politics

Hatoyama says Crimea vote was legitimate

48 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

48 Comments
Login to comment

“I was able to make sure by myself that the expression of popular will was free, peaceful and according to democratic regulations and procedures.”

Certainly was peaceful.

No shots fired, no protests, no confusion.

The local people seem content with joining Russia, even Steven Seagal can attest to that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721278/US-actor-Steven-Seagal-performs-Crimea.html

-4 ( +11 / -15 )

The vote for secession in Eastern Ukraine was legitimate also. -Obviously the thugs in Kiev thought otherwise.

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

That's great Mr. Hat, now what about the thuggery that allowed those votes to take part in the first place? It's like if China invaded Okinawa and got the anti-basers there to join them. Russia should be sanctioned more than Iran at this point.

1 ( +11 / -10 )

Here is an example, one of many, of weasel-wording: "The referendum was held as Russian forces and Moscow-backed locals took control of Ukrainian military facilities and government buildings." To begin with, rebellion started in Crimea shortly after the U.S. backed coup in Kiev. These "Moscow backed locals" in fact were ethnic Russians whose roots in Crimea go back to before 1956, when Crimea was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev without the Crimeans' consent. When Putin decided to annex Crimea to protect the Black Sea Fleet (let"s be honest about this) it was not Hungary 1956 or Prague 1968. Putin had done his homework and knew he would have a critical mass backing him. Note that not only the Kiev coup but also the brewing rebellion in Eastern Ukraine was worrying Putin. Both threatened the Black Sea Fleet. The referendum defused the rebellion and took Crimea away from a potentially unstable landlord for the Fleet.

That most of the people in Crimea are happy to be with the Russians, whether you like it or not, is backed up my Western independent polls. Pew Poll (May 12, 2014) found "91% of Crimeans believe the recent referendum was free and fair and only 4% believe Ukraine is correct in not recognizing the referendum results..." More recent polls also conduct that large majority of Crimeans are glad to be with Russia. Search "Happy Crimeans" on the web.

A book worth reading: Richard Sakwa's "Frontline Ukraine: "Crisis in the Borderlands." Jonathan Steele, reviewing for the Guardian 19 Feb. 2015, titles his piece "At last a balanced assessment of the Ukrainian conflict--the problems go far beyond Vladimir Putin." In a very small nutshell the crisis has been simmering since Ukrainian independence 25 years ago, and possibly before, between "monists" who are ethnocentric Ukrainian nationalists who insist that Ukraine is an autochthonous culture and anything foreign to that should by repudiated and, frankly, cleansed. There is an opposing pluralist view that embraces multiculturalism. Not surprisingly it is strongest in East Ukraine where there are large numbers of ethnic Russians, among others. The coup brought all of this to a head and the civil war.

That the Crimeans are not involved in this civil war is one reason they are happy. The other no doubt is that Ukraine is a failed state and Russia is not. The third is that they have Kiev off their backs, which was a problem for a quarter of a century after the transmogrification of the Soviet Union.

Note that Japan has any travel restrictions on visiting Crimea. It is not North Korea.

How happy the Crimeans are compared to the Japanese or the Danes or whoever is another matter, of course.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

He's still being the clueless idiot as when he was in office. I wonder if his wife hates him, and if he still wears loud shirts?

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

As others have long pointed out, this time round Hatoyama has certainly proved himself to be someone from outer space, whom no one can relate to nor understand.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

@Kabukilover So the US should hold a referendum in Chechnya, then, and make sure they get their right to self-determination?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Personal attacks minus intelligent discussion. Hatoyama has raised a legitimate issue. When the majority of a regions people want another nation to save them from a nation that they are citizens, is it ethical for the requested nation to do it?

International law is ambiguous about this. One, it says that you must not invade your anyone else's territory. Two, it says people have a right to self=determination. Russia violated number one. Yet, the majority of the people of Crimea did number two. The U.S. and its client states (or allies) chose to disregard number two and dwell on number one. Yet, independent research--from the West--have shown that the vast majority of Crimeans are glad to be with Russia. No one is holding a gun to their heads. If there was vast discontent you would see and it would be headed all over the world.

Another point. Khrushchev annexed Crimea, then Russian territory since the 18th century, to Ukraine without the Crimea people consent.

My conclusion, not being expert in international law, is that if Russia is culpable in this matter its crime is a felix culpa, or the blessed fall. Rebellion was starting in Crimea after the coup in Kiev. The annexation spared Crimea the horrors of the rest of East Ukraine. It could be a case of ""O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem," "O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer" (from the Catholic "Exsultet of the Easter Vigil." Source: Wikipedia, "Felix Culpa").

This aside, if the vast majority of Crimeans are happy with the annexation, let the critics buzz off.

And now for a couple of my not so felix culpas. I should have been more precise in stating that the referendum and annexation quelled the rebellion in Crimea. Certainly it didn't in the rest of East Ukraine. Also, to correct a miserable typo, I should have said, "Japan HASN'T any travel restrictions on visiting Crimea."

In s rush. Probably this is full of typos. Mia culpa.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

“I was able to make sure by myself that the expression of popular will was free, peaceful and according to democratic regulations and procedures.”

Despite the brevity of the trip and the temporal distance from the event. This guy is a friggin' genius.

Got that, Okinawa? Apparently the ball is in your court.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Despite the brevity of the trip and the temporal distance from the event. This guy is a friggin' genius.

He can read minds...when he does table turning parties with his wife that discusses with reincarnations of Tom Cruise.

if Russia is culpable

It's a fact. It's official.

in this matter its crime is a felix culpa, or the blessed fall. Rebellion was starting in Crimea after the coup in Kiev. The annexation spared Crimea the horrors of the rest of East Ukraine

You smoked with the Hatoyamas ? You don't get that "the horrors of East Ukraine" are precisely the consequence of Russia's shadow actions. If Putin had not intervened, there would be no horrors, no Ukraine issues and no reasons for Crimea to "leave". If we talked only about that 'reunification', Crimean people and other "Russian Ukrainians" could have organised a referendum like Scotland did. With results over 90%, Kiev would have let them go, and then Russia could have invited them. That didn't interest Crimeans (seriously they had the time to start the process since 1991 and they didn't). Then Putin had the budget to campaign and bribe them...and get a referendum approved by everybody, but as you can see he was never interested in getting only Crimea. It appears that he wants either the whole Ukraine territory, or he had to start a conflict somewhere...

Khrushchev annexed Crimea, then Russian territory since the 18th century, to Ukraine without the Crimea people consent.

Crimea was Russian and it was annexed to...a province of Russia.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

From the same dope who once claimed things like "I promise to remove the US bases from Okinawa this year" and "Japan will cut CO2 emissions by 25% by 2020!" now we get to hear that the Russian propaganda vote in the Crimea "is legitimate."

Given this buffoon's track record with honesty, who would believe a single word he utters?? But when staring into the face of tyrants like Putin, no wonder the man who was once dismissed as "Mr. Soft-Cream" by another Prime Minster went...well, all soft and gooey!

Jeez, Japan sure does produce some winner politicians, doesn't it!?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

So the US should hold a referendum in Chechnya, then, and make sure they get their right to self-determination?

That referendum wouldn't be legally valid because the Russian constitution requires referendums to be held nationally.

The Ukrainian constitution has the same rule, but because of the Maiden coup whereby the constitutionally elected government was illegally overthrown by force the constitution of Ukraine was no longer valid and hence the referendum, which was approved by the authorities and judges in Crimea was legal and binding.

Haha suckers.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

International law is ambiguous about this. One, it says that you must not invade your anyone else's territory. Two, it says people have a right to self=determination. Russia violated number one.

It's not actually ambiguous on this point. There is another principle of international law which you might have overlooked. It's called the Lotus principle. Where there are conflicting principles of international law at stake, one of which is explicitly prohibited (annexing territory) and the other which is just an desirable aim (self determination), then the action which is explicitly prohibited cannot prevail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_case

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'm just curious why Hatoyama is doing this whole thing. Is he gearing up to take a stab at leadership again? Because he's certainly acting like the 'leader' he was for the brief 8 months as a PM disaster. He's proving more the buffoon than ever.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@Burning Bush

Haha suckers.

No civilized country would buy that logic. Your puppet government was run out on a rail and so thug Putin created his own facts on the ground by force. If Russia doesn't recognize the validity of the government in Kiev, then who did they have the Minsk agreements with. A ghost?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Trust me, he's a lunatic.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Jeez, Japan sure does produce some winner politicians, doesn't it!?

Hatoyama went thru both Japan's and US's colleges, and has a Phd from Stanford, so a product of the two countries?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

One, it says that you must not invade your anyone else's territory.

Factcheck:

Russian troops were already legally stationed in Crimea as per agreement with Ukraine.

Recall that Crimea is not connected by land to Russia. So there could not have been a stealth "invasion" by Russia.

The "little Green men" you say on TV were people that were already legally in Crimea.

one of which is explicitly prohibited (annexing territory)

Legally, the governing of Crimea (like a State government in the US) declared independence from Ukraine and THEN after that requested to join with Russia.

So legally, Russia did not annex another country's territory, it united with the independent country of Crimea much like Okinawa rejoined Japan in 1971.

Notice that no country or entity has taken Russia to the ICC (International Criminal Court), reasoning being is that Russia has a solid legal case.

All thanks to the Maiden thugs who, because of their illegal coup, delegitimized the government in Kiev and opened the door for Crimea to leave the Ukraine on its own accord.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

@Burning Bush

Legally, the governing of Crimea (like a State government in the US) declared independence from Ukraine and THEN after that requested to join with Russia.

You're entitled to an opinion but the vast majority of objective international law experts around the world disagree. The referendum did not meet the most basic international standards for a multitude of reasons. (Also, a US state cannot secede from the union, except maybe in a Kosovo scenario)

Notice that no country or entity has taken Russia to the ICC

Besides the fact that Putin is unlikely to abide by any court decision that might go against him, the other fairly obvious reason is that if the referendum was invalid and Crimea is still part of Ukraine, it would be rather odd for Ukraine to start a case against Russia at the ICJ. It's the same reason why Japan doesn't bring its territorial disputes to the ICJ.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Interesting how different the reaction on this site was when Hatoyama went grovelling to the PRC and made some speeches about how blah blah blah. Back then he was a hero to all the lefties and socialists on this site.

Been saying it for years, this goof is the worst excuse for a politician that has sat in the PMs chair over most of our lifetimes.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Imagine this scenario;

The Chinese government funds and trains thousands of Chinese triad thugs in Japan to cause mayhem and disorder.

With the help of Professional Chinese army snipers and agents those thugs storm the Diet building in Tokyo and toss molotovs around killing anybody who opposed them.

After reaching the Prime Minister's empty chair they sit down and declare themselves the new leaders of Japan based on the fact that the physically occupy the burning Diet Building and everybody else has run out to escape the mayhem.

The government of Kanagawa (which is elected by the people of Kanagawa and represents them) is watching this play out in alarm as they see a Chinese led coup take over in Tokyo and calls the US Commander of the Yokosuka base to send men in uniform to Yokohama to protect the citizens of Yokohama from the madness that's happening in Tokyo.

The US Commander obliges with the request of the Kanagawa government and sends troops to Yokohama to secure safety of the people as requested by the Kanagawa government.

The new Chinese led coup government announces that their first law will be to ban the use of Japanese language in the whole country.

The government of Kanagawa declares that the Chinese led coup government of Tokyo is illegal and that they will breakaway from the new government and declare themselves an independent country.

The Kanagawa government (which is the legal representative of the Kanagawa people) then holds a referendum asking if the people want to join the US.

The people vote overwhelming in favour and the Kanagawa government asks the US to incorporate it for the protection and safety from the illegal Chinese led government in Tokyo.

A messy situation for sure, but who would be to blame for this.

It's the people who led and started the illegal coup.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Interesting how different the reaction on this site was when Hatoyama went grovelling to the PRC and made some speeches about how blah blah blah. Back then he was a hero to all the lefties and socialists on this site.

I don't think I was reading this site back in those days. But I liked Hatoyama. I didn't like how he got forced out over the Okinawa base issue.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

@Burning Bush

Firstly, I think your analogy might be a bit 'better' if you say a foreign funded group of Japanese extremists launching a coup. The Ukranians in Kiev were obviously native Ukranian citizens.

Secondly, I would answer by saying that any successful coup does not automatically disolve a country or its constitution. Since there is no constitutional provision in Japan allowing a prefecture to secede, there would first have to be an amendment to allow for it. (Note: in Ukraine there is a sesession referendum procedure in the Constitution, however, the entire nation votes. This should have been respected or changed first)

Next, Unlike in Crimea, the population of Kanagawa should be given more than 10 days notice of a referendum. Unlike in Crimea, there should be a complete list of registered voters to avoid fraud. The referendum question must include an option to maintain the status quo to remain in the post coup Japan (Note: In Crimea it was a.) Join Russia or b.) Go back to the 1992 constitution where Crimea had essentially been quasi-independent). There should be international observers. There should be a legal process to contest the results if someone claims that there have been irregularities. The nation that Kanagawa might secede to in the referendum should not be organizing it or have its troops on the ground while people are voting.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"The local people seem content with joining Russia, even Steven Seagal can attest to that."

Well, if Steven Seagal can attest to that, it must be true, lol.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I would answer by saying that any successful coup does not automatically disolve a country or its constitution.

It doesn't dissolve the country but it does put the country in an state of non-constitutionality. Since there is no longer a legitimate and legal government in place.

It then becomes the responsibility of remaining local governments to ensure the safety security of citizens.

For example, If Washington DC were wiped out then State Governments would still operate and be legal authorities. And they would have to take drastic measures and bypass normal procedures in an emergency.

The same thing happened in Ukraine, the government collapsed because the parliament building was burnt out by molotovs and hooligans took sat down in the parliament seats and declared themselves the new leaders.

The government of Crimea (democratically elected) was still operating and took matters into its own hands to ensure the safety of its citizens. Since Kiev was a burning pit of mayhem they organized militias to maintain order and decided to hold a referendum, which the government of Crimea organized and held, not the government of Russia.

The government of Crimea asked to join Russia, not the other way around and there's a clear paper trail to prove it.

If you don't like it take Crimea or Russia to court in the ICJ, but good luck finding a lawyer willing to handle the case, as legally, Crimea's succession to Russia is airtight.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

What an idiot! Totally out of touch with anything and everything

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I like the story that says Hatoyama's son went to a St.Petersburg university. But the way his engagement with a neighbor is portrait here will not make many friends at home or with allies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He is not a PM anymore, retired from politics and as a private citizen can go wherever he wants and say whatever he wants whether it contradicts Japan"s official policy of the current government or not. Too much ado about nothing.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Trust me, he's a lunatic.

CrazyJoe- doesn't matter. He's wealthy and from a famous family. In Japan that means he knows better than the sea of peasants who vote for him.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

M3M3M3Mar. 15, 2015 - 04:27PM JST

Also, a US state cannot secede from the union, except maybe in a Kosovo scenario

For Americans, it was OK that Texas seceded from the United Mexican States, to join the United States of America. Isn't it a contradiction?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

A former Japanese prime minister whose visit to Crimea brought harsh criticism at home says he’s convinced that the referendum leading to the peninsula’s annexation by Russia was legitimate.

There are normal people in Japanese political establishment anyway - good news !

Imagine other variant - Crimea with Russian population and Russian bases rest in Ukraine.

So situation can be worse than in Donbass.

Ukraine - is failed state. And Ukrainian problems - are NOT Russian.

It was two main problem between Russia and "independent " Ukraine - gas transit to Europe and Crimea bases of Russian Navy

Today it resolved - from year 2019 - all gas which today pass through Ukraine will pass through Turkey.

No more scandals around gas .

And Russian bases in Crimea now on Russian territory.

So - no problems at all !!

But politician in Kiev started civil war against Russian population of Donbass - really weird people ..

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

But I liked Hatoyama. I didn't like how he got forced out over the Okinawa base issue.

Why am I not surprised.

Hatoyama overstepped his authority. Japan is not a kingdom where one man gets to rip up agreements that have been painstakingly drafted, signed and ratified by two friendly nations in good faith over a period of what must be close to ten years. It was laughable that he thought he could get away with it. I posted here that he was writing his own obituary every time he opened his mouth wrt Okinawa and Futenma.

His "economic platform" ( and we can only use those words with a rueful chuckle) read like he was Rip Van Winkle or something and hadn't been alive to see that the debate was over and capitalism won.

I can't even take this man seriously when he's right (like I think he is in this case) because I know its just his commie roots causing him to back mother Russia no matter what.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Burning Bush

I disagree that there was a state of non-constitutionality. The people of Crimea and the other regions of Ukraine are still bound to uphold the constitution even if a few 'hooligans' have taken over the capital city and Yanukovych flees with suitcases full of cash. 99% of 'the government' was still in place after the coup. Same MPs, same judges, same civil servants. Crimea should have called for order to be restored and for a new election to be called immediately (And that's what eventually happened sans Crimea and the east). Instead, the leaders in Crimea turned their backs on the constitutional agreements Crimeans had made with ALL other Ukrainians and joined forces with a foreign power, contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution and not recognised by international law.

@CH3CHO

Maybe. You must know much more about the Mexican States constitution (if any) than me. Contradiction or not, I'm just saying under the current US constitution this cannot happen.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Speaking of law and legality.

How lawful is it to throw a molotov cocktail at a government building and shoot at police officers?

Long story short, if you don't like your current government you wait until the next election and you cast your vote.

There's nothing legal, fair nor democratic about a few thousand rioters burning down buildings and shooting at cops.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@Burning Bush

I agree with you on that general point of principle. The difficult question in my view is whether breaking the law can ever justified, and whether someone's illegal action gives you the automatic right to also break the law? Historically the answer to the first question is 'maybe', but the answer to the second question has been a resounding 'no'.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Burning Bush has a valid point. The U.S. Backed coup threw away all the rules.Ukraine was no longer the same Ukraine. That meant everything was permitted. Crimea chose to divorce itself what was then an outlaw government.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

" Japan is not a kingdom where one man..." Someone please remind Abe then.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Kabukilover

So you recognise the coup-led government as a legitimate authority then...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I regard the coup as illegitimate, that is illegal. That is not rocket science. The current government was democratically elected and one is honori bound to accept it, even given it controversial background. Likewise, I am now fully convinced the Crimean referendum must be honored, even given it controversial background.

Also, Russia technically did not invade Crimea. It already had a legal presence there. It did all but annex Crimea before bring out the referendum. Everyone concerned knew the outcome. The majority of the people, of whom 58% were ethnic Russians, wanted out of the Ukraine. This had been evident for some 25 years.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

M3M3M3Mar. 16, 2015 - 09:14AM JST

I will make it easier for you to understand.

Let us suppose, an [American] militia, supported by [a foreign nation] took over [Washington DC], and kicked out President [Obama], and appointed a new President. [The State of Hawaii] declared the new government illegitimate and seceded from the Union. Is this OK to you? If not, why does the State of Hawaii have to live under an illegitimate government under influence of a foreign nation?

Now, by changing the nouns we have this.

A [Ukrainian] militia, supported by [the US] took over [Kiev], and kicked out President [Yanukovych], and appointed a new President. [The Autonomous Republic of Crimea] declared the new government illegitimate and seceded from the Union. Is this OK to you? If not, why does the Autonomous Republic of Crimea have to live under an illegitimate government under influence of the US?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I think we have arrived at the heart of the intellectual inconsistency in the pro-Russian argument.

On the one hand Russia claims that the coup is illegal and illegitimate. The coup leaders are nothing more than criminals, nazis and hooligans terrorizing the population and should be rounded up and thrown in jail. Once this is done, Yanukovych should return to finish out his term until 2017 in accordance with Ukranian Constitution (if he can command a majority in parliament).

At the same time, they say that Crimea was not bound to follow the Ukrainian Constitution in holding the referendum (which requires the entire nation to vote) because the constitutional obligations that Crimea owed to the central government and other Ukranian citizens (and vice versa) no longer applied due to the illegal coup by criminals in Kiev. The illegitimate criminals had somehow managed to disolve a sovereign state... by mustering all their illegitimacy I guess..

These two arguments are completely contradictory and irreconcilable. If the coup is illegal and the hooligans occupying the parliament are illegitimate usurpers, how can you then say that this third party criminal group possesses the legal power to somehow 'throw away the rules' and radically alter the constitutional arrangements between the Ukrainian central government, other Ukrainians and Crimea ? Crimea had a constitutional duty to protect all Ukrainians and restore order, instead, they left the Ukrainian people to fend off the 'nazis' and 'hooligan' thugs for themselves.

The recognition of a revolutionary government is a very difficult question. However, In my view the coup may have amounted to criminal activity by many, parliament can of course pass a law to pardon them. However, the referendum was unconstitutional, it is null and void. (Also, to cover all bases, the Kosovo criteria doesn't apply here)

@CH3CHO

I think your example is fundamentally flawed. The United States is a union between the states (Just like Ukraine is a union of regions). The states owe eachother an equally strong obligation to uphold the constitution and maintain the union as they do to the federal government. Hawaii has a legal resposibility to protect the other states. Currently there is nothing in the constitution that allows for secession. There would have to be a constitutional amendment first before Hawaii could do this legally. Again, if people take power illegally, they are illegitimate. It's a law enforecement issue, not a constitutional free for all.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Following the above argument West Virginia is an illegitimate state. When Virginia chose to join the Confederacy West Virginia broke away and was "annexed" by the Union. The Ukrainian coup acted against the constitution. Crimea chose not to follow this illegal government and chose to be "annexed" by Russia.

It was a bloodless transition. Compare that to the U.S. invasion of Iraq based on bogus reasons.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The coup might have been criminal, but by definition, it couldn't have been unconstitutional. Only a government entity can act unconstitutionaly. That's absolutely critical here.

Also, what really makes a coup? 1,10,100 a million people? Do they have to sit in the parliamentary speakers chair before the constitution is somehow disolved, or do they just have to torch the parliament building? Lots of questions, few clear answers.

I would say the confederacy was itself illegal, but it pre-dates many international law norms, but I agree with you on Iraq.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

M3M3M3Mar. 16, 2015 - 12:05PM JST

Crimea had a constitutional duty to protect all Ukrainians and restore order, instead, they left the Ukrainian people to fend off the 'nazis' and 'hooligan' thugs for themselves.

OK, that is even better.

So, you say that Crimea should start a war to conquer the rest of Ukraine especially the illegal government in Kiev to restore order. Why not. If that is its constitutional obligation and the right thing to do, its neighbor and the international community should give a little help for Crimea to do the right thing. You would be the last person to criticize its neighbor for helping the endeavor with military capability.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@CH3CHO

..Crimea should start a war to conquer the rest of Ukraine.. ..the international community should give a little help for Crimea to do the right thing.

Actually, I would have supported your suggestion had the coup leaders attempted to install a dictator or unilaterally imposed a new illegal constitution. They didn't. What occured was a constitutionally required election once Yanukovych's party no longer commanded a majority of votes in the parliament. (Unfortunately Crimea and eastern Ukraine didn't participate for practical reasons). An election was precisely what the constitution demanded and all the new parliamentarians were legally elected.

So who would international forces remove from the government if they went in? The rule of law continues and the pre-coup constitution is still in place... (maybe we can just round up people who caused property damage or other crimes during the coup?)

Of course, you can say that the constitution is very unfair because the reason Yanukovych and his allies no longer commanded a majority was that they fled for their safety from criminal gangs, but the constitution doesn't include any exceptions where Ukrainians must wait for the old members of parliament to return before holding new elections. It tries to ensure that the people's business continues.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What occured was a constitutionally required election once Yanukovych's party no longer commanded a majority of votes in the parliament.

According to the constitution, at that time, Yanukovych was still the President.

The thugs who took over after the parliament was burnt down had no legitimacy to govern the country. Any votes, laws or resolutions made or held after the coup were null and void because many elected representatives were chased out of parliament by hooligans with pistols and molotovs.

Sorry, but a violent coup never makes for a legitimate lawful government.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

For Americans, it was OK that Texas seceded from the United Mexican States, to join the United States of America.

Actually, many Americans regret that decision deeply and would gladly return that territory to Mexico - if they would have it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Hatoyama says Crimea vote was legitimate

The insane Alien strikes again..... Hope he stays there.....

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites