Unionism
& The Crimea
The refusal of the European Union and the United States to recognise the Crimea’s decision to secede from the Ukraine and instead form part of the Russian Federation, is a shining example of the unrealistic assumptions which politicians in the EU and US have regarding the will of people.
It has been interesting speaking with two contacts of mine, one of which lives in Kiev, the other in Sevastopol (which is in Crimea, in case your political geography is rough). Both friends agree that US & EU and Russian media, are clearly beset by a particular agenda reflecting the desires of their respective supporting governments, and that the coverage by each of the events in the Ukraine is starkly unbiased. As to be expected. But furthermore in contrast is the disrespect of self-determination and autonomy, shown especially by the EU and US.
Kiev Friend feels that the Crimean vote was, to some degree, rigged. He mentions that there are allegations that there were ghost votes counted, meaning that the 86.3% average voter turnout between Sevastopol and Crimea (Sevastopol is another separate jurisdictive state within Crimea), was inflated. There have also been reports that numbers of non-residents were allowed to vote, though data regarding these numbers is difficult to find. Kiev Friend is of the opinion that Russia has acted to some degree to bombastic, but feels the same of the UE and US’s response.
And as an overall "But really, are you sure about that?", can we all collectively dip our heads and significantly raise our eyebrows, and then slowly roll our eyes, at America’s representatives showing distaste towards ’one state intervening in the affairs of another, just because the former has economic interests of concern.’ John Kerry you shut your mouth. A wonderful chuckle can be had at John McCain’s stated desperation to just begin a war, quickly asap please, before he’s too old.
Sevastopol Friend has explained that the general consensus around him, is that no one really minds rejoining Russia, and moreover, the consensus is in favour of it. Of course, without disregarding the severe importance of a correct, lawful vote, and that disqualifying irregularities need be rectified, consider the response of Crimeans themselves. In the aftermath, there has been no civil upheaval. Instead, there has been an amicable response and people seem content to already be using Russian Rubles as a means of payment, so states my friend in Sevastopol. There have even been celebrations, with locals flying Russian flags and singing the Russian national anthem, and the vast majority calls themselves Russian, and apparently have been for some time before this situation began unfolding.
Over-persuasion from Russia or not, who is upset about this autonomous declaration, really? This sounds like when white people from the northern hemisphere are more offended by colonial-era mistakes, than the peoples in Africa who were actually affected by them.
Europe does not like recognising independence or secession, especially. Such an act contradicts the very fundamentals of unionising, of "joining for greater stability." More truthfully, unionising represents the "joining for greater sharing of inter-national collective debt." Unions can be stronger, and will indeed be beneficial, in the scenario where every public member in that union, either has similarity to everyone else in the union, or where the differences between members of that union, is negligible. As an example, differences in work ethic or working styles, have vast consequences which effect the value of currency and what one unit of currency is worth to differing members of a union.
Germany and most of the Mediterranean states are unrealistic candidates to form a club, their people are especially different in their economic styles. Why would two people share a joint-access bank account, if only one party saves money to that account, and the other hides his money elsewhere, but still withdraws from the account? Such is the base-unit, member-of-public example of a Northern European-Mediterranean union. This is why the Scandinavian states have no desire to join the Euro currency. There’s a far greater likelihood of a separate "North Euro" and "South Euro" succeeding and offering greater progression for those states associated with the respective currency unions.
the Euro currency. There’s a far greater likelihood of a separate "North Euro" and "South Euro" succeeding and offering greater progression for those states associated with the respective currency unions.
And yet, European politicians continue to promulgate and push the notion of (collectivisation through) Unionism, despite immense trends which remain for local autonomy, further so than the Crimea having independent wishes from the Ukraine. Here are some examples: Scotland will hold an independence referendum in September, on whether to secede from England’s United Kingdom. 60 000 new voters have registered on the voters’ roll since December 2012, making current registration the highest that it’s ever been. Orkney and The Shetland islands, formerly-independent regions within Scotland, will hold their own independence referendums in the instance that Scotland does not secede from the UK. Already-high popular consensus for French-speaking and Dutch-speaking Belgium to partition the state, is growing further. Catalonia showed a 60% support of independence from Spain in a poll in early 2014. Though of much less likelihood of it actually happening, Bavarian Germans often jest about wanting independence from northern Germany.
of it actually happening, Bavarian Germans often jest about wanting independence from northern Germany.
South Sudan declared independence from Sudan, and the international community welcomed the declaration, perhaps hesitantly at first, but accepted nonetheless. South Sudan has oil. The Crimea has oil. But Russia now has the Crimea. Europe wants/wanted the Ukraine, which used to have the Crimea, despite the Ukraine’s export industry being established with Russia, which would have suffered if Ukraine was then unionised with Europe - because the objective of joining the EU is to allow trade with it to be easier.
Point being, acceptance of autonomy has little to do with legitimacy, and more to do with who gets to trade on the resources of the new state, and right now, the EU and the US governments are responding with bruised egos because Crimea aligned itself with Russia first, or Russia got the Crimea first - depending on perspective.
At the end of the day, my friend in Sevastopol is quite satisfied, and he says his contemporaries are, too, with their autonomous decision.