• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

CounterPunch needs you. piggybank-icon You need us. The cost of keeping the site alive and running is growing fast, as more and more readers visit. We want you to stick around, but it eats up bandwidth and costs us a bundle. Help us reach our modest goal (we are half way there!) so we can keep CounterPunch going. Donate today!

Selective Interpretations of Declarations of Independence

In February 2008 the ethnically Albanian province of Kosovo declared itself to be separate from Serbia of which it had been part for sixty years.  There was no referendum on sovereignty by its 2.1 million inhabitants. The declaration was greeted with warm approval by the United States.

In March 2014 the ethnically Russian province of Crimea declared itself to be separate from Ukraine of which it had been part for sixty years.  There was a referendum on sovereignty by its 2.4 million inhabitants. The declaration was strongly condemned by the United States.

Six months before Kosovo declared independence from Serbia US President Bush said that “At some point in time, sooner rather than later, you’ve got to say ‘Enough is enough. Kosovo is independent’ and that’s the position we’ve taken.”  Immediately after Crimea declared independence from Ukraine US President Obama stated “We’ve seen an illegal referendum in Crimea.”

For once it seems that Bush had international law on his side, albeit entirely by accident, because in 2010 the UN International Court’s Advisory Opinion concerning Kosovo indicated that “international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence,” which was clear-cut endorsement of Kosovo’s declaration.  But the US administration has its own priorities regarding potential breakaway territories elsewhere in the world and was at pains to emphasize that “the court’s opinion was closely tailored to the unique circumstances of Kosovo. It doesn’t set any precedent for other regions or states.”  It was not explained why Kosovo’s declaration of independence should not be a model for the rest of the world, in spite of a most important Declaration of July 4, 1776 which stated that sometimes

. . .  in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another . . .

According to the Obama administration the declaration of independence by Crimea was entirely different to that of Kosovo.  But so far as international justice and practicalities are concerned it is difficult to understand why Washington makes such a claim because the great majority of Crimean people are just as non-Ukrainian as the great majority of people of Kosovo are non-Serb, and separation of both countries from the larger entities to which they belonged was a blessing for the vast majority of their citizens who are now content with their chosen form of governance.

90 percent of the inhabitants of Crimea are Russian-speaking,  Russian-cultured and  Russian-educated, and they decided to “dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” in order to join Russia.  It would be strange if they did not vote for accession to a country that welcomes their kinship, empathy and loyalty — and, of great importance, is economically benevolent concerning their future.

There were energetic attempts in the west to paint the post-accession treatment of Ukrainian military personnel in Crimea as harsh, but at least there was honesty enough in some newspapers to refrain from deliberate lies, with even the ultra-right British Daily Telegraph recording that “Like many of the Ukrainian servicemen in Crimea, the 600-strong marine battalion in Feodosia has strong local links. Many of the men are either local recruits or have served here so long they have put down roots. Only about 140 of the 600-strong battalion stationed here are expected to return to Ukraine. The remainder, with local family and friends, have opted to remain in Crimea — the land they call home.”

There was no carnage in Crimea, much to the disappointment, vexation and frustration of those in the west who wished otherwise,  and the only death recorded by the vigilant western media was that of one marine officer who was shot in mysterious circumstances. Nor was there a single case of bloodshed in the run-up to the plebiscite, the free vote as to whether the population wished to accede to Russia or support the “status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine.”  The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was asked by the government of Crimea to send representatives to monitor the referendum but refused to do so.

The referendum was well-run and even the most critical western journalists could not find anything wrong with its conduct. There were no hanging chads or Afghanistan-style thousands of fake votes, although they did report that some voting booth curtains were colored red, which was apparently considered to be pro-Russia; but this was all the shock horror they could come up with.

Why should there be any objection to two million people voting for independence from a state that loathes them and making it clear that they wished to once again be part of a supportive and culturally-friendly country that would welcome their re-accession?  Surely, in this world in which there are so many groups of ethnic peoples wishing to better their circumstances but are denied the facility to do so, mostly in dire circumstances, it would be reasonable to welcome instances in which such groups can peacefully achieve their desires?

In June 2014 President Obama declared that “we will not accept Russia’s occupation of Crimea” but did not say what he intends to do to reverse the free and open accession of the Crimean people to Russia.  Does he for one moment imagine that his much-publicized goal of  “a Europe that is whole and free and at peace” would be closer if Crimea were to be wrenched from Russia and given to Ukraine?  Does he seriously think that if Ukraine took over Crimea there would be any possibility that its inhabitants would, in the words of his own nation’s Declaration of Independence,  enjoy “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”?

And if Mr Obama “will not accept” the fact that Crimea has acceded to Russia by the popular wish of 90 percent of its citizens, what is he going to do about it?  How is he going to take Crimea from Russia, against the wishes of its people, and give it to Ukraine?   Has he thought about what would happen if two million people who have made it clear that they do not want to be ruled by Ukraine, were suddenly ordered to accept rule by Ukraine?  And who would give such an order?

The ill-advised US-led NATO confrontation with Russia over Ukraine is entirely counter-productive. The West’s anti-Russia sanctions are a farce — and they are costing Europe a fortune.  (There is no adverse impact on the US economy.)

Obama’s aggressively anti-Russian speeches in the UN General Assembly and other forums have been needlessly confrontational — and they won’t be forgotten by the Russian people who don’t appreciate such absurdly bellicose slogans as “the United States is and will remain the one indispensable nation in the world.”  This immature approach to international relations has become the hallmark of administrations in Washington and although regarded with hilarity by many millions around the world is nonetheless patronizing, supercilious and offensive.

America, the great country which taught the world that “in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” has debased itself by selective interpretation of the reasons for its very foundation.  In modern times the US does not support declarations of independence, no matter how morally justifiable and practically desirable they might be, if they do not fit in with its policy of self-appointed indispensability. A spirit of compromise and understanding appears to be as remote in Washington as does willingness to cease its increasingly virulent anti-Russia campaign of invective and confrontation.  If Washington had its way, the citizens of Crimea would be forced to accept rule by an alien nation. All in the name of freedom.

Brian Cloughley is a former soldier who lives in France.


More articles by:

Brian Cloughley writes about foreign policy and military affairs. He lives in Voutenay sur Cure, France.


May 23, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Belligerence of Empire
Ralph Nader
What and Who Gave Us Trump?
Ramzy Baroud
Madonna’s Fake Revolution: Eurovision, Cultural Hegemony and Resistance
Tom Engelhardt
Living in a Nation of Political Narcissists
Binoy Kampmark
Challenging Orthodoxies: Alabama’s Anti-Abortion Law
Thomas Klikauer
Why Reactionaries Won in Australia
John Steppling
A New Volkisch Mythos
Cathy Breen
So Many Wars: Remembering Friends in Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Kurdistan and Turkey 
Chuck Collins
Ending the Generational Abuse of Student Debt
Robert J. Burrowes
Understanding NATO, Ending War
Nyla Ali Khan
Dilution of “Kashmiriyat” and Regional Nationalism
May 22, 2019
T.J. Coles
Vicious Cycle: The Pentagon Creates Tech Giants and Then Buys their Services
Thomas Knapp
A US War on Iran Would be Evil, Stupid, and Self-Damaging
Johnny Hazard
Down in Juárez
Mark Ashwill
Albright & Powell to Speak at Major International Education Conference: What Were They Thinking?
Binoy Kampmark
The Victory of Small Visions: Morrison Retains Power in Australia
Laura Flanders
Can It Happen Here?
Dean Baker
The Money in the Trump/Kushner Middle East Peace Plan
Manuel Perez-Rocha – Jen Moore
How Mining Companies Use Excessive Legal Powers to Gamble with Latin American Lives
George Ochenski
Playing Politics With Coal Plants
Ted Rall
Why Joe Biden is the Least Electable Democrat
May 21, 2019
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Locked in a Cold War Time Warp
Roger Harris
Venezuela: Amnesty International in Service of Empire
Patrick Cockburn
Trump is Making the Same Mistakes in the Middle East the US Always Makes
Robert Hunziker
Custer’s Last Stand Meets Global Warming
Lance Olsen
Renewable Energy: the Switch From Drill, Baby, Drill to Mine, Baby, Mine
Dean Baker
Ady Barkan, the Fed and the Liberal Funder Industry
Manuel E. Yepe
Maduro Gives Trump a Lesson in Ethics and Morality
Jan Oberg
Trump’s Iran Trap
David D’Amato
What is Anarchism?
Nicky Reid
Trump’s War In Venezuela Could Be Che’s Revenge
Elliot Sperber
Springtime in New York
May 20, 2019
Richard Greeman
The Yellow Vests of France: Six Months of Struggle
Manuel García, Jr.
Abortion: White Panic Over Demographic Dilution?
Robert Fisk
From the Middle East to Northern Ireland, Western States are All Too Happy to Avoid Culpability for War Crimes
Tom Clifford
From the Gulf of Tonkin to the Persian Gulf
Chandra Muzaffar
Targeting Iran
Valerie Reynoso
The Violent History of the Venezuelan Opposition
Howard Lisnoff
They’re Just About Ready to Destroy Roe v. Wade
Eileen Appelbaum
Private Equity is a Driving Force Behind Devious Surprise Billings
Binoy Kampmark
Bob Hawke: Misunderstood in Memoriam
J.P. Linstroth
End of an era for ETA?: May Basque Peace Continue
Weekend Edition
May 17, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Melvin Goodman
Trump and the Middle East: a Long Record of Personal Failure
Joan Roelofs
“Get Your Endangered Species Off My Bombing Range!”
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Slouching Towards Tehran