Crises In The Ukraine:
Referendum For Autonomy In Donetsk and Lugansk

Firstly I want to say in all sincerity that I do not want to end up 'on the wrong side of history'.

[This is why I am writing this specific blog.]

I would like to make it clear from the outset that both 'The Bullhorn of President Putin' and

The U.S. State Department have both got it wrong with regard to both the legitimacy of this referendum and it's announced results.

Let me start with the State Department:

The State Department and Kiev have both called the autonomy referendum a 'farce' and it's results (in favor of autonomy for both regions) will remain unrecognised by the international community.

The first issue is that the government in Kiev has effectively disenfranchised it's Russian speaking ethnic minority populations through direct legislative actions. So Russian ethnic minorities in The Ukraine are now, in effect, by law, second class citizens. This fact alone is in breach of international law with regard to citizenship for minorities born and bred in any country and their rights to freedom, liberty, equality and the equal pursuit of justice and happiness.

Secondly, the referendum cannot be described as a 'farce' where the only legitimate and peaceful source of protest for a disenfranchised minority is through the ballot box; even less so if the Government in Kiev has not, through the ballot box, secured it's own legitimacy. But this is where the criticism of the State Department ends.

It is equally unacceptable that even a [purportedly] disenfranchised minority should take it upon itself to declare autonomy before open, free and fair national elections determine the peoples' choice- inclusive of all Ukrainian citizens (including Russian-speaking minorities) - through the ballot box. The new, locally convened interim autonomy collective of Donetsk and Lugansk does not have the legal authority to cancel the forthcoming national elections set for the whole country – including Donetsk and Lugansk - later on this month. This can only be determined by the national parliament in Kiev. The problem is even more complicated because the interim new democratic authority in Kiev is holding national elections on 25^th of this month (May 2014) to consolidate it's own legitimacy throughout the entire country. Neither can the interim authority in Donetsk and Lugansk declare independence nor autonomy without legislative approval from Kiev - and even then only after a national referendum on the subject - a second national polling of all of the eligible Ukrainian people to determine the future of the country, after the first one later this month to consolidate the international legitimacy of the situation existing after the embattled and politically estranged President Yanukovich fled the country for Moscow and the new democrats seized power.
To declare that the interim authority in Kiev has no legal authority over the two regions when in fact it is the acting government for the whole country (even if it has implemented measures againt minorities which are against the charters of the European Union(1) of which it is not yet  member ) has no legal basis because there is no provision in the Ukrainian constitution enabling secession or autonomy of regions in the event of an unparalleled crisis such as the one the country is currently facing.

I am not an international legal specialist but if I were a betting person I would say that the situation is a legal mess – no thanks to the pro-Moscow separatists in Donetsk and Lugansk.

It's a very dangerous situation for Kiev because how it acts to restore civil order in the East will not only determine the future of the country but could even determine whether the country is in a state of civil war, declared or undeclared.

There is too much 'megaphone' rhetoric from the State Department to Kremlin and not enough quiet diplomacy between Washington and Moscow. There should always be room and space and time for quiet diplomacy – particularly in an age when instant communications drive political decisions in the public democratic forum of the world in open societies before even the civil servants can take grasp with more measured criteria and advice.

Both 'The Bullhorn of President Putin' and The State Department have equally misrepresented the truth. History will not be kind to either of them. [But there again, it depends on who writes the history books.]

Patrick Emek

1.www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
Chapter I,Dignity,Articles 1&4 
Chapter II,Freedoms,Articles 6 & 10-12
Chapter III,Equality,Articles 20-22
Chapter V, Citizens Rights,Articles 39-41,47-50