Skip to main content

Crimea and Self Determination

According to the recent referendum, 95.5% of Crimean voters chose to leave Ukraine and join Russia. [1]  Upon learning of such a high percentage, two thoughts passed through my mind...that this vote was unfair and also that even if it were fair, the choice to join Russia would have probably still gotten a majority.

The demographics of Crimea are as follows: [2]

58.32% Russians
24.32% Ukrainians
12.10% Crimean Tatars

Elsewhere, I've seen that 77% of Crimeans speak Russian, and I'm not sure if this conflicts with the previous demographics or if many ethnic Ukranians and Tatars speak Russian.  Here is a map of the native languages of Ukraine, showing clearly the Russian majority in Crimea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png

At any rate, Russians make up a majority, but not such an overwhelming majority.  Even with groups abstaining from voting, the results seem skewed.

But assuming a fair election with nobody abstaining, the Russians would appear to still be in control of the fate of Crimea.  Now, is this fair?  Yes and No.

I am generally for the right of "self determination".  I think that in many cases, people should be in the countries they want to be in.  So if 95.5% of Crimeans really wanted to be Russians, then I would support that.  However, in this respect, Russia is extremely hypocritical.  Russia has numerous areas where non-Russian ethnic groups make up a majority, or where ethnic Russians make up a minority, and there is absolutely no chance that they will be afforded the same rights that the Crimeans are receiving.  Let's take a look at some of these regions.

Regions with non-ethnic-Russian majorities and/or ethnic Russian minorities [3]:

Chechnya:                         95% Chechen,                              01.9% ethnic Russian
Ingushetia:                         94% Ingush,                                 00.8% ethnic Russian
Dagestan:                          88% various groups,                     03.6% ethnic Russian
Tuva:                                82% Tuvan,                                  16% ethnic Russian
Kabardino-Balkaria:         69% Kabard and Balkar,              22% ethnic Russian
Chuvashia:                        67% Chuvash,                              26% ethnic Russian
North Ossetia–Alania:       65% Ossetian,                              20% ethnic Russian
Kalmykia:                         54% Kalmyk,                               30% ethnic Russian
Tatarstan:                         53% Tatar,                                    39% ethnic Russian
Karachay–Cherkessia:      52% Karachai and Cherkess,        31% ethnic Russian
Sakha (Yakutia):               49% Yakut,                                  37% ethnic Russian
Mari El:                             43% Mari,                                   47% ethnic Russian
Bashkortostan:                  29% Bashkir,                               36% ethnic Russian

I think that if Russia truly believes in the right of self-determination, it should start with itself.  The Soviet Union was an empire, but the current nation of Russia is still an empire, with areas containing substantial populations of non-ethnic Russians.  In order to not be a hypocrite, you must start with your own country before you interfere with the borders of other nations.  But the Russian government is doing the exact opposite.  It is trying to grow the nation by taking parts of another, and Crimea appears to be the Sudetenland of Ukraine.

The day when Russia allows all of these republics within its borders to have votes about their future sovereignty, then on that same day, I will urge Ukraine to do that same.  Until that day, I do not think that Russia has the right to expect Ukraine to accept the results of this vote.

The usual retort towards my post would be "But the United States interferes with other nations all the time!"  I saw that coming, and in response, I have to say that first of all, I do not support everything that the United States does.  And if you support Russia when they act as an imperial power but not the United States, then it is you who are biased, not me.  And besides that, although there are various native tribes which have not gotten referendums (most of which would probably end up supporting the status-quo), Puerto Rico just recently did.  In a referendum in 2012, 61.1% of Puerto Rican voters chose for their territory to join the United States and become the 51st state.  We will see where that goes.

Anyway, will it be good if Crimeans join Russia?  For the ethnic Russian ones, maybe so.  The new Ukrainian government DID take away some benefits from Russian language speakers after the recent revolution.  Also, claims that there is a growing fascist trend in Ukraine actually seem to be true to an extent.  I remember seeing a documentary about neo-Nazis in Poland and Ukraine, many of whom moonlight as soccer/football hooligans.  The link below is to my post, but the video has since been removed:

https://plus.google.com/100881434227795038077/posts/2F5CLvHtkAS

Also, it might even be good for most Ukranians, as with fewer Russians within its borders, it will be more able to choose a government that its majority wants, instead of a Russian-leaning one.

Finally, will it be good if certain Russian-controlled republics gain independence?  Well, many are Islamic-majority and places like Chechnya and Ingushetia appear to be highly radicalized, so in my personal opinion, I'd prefer a father figure to look over at least some of them, even if that father can be abusive.

But this is not just about what I'd prefer, or how bad things are in various places.  This is about fairness, and Russia's actions towards Ukraine have not been fair.

References:
1. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26606556
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Republics#Demographics



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

In Defense of...Cecil Rhodes?!

You all know Cecil Rhodes, right?  He was a British Imperialist (living from 1853-1902) who founded the De Beers diamond mining and trading company.  Just this morning, I came upon a post comparing him to Adolf Hitler, and claiming that Cecil Rhodes killed at least 60 million Africans.  It has been shared 99 times.  Here is the post: https://plus.google.com/+TonyJefferson/posts/CZ6HW3AxDo6 Unlike many, I decided to do some research on it.  That is my nature.  I don't accept things without evidence given, and even when no evidence is provided, I search for evidence.  If after looking, no evidence is forthcoming, then I discount the claim unless compelling evidence does surface.  After my research on this topic (taking up about an hour of my day and 28 open tabs on my browser...but still an enjoyable time because this is what I like to do), I found that my initial skepticism was well justified and that this comparison is incorrect.  Adolph Hitler and Cecil Rhodes cannot be compare

Inconvenient History – The Barbary Slave Trade

Once upon a time, slavers ravaged the coastal towns of the European continent. Eventually, the response to that would include clear proof that the United States is not founded on a religion. Soon thereafter, European imperialism would become the driving force for the abolition of slavery around the world. Continue reading to learn more. The Barbary Slave Trade is a relatively small part of the Arab Slave Trade, which itself is only one part of the Islamic Slave Trade (which besides Arab slavers, includes Turks enslaving Europeans and Africans, Muslim invaders of India and Sub-Saharan Africa, Malay enslavers of local minorities, and other Islamic slavers). For example, the Arab Slave Trade may have enslaved up to 18 million people over its span (not including those born enslaved), while the Barbary Slave Trade enslaved some number over 1 million. Bear in mind that this number is three times the number of enslaved people (roughly 388 thousand) sent to the area of the United Sta

The Sixth Great Mass Extinction and Human Survival

Recently, there have been numerous articles about a study showing that we are in the midst of the Earth's sixth great mass extinction.  Below are some quotes, and then I will give my thoughts. "Miami (AFP) - The world is embarking on its sixth mass extinction with animals disappearing about 100 times faster than they used to, scientists warned Friday, and humans could be among the first victims." "Not since the age of the dinosaurs ended 66 million years ago has the planet been losing species at this rapid a rate, said a study led by experts at Stanford University, Princeton University and the University of California, Berkeley." "The study "shows without any significant doubt that we are now entering the sixth great mass extinction event," said co-author Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University professor of biology." http://news.yahoo.com/sixth-mass-extinction-us-study-210749359.html This is sad, although it's not news.  I