Tabula Rasa ([info]tabula_rasa) wrote,
@ 2008-08-19 17:18:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:concerned
Current music:The March of the Angielsku 2 - Sean Rice
Entry tags:georgia, international law, law, politics, russia

Secession, Georgia and Russia
Americans like the meal of world news delivered to them in bite-sized, simple pieces that are easy to digest and very easy to care about. A plot of land past an unknown sea on the other side of a barely-known Turkey isn't high on the list of dessert items. McCain, who professes buddy-hood to his good friend, "Saskash Villy" can't even pronounce the name of Georgia's President without stumbling, despite supposedly being in frequent contact with the Columbia University graduate who spear-headed the historic 'rose revolution' which was nearly as important as Gandhi's overthrow of the British Empire.

Most Americans (maybe even you reading this) will rather throw up their hands and watch a rerun of Three's Company than to truly educate themselves on the political, legal and moral issues involved in the relationship between Russia and Georgia over the last few days. Even journalists in America have lost the art of being able to really think about things, or at least be able to report on what they think about to a country who is fast losing its importance in the world... right on schedule if the Roman Empire is to be any measure.

The Problem with America is that it's kinda dumb.

Really. It is.

For those of you who have never been here, let me tell you that the average American doesn't hold a passport, doesn't speak more than one language -- American -- and that language is spoken very poorly. A big fat minority is unable to read and I have yet to meet an incoming Freshman in college able to put two sentences together, though I've heard that such beings exist.

That said, most Americans understand the principle of 'Legal Precedent' in that, once a law is established as valid, it's valid across the board. It's valid in every similar circumstance.

The majority of Americans may understand that from watching too much Law and Order on TV, but they get it.

So, the stupidest of the idiots in this world understand something that the Russian Government and, by extension, the Russian People that endorse Putin's third term as president and first as Prime Minister, are missing. This may prove to be a big mistake for all parties: The West for not understanding that Russia doesn't get it, Russia for thinking it understands perfectly, Russians for not letting their leaders know they disapprove of nuclear war, Americans for thinking that World War II. could never happen again just as they thought World War I. could never happen again.

I guarantee you that our government is not as smart as our Kennedy Government once was. I do NOT have confidence that Bush would be able to avoid Nuclear War within 33 minutes of pressing the button as Kennedy once did. Russians need to understand this: Our president is REALLY stupid.... and may think that America can survive a nuclear war. Moscow and St. Pete are as much 'Ground Zero' as 'Washington, DC' and 'NYC' and 'LA'.

Got your attention?

Let's talk.

Law and International Law

The legal system in America (and, by extension, the typical American's understanding of 'law' as it relates to International Law) is governed by 'precedent' under a legal theory called Stare Decisis: Let The Decision Stand.

This doctrine needs to be understood because it underscores the attitudes of Americans and the West with regard to Russia's actions on the small scale and, on the larger scale, the desire for consistency within the law as it is understood by the Americans that drive American Policy.

Once a legal principle is established, the idea is that the facts of a particular case and the principles underlying it apply to all such similar cases that shall follow. Only if a later case should prove that the facts of its own case are substantially different, and thus in need of a different remedy, shall the differences between two similar cases be recognized by a court.

If the law is that "Thou Shall Not Steal", it is for the court to decide in a particular case whether a person has stolen something. A person may steal a radio from a car, for instance. That person is judged a thief. In another set of circumstances, a person may steal medicine from a pharmacy to immediately save the life of a person and that thief may be judged as 'not a thief' by way of extenuating circumstances that do not apply as the law is written.

It's easy for a judge to claim extenuating circumstances were there is none and do so for personal, political or ideological reasons. It is part of the Western System of law to remove and exact stringent penalties on judges who do such things.... and our own system is imperfect in this regard. We call it corruption. We 'judge' the Judge. We remove the judge who is not fair and legal and may yell and scream at the judge who does not agree with us, but still uphold the judges' rulings that are fair in the legal sense. We, as Americans, will strongly fight to the death for a judge we disagree with if their judgement can still be seen as fair and legal. We depend on them. We defend them.

Russians need to understand the confusion caused in the very different arena of International law when countries do not follow this very basic, common sense feature of western law. It is not a prejudice of ours if we condemn the surface similarities of two events (e.g. Ossetia and Kosovo) but rather a very strict sense of fair play that would benefit the Russian people to adopt.

Russians need to also understand that the West sees Russia with a great deal of hope that it can become as much a part of the West as America, France, Germany and even Poland. I, myself, have a huge love for the Russian people as well as the Georgian people and note very clearly the comments by Russian soldiers in Georgia, today, who do not bear any ill will toward Georgians.... there is even the sense in Russia that Georgia is a wonderful place to visit and a brotherhood between Georgians and Russians that even America would never be able to displace, nor understand in its young history.

That said, Russia is being played by its leaders.

It's ok. America is often played by its own leaders and when we catch our leaders at it, there is usually a big ousting of our leader in favor of a new one... look at Bush's approval rating: 30%. We love America, but we're still willing (1) to back Bush in his stupid decisions and (2) to get rid of him very quickly.

We're not being played.

Russians are.

Russians are not stupid, we are.

Secession

There really isn't a lot of legal theory behind the right for a people to secede from a nation. It was finally settled in Canada that if Quebec could achieve a majority vote, it would have that chance. It never did achieve the majority it needed.

Kosovo was allowed to secede and was recognized by the International Community on a wide variety of issues. (1) Kosovo was historically not part of the Serbian community except by fiat. (2) The Serbians wanted the land, but not the people. However, Kosovans had an historical place in that land and it wasn't the Serbs that conquered them and made them into a part of Stalin's Yugoslavia.... it was Stalin. (3) The country was able to secede, but more importantly, become viable in the larger world community. It was self-sustaining. Separate from any other influence.

Lastly, (4) It wanted to become its own country and not part of another and it was KOSOVANS that decided this. People with Kosovan citizenship and passports.

In a legal sense, what two parties were able to decide this? Kosovo and Serbia. Period. No matter how much the West and the International community may decide to recognize something, it's ultimately the power of the seceding nation of people to secede and demand recognition from the parent country. Kosovo did not merely have the power of allies, but also a just and legal cause.

Does Ossetia have a moral and legal right to secede from Georgia? My Georgian friends are going to be upset that I will say yes. The fact is that Ossetians have never been treated as first-class citizens of Georgians and, as much as the 'land' is considered by Georgians to be Georgian, its people have never been welcomed.... and I defy a Georgian to come up with an example in which there was a period of Georgian history in which Ossetians have not been treated as non-Georgians: How many Ossetians have YOU invited to dinner?

That said, Ossetians have created quite a problem for themselves. The fact is that Ossetians, actually and legally Georgian Citizens, have the right to secede. Russian citizens do not have that right to secede from Georgia because, frankly, they are not Georgian in the first place. Further, Georgia, as does the United States, France, Germany and every other country in the world, have the legal and recognized right to expel non-patriots from its country.... this includes Russian Citizens.

If Russia decides to insist on Ossetians' right to secede then it opens itself up to the precedent it has set: If Ossetians have the right to secede (even as illegal Russian Citizens) from Georgia, then Chechneyans have that equal right to secede by Russia's own rule. So does any other 'protectorate' of Russia.

Russia must choose.

Rule of law, setting its own 'law'? Does strength mean law? if so, the US can DEFINITELY play that game. ;) Does a law for one person or country mean it is the law for all? Is Russia prepared to back up its 'theory on law' and what its own rules may bring? Frankly, Russia is either breaking law, or setting it. If it is setting the law, then Russia must live under the condition it has described and under the theory it has laid out.

Are you, a Russian, willing to live under this Russian mistake, or are you willing to push your leaders to back down?

Was Georgia wrong in its treatment of Ossetians? Yup. I agree with that. Let it play out and you'll find the West sympathetic to that cause. If the Georgians want Ossetia, it's going to have to grow up and start selling the idea to a free Ossetian people. Tanks will not impress the West.

Frankly, Georgia would have done better to let Ossetia flee to Russia for a generation.... let them, see what it's like being a Chechneyan. Ossetia would have come back and.... frankly, Georgia might have walked away with North Ossetia to boot.

That's a problem between Georgians and Ossetians. Russians and Americans need to be above that fray and I'm disappointed that Putin -- the real president of Russia -- has allowed personal feelings to supersede his KGB training.




(Post a new comment)

About law
[info]veron_iron
2008-09-17 12:29 pm UTC (link)
I'm sorry but you really don't understand the meaning of this word. I'd like everyone to have elementary understanding of the issue they are talking about.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: About argument
[info]tabula_rasa
2008-09-17 01:22 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for your interest in the post, however you've drawn a conclusion without any supporting statements and, further, have drawn the conclusion without your own understanding of the subject.

The fact is that "Law of Emerging Democracies" was the concentration of my study in college leading to a BA in Philosophy. I further worked as a research assistant for Judge Crenshaw in Gainesville, Florida and was part of the J/MBA Chapter of Amnesty International, also in Gainesville, Florida. Through Amnesty, I worked as a legal advocate on behalf of Haitian Refugees representing them through the supervising lawyer to advise the refugees on their right not to sign documents that the US government was trying to get them to sign.

All that said, your own credentials seem to be little more than to toe the State-supported line with an 'imitation essay' that established nothing about Ossetia's right to secede in any established legal sense. Your method seems to be to attack anybody who disagrees with the State-supported line without any supporting argument... because you HAVE no cogent supporting arguments.

For all that you state that I do not know the meaning of law, you, sir, have not established that you are qualified to have made that judgment.

So, if you have a legitimate argument to make, make it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: About argument
[info]veron_iron
2008-09-18 10:41 am UTC (link)
Dear sir,
thank you for so detailed answer.
Firstly, I'm not sir, but Miss.
I'm not going to attack anybody - it's USA's prerogative. :) About the essay. It was written few years ago and is not linked with nowadays events at all. Just banter. It seems to me that you didn't read it or your russian is not so good to understand humor. :)
Now about secession. I'm sorry, but you really not qualified in Ossetian people's history. It's absolutely clear. Unfortunately, I haven't got enough time to tell you about it right now, but I'd like you to be more informed about any issue before jumping to conclusions. Briefly, Ossetia was NEVER the part of Georgia. It was independent nation consisting of borth parts - North & South. In 1774 Ossetia by it's own good will became the part of Russia. And existed such way till Stalin transfered the South part of Ossetia to Georgia. Talking about this issue you should know such things. So South Ossetia has at least not less rights to secess than Kosovo. And to be frankly - much more. I can give you more arguments if you'll be interested to continue.
My name is Veronika, I'm Head of Legal Dept. of western retail company in Moscow.
kind regards.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: About argument
[info]tabula_rasa
2008-09-18 02:44 pm UTC (link)
Veronika:

Please accept my apology for the confusion on the gender: With nothing to go on but an avatar, ones makes the best guess. ;)

Ossetia, for its history, actually has fewer rights to secede that Kosovo, but that is not to say that Ossetia does not have that right. Secession is a process and it is defined in the International community through treaties and agreements that Russia, itself, has been a signatory to. The reasons you listed for Ossetia's right to secede are necessary, but not sufficient. If those were the minimum requirements, then Russia, itself, would have quite a big problem: North Caucuses, Chechnya, etc. They all fulfill the basic requirements.

The reason that the International community (including Russia and China)places such a high bar to secession is to prevent big countries from breaking into small, unstable countries every time a group of people feel like going off on their own. The reason the International community allows secession at all is a sense of human rights and Ossetia really is supported as a candidate.... just not yet and not until other conditions are met, first.

In all instances, it's encouraged that attempts to secede are preceded with negotiation and talks and that an attempt to reconcile with diplomacy is made. This is not cynicism but rather a very practical demand that the International community places. The resultant destabilization from even a few countries seceding threatens a spread of conflict that the modern world really can't afford anymore.

Legally, Stalin DID break a Russian Ossetia into a Georgian and Russian part. South Ossetia WAS Georgian de facto. The secession of Ossetia from Georgia is an internal concern and not one to be effected through military brute force by Russia. Diplomacy, yes. Force, no.

Legally, Russia's actions previous to the actual invasion (Russian Citizenship, Russian Passports) really did set the stage for Saakashvili to merely expel what was, in fact, Russians from Georgian land. If Russia started making Texas citizens into Russian ones, the US would have every right to send the Russian citizens to Russia. If the US started handing out US Passports to Chechnya, Russia would have jumped at the chance to deport the new US citizens from Russian soil. It's at the very soul of national sovereignty that a country be allowed to do this and Russia was a very strong advocate for this right until it decided, cynically, that it wasn't.

Another point is that Russia's actions were so completely and transparently tied (1) to Kosovo, (2) To NATO, (3) to the loss of surrounding countries that are very much interested in turning away from Russian oppression every few decades... that the idea that Russia is somehow acting in the human rights interest of "The Poor, abused Ossetians" is almost an insult.

Lastly, Russian disinformation is just as bad as the Georgian disinformation. It got ludicrous when Medvedev claimed that Russian tanks weren't anywhere near Tbilisi when, at the same exact time, BBC were airing live video of tanks heading toward Tbilisi only 13 miles outside of the city. "Russia says tanks aren't near Tbilisi. Well, here they are!" I paraphrase the reporter.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: About argument Part II
[info]tabula_rasa
2008-09-18 02:44 pm UTC (link)
Part II

The date of August 7 is now nearly thoroughly debunked: Ossetians attacked with artillery shells for a solid week, Russia came through the tunnel on the 6th, not the 7th, Russia amassed troops on that border for a long time before the attack, then mobilized for the attack for a solid week (You can't move that much armament in a day). This isn't Georgian disinformation. This is the very common ability to see this stuff with our own eyes from the sky.

As the head of a legal department, even though your specialty is in corporate and commercial law, I think you understand the implication as well as any: Russia made a land grab to punish the West for NATO encroachment and Kosovo. It cannot claim 'defense' because it initiated the attack and, claims aside, independent video proof (hard to dispel) shows it. Claims of genocide have been independently verified as -- what? -- about 200 people killed in a military action? Does Russia really want to call that genocide, because that would open Putin up to being dragged to the Hague over its actions in Chechnya.

Georgia's done some bad things to the Ossetians and Saakashvili to his own people. The loss of freedoms of the press and free speech, the breaking up of demonstrations.... this is not a country that was going to be let into NATO any time soon. Russia needs to vent its legitimate frustrations (and, yes, I've defended Russia many times for the way that it gets treated by the West) in ways that doesn't cause it to lose all moral ground. It makes those of us that argue FOR Russia look stupid.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…