioned in Article 1. This one states:
The participating States [...] Have adopted the following:
I Prior notification of major military manoeuvres They will notify their major military manoeuvres to all other participating States through usual diplomatic channels in accordance with the following provisions:
Notification will be given of major military manoeuvres exceeding a total of 25,000 troops, independently or combined with any possible air or naval components (in this context the word "troops" includes amphibious and airborne troops). In the case of independent manoeuvres of amphibious or airborne troops, or of combined manoeuvres involving them, these troops will be included in this total. Furthermore, in the case of combined manoeuvres which do not reach the above total but which involve land forces together with significant numbers of either amphibious or airborne troops, or both, notification can also be given.
Notification will be given of major military manoeuvres which take place on the territory, in Europe, of any participating State as well as, if applicable, in the adjoining sea area and air space.
You read correctly: no notification are required below 25,000 troops. 16,000 is lower.

More: Because of the agreement signed on 21 April 2010 between the Russian and Ukrainian presidents, Russia is allowed to maintain thousands of troops in Crimea, without mentioning others in surrounding coasts (Gudauta, Krasnodar Kra).

2) Professor of Law Steven Blockmans failed to mention that M. Yanukovich has not resigned, is still alive and is still constitutionally the current legitimately elected Ukraine President, whatever Kiev may claim. No current power in Kiev is legitimate. Thus, they cannot claim themselves to be "the Ukraine government" and claim from this position that Russia has invaded Crimea. Moreover, Crimea is an autonomous republic within Ukraine, electing its own parliament. Crimea political representatives have not claimed to be invaded by Russia.

There was an armed seizure of power in Kiev and a legitimately elected president was overthrown. This was a violation of Ukraine’s constitution. Who cannot agree with this fact? 

3) Steven Blockmans failed to mention that Leaked EU Phone Call Suggests Kiev Snipers Were Hired by Opposition Coalition not former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich (read this news thread in the comments section of this article). He would have remarked that Ms Ashton did not express any human sentiment whatsoever about 94 persons killed at Maidan events by neo-nazis and that she failed so far to report this publicly since this phone call 26 February, and to call for an international investigation about these crimes. 
Steven Blockmans, this is the most important international law and you failed to protect it. It is justified to say that human rights and fundamental freedoms were violated by fascists and neo-nazis in Kiev which seized power by unconstitutional means.

4) Steven Blockmans failed to mention that US department of State supported the ukrainian opposition, the ones who killed innocents and accused Yanukovich, with "more than $5 billion" during years as claimed by Ms Nuland on a leaked phone call (1, 2).

5) Steven Blockmans failed to mention the fascist way of doing politics the ukrainian opposition leaders nowadays (3, 4). Who does he really want to protect with his comments in Law: ukrainian citizens or fascists, terrorists and neo-nazis? 

6) Steven Blockmans failed to mention how Klitschko betrayed Ukraine for money to NATO (5, 6)

Conclusion at this step:

Thus, if the international community, and Western in particular, is encouraging those acts, who is going to protect the rule of law? What does it means for Western citizens?

So far, the US and the EU representatives have not bothered to seriously rebut allegations by the Kremlin that ukrainian opposition has violated the ukrainian Constitution and human rights.

More worryingly, the US and the EU allow themselves to be inconsistent with their own commitments and are reneging their own words.

This has all the trappings of panicking dictatorships, which crush dissent at home and abroad and portrays confidence in willing to support the citizens' fascist enemy abroad. How can thus anybody trust what the US and the EU representatives say or commit to in the future?

Europeans citizens, our political and civil society representatives who supports the Kiev neo-nazi coup are all attempting to violate our deepest and most honorable values. Will you let them do that there and inevitably after in your country by your own government (the same who declare to support the Kiev coup)? Don't you understand not only the historical shame for us but the deadly path for our societies on this road

Without common values there is no trust, no society. No european spirit whatsoever would remain for a long time: it would be split.

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire