See all those languages up there? We translate Global Voices stories to make the world's citizen media available to everyone.

Learn more about Lingua Translation  »

International Community and the Crisis in Ukraine

Angie Ramos guest blogs [es] at Tintero Político about the crisis in Ukraine and after analyzing different key factors involved concludes with the reaction of the internacional community:

The thing is, the international community, facing cases like this one, acts subjectively as it depends on the magnitude of the interests involved to support or express rejection to some interventionism in various countries. Is it that some countries have privileges for the international community? For instance, in the case of the conflict between Great Britain and Argentina regarding Falkland Islands, a referendum carried out on the population, where 98% of the population voted for staying under Great Britain's administration, received support, while in Crimea, there is no will for acknowleding the legality of the process.

The post reviewed here was part of the second #LunesDeBlogsGV [Monday of blog on GV] on May 12, 2014.
  • Paula2

    In the Falklands the vote was not arranged by men in Balaclavas carrying Kalashnickovs. People of different ethnicities or political views had fled the area. The local Jewish population had been required to register as Jews and declare their property and there was a massive amount of propaganda that suggested the government in Kiev was killing or oppressing ethnic Russians in the West when actually it was ethnic Ukrainians that were being killed in the violence. There has never been any dispute over sovereignty in the area.

    Compare this with the Falkands which had been peacefully governed for 180 years with only a short spell of military occupation in 1983, where there are UN resolutions confirming the populations right to self determination, there was no violence or intimidation on the Islands, although the Argentine government tried to stoke up hatred they are 500 miles away across the sea and couldn’t threaten the vote. Also there is a big difference between a 99% result with all the people able to vote and informed of their rights an 80% result with a large proportion of the people in hiding.

    • SirBedevere

      All very true. Moreover, plebiscites must be negotiated within the current system. Scotland, for instance, will soon have a plebiscite that may lead to independence, which will be perfectly legal under international norms. If a group simply decided to hold an informal vote tomorrow and then militarize the border with England, it would be an act of civil war.

Receive great stories from around the world directly in your inbox.

Sign up to receive the best of Global Voices
* = required field
Email Frequency



No thanks, show me the site