Crimea, Secession and the Right to Self-Determination

The big international story in recent weeks has been the Ukrainian crisis, with weeks of protests and a violent attempt to suppress them being followed by the pro-Russian president fleeing the country, and then efforts by some in the pro-Russian eastern half of the country to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. Most of the attention has been focused on Crimea, the peninsula jutting into the northern Black Sea. Russian troops entered the region and took over many installations (the troops did not wear Russian uniforms and Russian President Vladimir Putin denied they were Russian, but they spoke Russian, drove vehicles with Russian plates, had Russian tanks, and in some cases even admitted to journalists that they were Russian), and now the pro-Russian local parliament is holding a referendum this weekend on joining Russia. However, the United States and the European Union oppose these moves and have spoken in favor of the "territorial integrity" of Ukraine.

I will admit to mixed feelings about all this. I strongly dislike the autocratic, corrupt and homophobic Putin, and I certainly oppose his military aggression in Crimea. On the other hand, I am strongly in favor of the right to self-determination and I dislike the tendency of countries from the US to China to talk as if national borders which have changed throughout history are now set in stone forever. I support the principle that regions which have certain historical and cultural factors that set them apart from the countries they are currently attached to should have the right to freely decide whether or not to remain in those countries, whether we are talking about West Papua (Indonesia), Western Sahara (Morocco), Tibet (China), Quebec (Canada), Scotland (the United Kingdom) or Puerto Rico (the United States). While history should never be a final determinant of who a particular land should belong to in the present, there are several factors that favor the claim that Crimea should not be part of Ukraine. Not only is it Russian-speaking and home to a major Russian naval base in Sevastopol, but it wasn't even attached to Ukraine until 1954, when under the Ukrainian-born Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev it was detached from Russia and made a part of Ukraine. This is why in my previous blog I said that I leaned to supporting the idea of a referendum in Crimea.

However, there are several problems with this particular referendum. First of all, in the places I mentioned above and the places such as East Timor, Kosovo and South Sudan that have already successfully held similar referendums, independence is (or was) the goal. That is not the case here. I'm not a big fan of nation-states in general, and I'm particularly not a fan of overly large ones like Russia and China (or even the United States). If we are going to have nation-states as the basic units the world is split up into (which I don't necessarily think is the best option in the first place), it certainly would be better if they are reasonably equal in power. This is far from the case at present, which is why big nations can and do bully smaller ones (see for instance, China's behavior in the South China Sea). So I can't really like the prospect of one of the world's biggest nations (and biggest bullies) getting bigger. And it's not as if the area was always (not that there is such a thing as "always" in human history) part of Russia prior to the 20th century. It was home to many different groups, including the Greek Bosporan Kingdom, the Goths, the Huns, the Bulgars, and many more. For many centuries, it was the land of the Crimean Tartars, who were only conquered by Russia in 1783 (the same year Britain recognized the independence of the US). The Tartars were forcibly removed under Stalin and only allowed to return to their homeland in recent decades, so now they make up only a little over a tenth of the population, but their "historical claim" is at least as valid as that of the Russian government.

What's more, for a referendum like this to truly be a valid representation of the desires of the people in question, the vote has to held under the freest and fairest circumstances possible, which certainly doesn't look like the case here. There should be plenty of time for campaigning and sober reflection on the part of the voters, since there is hardly any kind of vote that is more important than this. But the vote in the Crimea is being rushed, taking place just weeks after the overthrow of the Ukrainian president Yanukovych. What's more, the vote is taking place with Russian troops still in Crimea and Ukrainian television is reportedly being blocked. A referendum held under such circumstances, especially when the vote will potentially be to the benefit of the nation of the occupying troops, is of very dubious validity.

If it were up to me, I would say that Russian troops should be withdrawn and Crimea should temporarily be restored to Ukraine, with a referendum to be held in the future, say in about a year's time, in which Crimeans can choose between remaining in Ukraine, joining Russia, or becoming independent. But in return for Crimea having the option of joining Russia, Russia in turn has to allow certain of its own regions, such as Chechnya, to likewise hold free and fair referendums on whether or not to remain part of Russia. After all, the right of self-determination should apply equally to all. It certainly should not be used as a tool for the aggrandizement of already bloated imperial nation-states.

Update (2014/03/17): While unsurprisingly it looks like the referendum passed, it's worth noting that the Crimean Tartars apparently opposed the referendum. As noted above, the Crimean Tartars are the ethnic group with the longest history in the Crimea. While they were not the original inhabitants, nor was their khanate the longest-lasting realm in the area (the mixed race but culturally Greek Bosporan Kingdom lasted for 800 years, from the 5th century BCE to the 4th century CD), they have been in the area for about eight centuries, and the Crimean Khanate lasted from the 15th century until annexation by Russia in 1783, and in fact the modern name "Crimea" derives from the former Tartar capital. While, as noted above, the Crimean Tartars only make up 12% of the current population, their opposition to the prospect of joining Russia carries extra moral weight. Of course in any vote of this nature one of the biggest problems is ensuring that minority groups who oppose the prospective change in status will be protected. Of course, this vote, taking place as it did in the midst of a military occupation by Russia, is of questionable legitimacy already, so it's hard to be too optimistic about how well the interests of the Crimean Tartars, or the ethnic Ukrainians who make up 24% of the population, will be protected by Russia.