Crimea's sovereignty dispute: Russian and Ukrainian self-determination claims

Sovereignty vs Self-Rule: Crimea Reignites Battle

Inclusion of Russia into Georgia in 2008 provoked political fear among the west political arena and the media. They dreaded that similar intervention by the Russian military would be possible in other CIS (Commonwealth Independent States) with minority states such as Crimea of the larger Russian community. Crimea was part of the imperial Russia until 1954 when it was handed over to soviet Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev, the secretary general of communist party and Soviet Union. In 1991 it joined the independent Ukraine community while concurrently the Soviet Union broke apart. The question of Crimea region is often interpreted as a problem from the Russian community. Fear arose due to the Ukrainian domestic politics as well as the Russian external ambitions. The Crimean situation is interlinked and inseparable to the Russian-Ukrainian political relations (Hedeskog, 2008).

An interesting element of the argument amid Russia and Ukraine is that Ukraine has a minority of 11.3million Russian population .A large number of this population resides in Eastern Ukraine; while it represents a majority population of the Crimean population. Approximately sixty seven percent of the Crimean populations were Russians while Ukrainians were only twenty five percent of the total local population. Moreover, the traditional Ukrainians in Crimea considered Russian as their native mother tongue. Though self-identification does not follow distinct ethnic lines this was not the case after the conduction of the 1991 vote for independence which got nearly fifty four percent of support in line with ethnic division. This displayed the ethnic ridge amid these two ethnic groups. The division between is an image of the political scene not only in Crimea but in the entire Ukraine. Crimea was the region that was in dispute of Ukrainian independence. The entire Ukraine regions were in unanimous support for the nation's sovereignty. It may easily be concluded that the Ukraine's Russian population is rebellious to national interests of Ukraine. However, from another perspective it is true to say that Russians have a different vision of their country. Crimea, besides the quagmire surrounding it is the only region in modern Ukraine that has been able to enjoy the benefits of an independent republic. This shows the distinctly peculiar state of the political climate of Crimea (Trenin, 2008).

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the military coalition brought together in 1947 in order to offset the threat posed from the Soviet Union. Ukraine's decision to become a member of this organization has been a major factor in shaping the current political situation in the region, especially the intensification in groups that support Russia. The decision of Ukraine to become a member of NATO has led to conflicts between the Eastern European nation and Russia which views the organization as a threat to its national security as well as foreign policy (Bukkvoll, 2001). These changing relations between the two countries are the backdrop through which there has been a rise in pro- Russian political parties as well as civil society organizations in Crimea. In an attempt to ensure that Ukraine does not get admitted into NATO and also to prolong the Sevastapol's military base lease where the Russian Black Fleet is positioned, Russia has tried to blow the danger posed by these political and cultural associations out of proportion. However, several analysts have argued that the small groups in Crimea who are agitating for the region's the independence are insignificant and could not possibly cause any major threat to the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Currently, Crimea has attracted the attention of the West, albeit temporarily, due to the political turmoil within the Eastern Ukraine. But the current situation cannot be understood without a closer look at the history of the area, both distant and recent (D'anieri, 1999).

Crimean Historical Relevance

The space which Ukraine occupies has always been strategically important to whichever power is in control of the region at any given time. As a result this space and its residents have always been governed by one foreign power or another. It is the first time that the borders within which Ukraine is established as a sovereign state have the right of self-determination in its long history. Ukraine has been under the rule of major powers such as the Ottoman Empire, the Commonwealth of Polish-Lithuanian, the Crimean Khanate and Muscovy. In more recent history, the space has been governed sporadically by the Russian, the Ottoman and the Habsburg empires (Mizrokhi, 2009). The Crimean Peninsula is located in the South Eastern Ukraine. In the past, its strategic position was fought over mostly by the Russian and Ottoman empires. Their occupation of the region has greatly influenced every aspect of the culture of Crimea. The reason that this area was important to these major powers is that it separates the Azov from the Black seas. Any power seeking to be in control of the maritime bodies would have a great advantage over its rivals simply by having control over the Crimean Peninsula (Kuzio, 2006).

Crimea spent two centuries under the colonial rule of the Russians, both the Imperial and Soviet Russia. Probably because Russia was the last outside power to govern Crimea, its presence in the region changed the country's ethnic and political composition. Crimea was obtained by Russia after a couple of campaigns targeted at the Ottoman Empire. It came under Russian rule in 1783. Surprisingly Crimea is never presented in either Tsarist or Soviet history as the region of one ethic group, despite this being the reality. It is the Tatar National assembly named Krultav that brought back the use of the name Crimea (Qirim) through the slogan 'Crimea for Crimeans' during the October revolution. In the revolution, the Tartans wanted to achieve self-determination in the Russian federation. The National assembly joined hands in this quest with the National party, Milli Firqa, to demand for the autonomy of Crimea (Sasse, 2007).

Instead of Obliging to their demands, the Russians responded by silencing the intellectuals among the Tatars. The 1930s which were an era of repression in the Soviet Union saw some forty thousand Crimean Tartars being deported to Siberia. Those who survived during that period suffered the same fate after the Second World War. They were deported to the Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan among many other states in the Soviet Union. Soviet policies of regional growth and development led to Slavic influx into Crimea (Sasse, 2007).This influx made the tartans, who had a long history on the territory and felt that Crimea belonged to them, feel like they were the foreigners. There was a lot of emphasis on a Crimea that was more Slavic than anything else, therefore alienating the natives. This was a Stalinist strategy to completely remove any Crimean Tatars in the territory, who had survived after the deportations in 1944 (Sasse, 2007).

In 1954, Nikita Khrushchev decided to hand over Crimea to the Ukraine. Notwithstanding that this period was characterized by de-Stalinization which occurred after the death of the leader, there are no other clear motives that point to the reason why Krucchev made the transfer of Crimea (Sasse, 2007). What remains a fact however is that by the time of the transfer, the linguistic and ethnic makeup in Crimea was different from what it had previously been. The reasons for this change are directly related to the Soviet policies of regional development and deportation of Tartans as well as silencing of the intelligentsia.

In the past, Crimea was a region with non-Russian roots. However, the time when Crimea belonged to Russia a lot of Russian history was added to the region. Another factor that demonstrates the multiethnic nature of Crimea was the deeply rooted, emblematic, literary as well as historical memoirs that can be used to lay claim on the territory by different groups (Sasse, 2007). There are three opposing views about the history of Crimea presented by three groups. The Tatars view the region as their only homeland, citing their statehood between the 15th and 18th centuries as considerable evidence. The Russians view Crimea as a member of Russia, claiming that the Tatars were a part of Mongol invasion. The area serves as a reminder of the rules of both Catherine the great and Tsarist Russian Empire. The third group, the Ukrainians, have always had links with Crimea through geography, ethnicity and culture even before and during the Kyiv Rus state (Kuzio, 2007). In as much as these differing views exist they have not led to any civil wars or even any kind of serious conflicts. They have, however, continued to be a bone of contention and ethnic tensions between the Ukrainian Central government, the Russians as well as the Tatars. The reason why a fully fledged civil war has not resulted from these tensions is the multiethnic nature of Crimea, making it hard to mobilize people politically which would lead to the kind of divisions that lead to civil war. The pro-Russian feelings in Crimea are due to the Russian population living in the peninsula still having a level of nationalism towards their country of origin which has reduced the chances of autonomy in Crimea (Pirie, 1996). But the nationalism movement has proved weak due to vague Russian and Soviet identities (Sasse, 2007). There are contradicting views among the Crimeans concerning the future of the region. Most people living in the region do not support the idea that Crimea ought to secede from Ukraine. At the same time, the great majority want Crimea to be part of Russia. So exactly what would they like to happen to Crimea (Pirie, 1996)? There is a generally accepted view that Crimeans should get dual Russian and Ukrainian citizenship. This need to belong to both countries demonstrates how East and South Ukraine residents have been in the quest of a status which incorporates the Russian element of the region's history (Pirie, 1996). This region's attitude towards being a part of Ukraine is largely indecisive. The residents of the region want to be part of Ukraine and at the same time be a part of Russia, but always being discontented with their dealings with either one of the two countries.

The majority of Russians come from the Crimean community. In spite of this fact the reality is that they have not been the only community pushing for a policy that is centered on Russia and the whole of Ukraine. This means therefore that the political situation in the region is more of a reflection of the general feeling of all the ethnic groups. The feeling is shared by both the pro-Russians as well as the Ukrainians. The lack of a dominating ethnic line of influence in Crimea is enough proof that the conflict is ethnically motivated nor politically influenced. In fact political groupings demonstrating ideological differences on national agenda emerged in the 90s but their ability to sustain political mileage was unbarring. The political party affiliations that transpired after the sovereignty of Ukraine were quickly disjointed. The existent political groups in Russia after the presidency of Vladimir have only stood on due to the external interests aimed at depicting Crimea as a center of ethnic battles. The condition as it is set to hinder the succession of Ukraine to NATO. The many political groupings in Crimea make it impossible to portray the battle in Peninsula as an ethnically instigated conflict. It is far from that. The majority of Russians within the Crimea region is symbolic play ground for the power struggle ambitions for Russia. The Russians in the region have not identified themselves with Russia unlike the South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Herein lays the proof of Russia's imperial intentions (Kuzio, 2009).

International law of Self-Determination and Sovereignty in the context of Crimea

The global political structure is undergoing a gruesome test in Crimea as the system has already failed to respond to the continuing humanitarian emergency in Syria. In Syria it also failed to provide any solution to the security crisis. In such a predicament the international political system has run into a new challenge in Crimea while an independent region in Ukraine is being formed (Cakmak, 2014). The challenge is to escalate the possibility of bringing stability to the region. Though the Crimean Parliament decided to go for a referendum to let its people vote for or against joining the Russia, it didn't wait for the results. There is no denying the fact that Russia is behind the scenes and she is trying to have control over the whole situation. At the same time, it is also a fact that the Crimean Parliament has taken an active role amidst the tension as it tried to push people into making a decision. Russia has taken advantage of the ambiguity in international law as the consequence of the Cold War while this country moves cautiously as well as vigorously to play the key role in this situation. Though Russia has sent this message without fail that it has no interest in annexing Crimea, she leaves no ambiguity in stating that it would never hesitate to intervene if the ethnic Russians in Ukraine come under threats (Cakmak, 2014). This is how Russia sends this message to the world that it holds the right to interfere in any dispute in any country where the fundamental rights of ethnic Russians get endangered. This is a major learning in the arena of international politics (Legvold, 2013).

The crisis has exposed many grave concerns in the sphere of international politics. Questions have arrived about how to assess the influence of the former Soviet republics holding the large Russian populations while the West might reassess the limits of the self-imposed Russian realm of influence. One may be recall the predicament Russia went through during the Kosovo crisis caused by volatility as well as transition (Cakmak, 2014). Though Russia failed to respond to Western expectations and actions at that time, she clearly understood that the Western attempts were more to strategically penetrate their interests into Russian environment than to heal the situation out of humanity's concern. Not to mention, at that time Russia was still in her ordeal (Legvold, 2013).

There are a few principles of international law that are normally considered to be very 'essential'. Even so, two principles are related to one another and these are what international law lays much emphasis on. It is also these two essential principles that have influenced the general viewpoint of the nineteenth and twentieth century's. The first principle asks that every state respects the authority of other states while the second principle emphasizes the fact that no state ought to be allowed to meddle in the internal affairs of a second state (Hedeskog, 2008).

When it comes to self-determination, there are no rules which have been drafted to cover all cases. In addition, there have been many differences in opinion as well as confusion regarding the implementation of self-determination. For case in point, what is going to happen to people who are determined to attain self-determination but who are deemed incapable of governing themselves? Secondly, what would be the impact of self-determination to the rights of the majority when and if the minorities are granted self-determination? The third point of contention is that, if a referendum is used to grant self-determination to a group that is demanding it, it might be hard to know the content as well as scope of the popular votes cast. Fourth, what happens when a large group is recognized as having the right to be independent, but there is still a minority group within that large group. What then happens to the minority group, as is the case if the independence of south Ossetia is recognized? What will happen to the Georgian minority (Hedeskog, 2008)?

Self-determination is recognized in the UN charter as more of a principle than a right. However, there have been two periods where self-determination was generally seen and recognized as both a principle and a right. The first period was right after the First World War, When President Woodrow Wilson tried to see to it that some communities within Europe were granted independence. The second time was after the second world war, when granting independence to overseas colonies was seen as the right thing to do, as long as the colonizing country was careful to ensure that the doing so would not lead to any instability to the international system. However, the self-determination that was widely accepted during that period largely lost its influence with the end of the era of decolonization, when most countries in overseas empires gained independence (Legvold, 2013).

If self-determination meant giving people the right to determine how they govern themselves and how they choose their regimes and political institutions, then it would refute the state's right to maintain its territorial integrity. This is the real reason why the UN has always proceeded very carefully when handling separatist movements. Thus far, the UN has neither acknowledged nor legitimized breakaway moves based solely on the concept of autonomy. The main reason is that if it were to accept self-determination as an essential right, then the UN would end up jeopardizing its member's safety (Legvold, 2013).

Till now, self-determination has never been understood as being the basis on which nations are given their independence solely because they wanted independence. In fact, self-determination is neither a basic right of people and nor is it a guarantee of freedom. Whereas fundamental rights and freedom are natural rights, self-determination is not. This is the reason why the desire to be free has very seldom been implemented under international law. Even when the desire to be autonomous has been accepted as a legitimate concern, it was done under different circumstances and on the basis of different principles (Legvold, 2013).

Whenever self-determination has been given credence, it has still failed to gain acceptance and it has also not developed into a documented standard of international law. Self-determination has only been acknowledged because of certain developments at the time. Actually, self-determination is not a permissible basis for those who are agitating for independence and nor is it a just belief that the global legal community has to take cognizance of (Legvold, 2013).

When discussing this subject and when appraising it in a legal framework, one sees that nations and groups of people do not have an essential right to self-determination under international law. This can be observed in the recent happenings in Crimea. Even so, when nations or groups of people unilaterally declare their independence, they are not contravening any international laws. The outcome of the ongoing Crimea problem will depend to a large extent on the way that the community of nations responds to the annexation of Crimea by Russia and by the parliament of Crimea (Cakmak, 2014; Legvold, 2013).