The Hague Declaration

[n2doc]

Source: The White House

1. We, the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission met in The Hague to reaffirm our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence.

2. International law prohibits the acquisition of part or all of another state’s territory through coercion or force. To do so violates the principles upon which the international system is built. We condemn the illegal referendum held in Crimea in violation of Ukraine’s constitution. We also strongly condemn Russia’s illegal attempt to annex Crimea in contravention of international law and specific international obligations. We do not recognize either.

3. Today, we reaffirm that Russia’s actions will have significant consequences. This clear violation of international law is a serious challenge to the rule of law around the world and should be a concern for all nations. In response to Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to demonstrate our determination to respond to these illegal actions, individually and collectively we have imposed a variety of sanctions against Russia and those individuals and entities responsible. We remain ready to intensify actions including coordinated sectoral sanctions that will have an increasingly significant impact on the Russian economy, if Russia continues to escalate this situation.

4. We remind Russia of its international obligations, and its responsibilities including those for the world economy. Russia has a clear choice to make. Diplomatic avenues to de-escalate the situation remain open, and we encourage the Russian Government to take them. Russia must respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, begin discussions with the Government of Ukraine, and avail itself of offers of international mediation and monitoring to address any legitimate concerns.

Read more: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/24/hague-declaration

[Thinkingabout]

1. Thanks for sharing, dont know if this will halt Putin's aggression but a start.

[atreides1]

2. Translation

We support the use of mobs and malcontents to remove political leaders in any other country except for the ours...especially if it provides us with access to both resources and the use of military bases as close as possible to Iran!

[pangaia]

3. :>)) Ssshhhhh.. don't tell..

[another_liberal]

4. Exactly.

Who do those uppity Russians think they are anyway, the United States?

And remember, everyone else in the World, your democratic elections only count if we like the people who win, so don't even think about voting in any candidates unapproved by us.

[840high]

5. Exactly.

[dipsydoodle]

8. Exactly

[pampango]

16. Liberals now oppose citizens protesting against unpopular policies and government corruption?

They are now "mobs and malcontents"? That sounds like what conservatives have called liberal protesters since at least the 1960's.

And they did not "remove a political leader". Yanukovich signed an agreement in which he promised to remain in office until an election in December. He skipped town a few hours later. I would say he "removed" himself.

[olddad56]

21. liberals are people who are not afraid to think outside the box...

conservatives are the people who are afraid of people who think outside the box. Multi billionaires, they own the box.

[cprise]

28. "Protesting." Firebombing of police started Dec. 2, continued for months

There are videos of the riot police with their uniforms catching on fire. On top of that there were also hundreds of bricks thrown at them and a bulldozer ramming them. Then snipers got involved and even shot other rioters on the Maidan along with police. When these killers stormed government buildings, they called for Yanukovich to be executed.

Meanwhile, a girl in her 20s is being tried for what could be a 7 year sentence because she was at an OWS protest and elbowed a cop who grabbed her breasts from behind. There are people in the US who are serving prison sentences as terrorists just for making a molotov cocktail when an FBI agent convinced them to do so.

Meanwhile small children routinely get shot to death for so much as throwing a pebble in the direction of a US-backed Israeli soldier.

-

Yeah, supposedly the Ukrainian people were desperate to join the EU, but "F*CK the EU!!!" It was really about expanding NATO to within a stone's throw of Moscow and putting oil pipelines under Exxon's control.

This version of "civil society" encrusted with the logos of mega-corporations is bullsh!t from Bush-ites.

[question everything]

40. "Two wrongs don't make it right"

Many of us have heard it while growing up.

It is too bad that many DUers were willing to look the other way after Putin took over Crimea because.. we invaded too.

Or do DUers think that the "elections" in Crimea were valid? Getting a ballot ready and voted on within a week?

Oh, forgot. Putin "welcomed" Snowden... The one complaining about civil rights in this country and escapes to... the paragons of human rights: China and the USSR. (Yes, as far as Putin is concerned, Russia will be back the USSR).

[another_liberal]

45. Who is "looking the other way?"

I, for one, have not. My point is that by using our influence and money to illegally cause the overthrow of Ukraine's government, we gave Russia a perfect excuse and lots of political cover for their seizure of Crimea. We are merely making hypocrites of ourselves to now complain about what Russia did. They only took one Province, we took the whole rest of the country!

[yurbud]

42. maybe that's why they were so afraid of Occupy Wall Street

[another_liberal]

6. "Support for Ukraine's sovereignty," . . . that is a hoot!

We orchestrated the violent overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected government, and now we're vowing, "Support for Ukraine's sovereignty?"

Hypocrisy your name is U. S. foreign policy!

[olddad56]

22. I totally agree with you, and everyone is skating on thin ice.

[another_liberal]

33. Our growing disregard for democracy abroad . . .

The worst part is what our growing disregard for democracy abroad can mean for our own democracy. How long can it be before the same interests who combine to overthrow democratically elected foreign governments at will decide it's necessary they use the same methods to ensure a more cooperative government is in control of the Untied States itself?

[okaawhatever]

25. His overthrow wasn't violent. He left the country with his tail between his legs. And the US gov't

didn't orchestrate it. Give the CT bullshit a rest.

[another_liberal]

32. Yanukovich's reason for leaving Kiev was to save his life in the face of violent threats . . .

Those direct threats of physical violence are also why most members of his majority "Party of Regions" fled their seats in the Rada Parliament, leaving the pro-Western minority there to seize the government with our blessings (and at our direction).

Remember now? President Yanukovich had signed a truce with EU representatives and protest leaders whose terms included the removal of police from the streets of Kiev. That allowed radical, fascistic and violent protest groups (who ignored the truce entirely) to take over the Rada building and demand an immediate end of Yanukovich's government. Of course, they got exactly what they demanded.

That is what history calls the violent overthrow of a government. You can deny it if you choose, but the facts are still in the public record for all to see.

[okaawhatever]

38. Only 26 Party of Regions members had fled the country when the vote to impeach Vanukovych took

place. Almost 80 members had switched to different parties because of their opposition to Yanukovych's handling of the Maidan protesters, among other things. From their official party statement: On 23 February 2014 the Party of Regions condemned and disassociated itself with Victor Yanukovych for corruption, "criminal orders", his escape, and "cowardice".[19]

Here is a good accounting of what happened:

At first, MPs tried to call the runaway president and press him to resign. Even members of his own the Party of Regions made those calls. Yanukovych reportedly agreed to step down in a phone conversation with Arseniy Yatseniuk, one of the opposition leaders. This news quickly leaked to Kiev’s streets, where crowds exploded in wild cheers and celebrations.

“First, we heard he’s ready to resign. A number of deputies from Yanukovych’s team broke this news on the session floor—some of them heard this directly from the President, others just got the information second-hand. After that, for two hours, we all were living and breathing to hear the official resigation statement from Yanukovych”, recalls MP Andriy Shevchenko, one of the top members of the opposition Batkivshchyna party headed by Yulia Tymoshenko. But then the unexpected occurred: for reasons still unclear, Yanukovych changed his mind. In a recorded TV statement, he called the revolution in Ukraine “a Nazi coup” and refused to sign any legislation coming from the parliament in Kiev.

Three hours later, after Yanukovych refused to leave office, the Ukrainian parliament by an overwhelming majority voted to remove him from the post as the one who “has dissociated himself” by fleeing the capital. The ballot was passed with a constitutional majority and entered into force immediately.

I can't believe anyone could be so wrong about the events. You must read RT or some other Russian gov't media site. The truce meant nothing because Putin wouldn't sign it. A convenient fact that Russian media leaves out.

You claim the records are in the public for everyone to see. Yes they are. Please show the "records" about how the Party of Regions didn't vote for the new government or how there wasn't a clear majority to impeach Yanukovych. 450 members of Rada, almost 200 of whom were Party of Regions. 328 voted for impeachment. That is pretty clear. Considering 371 voted for new government it's pretty clear what the overwhelming majority of Rada and Ukrainians wanted. In fact, in wasn't the PoR who voted against the new government, it was the Communist party.

[another_liberal]

41. The Party of Regions representatives who switched to other parties . . .

You mean that the Party of Regions representatives who switched to other parties did so primarily due to street thugs with lead pipe clubs. It was a violent coup, encouraged by us and our allies and financed by your tax dollars and mine. That is how history will record it.

You can either take my word on that or wait a decade or two until the self-serving lies which are so important now will no longer be of any consequence.

[okaawhatever]

43. I am absolutely comfortable with the US position on this. There is no doubt in my mind that history

will show Russia's involvement in the Yanukovych regime and massive corruption and fraud. It is a shame that you so readily believe the Russian side and nothing else.

[another_liberal]

44. Your opinion . . .

Be sure and let me know how you feel about it all in a few years.

BTW: I don't "believe" anyone, not a living soul. I listen to everyone, and then decide for myself.

[The Magistrate]

46. Of Course, You Offer Opinion Only As Well, Sir

The fact is, you know nothing first-hand, and place credence on extremely self-interested and dodgy sources. Your claim you do not believe anyone is laughable: it is obvious that you start with a set of beliefs, and agree to accept as fact only statements which match and reinforce the pre-conceived beliefs you bring to the situation.

[another_liberal]

48. You misjudge me on a couple of counts.

My opinions are at least my own. I serve no master in my efforts to give a more even-handed view of our international policy than that which is the norm on these boards. I won't be a bore and present my qualifications to offer such opinions, suffice it to say that I am qualified.

[The Magistrate]

49. Your Opinions Are No More Your Own Than Anyone Else's, Sir

You cannot seriously expect to be taken seriously in claiming everyone who disagrees with the views you present is a stooge and a dupe incapable of understanding matters independently, in contrast to yourself, a diligent and independent expert whose opinions are arrived at without the least influence from other minds.

Nor can you expect to be taken seriously in your claim to provide an even-handed view of matters, for anyone can see you do no such thing. Your comments are one-sided in the extreme, and it is extremely obvious you are taking a side, and that the side you have taken determines what you will present as fact and who you will acclaim as expert or disparage as dupe.

[another_liberal]

50. When did I say everyone who disagrees with me is, "a stooge and a dupe?"

That most certainly is what I have been called by some lately, and repeatedly so. What I say in response is that my accusers should open their minds and consider other opinions besides those they have long held and jealously defended. Relying on a few blindly trusted sources can lead to one being seriously ill-informed.

One of my favorite undergraduate Professors once explained that: "The first step in becoming educated is to admit one doesn't already know everything there is to know."

[The Magistrate]

51. It Drips From Your Every Claim To Be The Sole Independent Commentator Here, Sir

And the imposture has long since worn very thin.

[Adrahil]

35. You completely ignore the growing evidence that the Yanukovych's government...

... was a base kleptocracy. They stripped the national treasuries and when it was clear they could no longer control the population, ran to Putin's apron strings.

But by all means, keep up your "USA BAD, RUSSIA GOOD" refrain.

[another_liberal]

36. If he was a crook . . .

He could have been both tried for his theft, and he could have been voted out of office during the early national elections he had already agreed to in the face of protesters demands.

What your line of argument really comes down to is an attempt to justify the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government; however, that is an action which, if one believes in democracy itself, simply can not be justified.

[delrem]

7. NATO nt

[William769]

9. Kick & recommended.

[olddad56]

10. So where were these people when our nation illegally invaded Iraq under false pretenses?

Once the US got away with that act of terror and this group stood back and did nothing, how can the world take this group seriously.

[pampango]

19. Of those countries only the UK supported the US invasion.

You raise a good point that Putin is acting like Bush by invading a foreign country under false pretenses.

[olddad56]

23. I don't think Tony Blair had a choice. I think the Bush crime family had something on Blair.

[okaawhatever]

26. Simple, is Iraq the 51st state? Had Putin sent the troops in to protect Russian speakers, whatever

the f* that means, and then left it would be one thing. He didn't he annexed it. All the difference in the world. The only reason there wasn't bloodshed is because the Ukraine troops had the mental fortitude to not start a war And oh, btw, how many Iraqis died before the US invaded? Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. I don't agree with our military intervention, but I know the numbers and fewer people died during "war time" than did during the "peace time" that preceded it.

[cprise]

31. The US played both sides of the Iran-Iraq conflict

Rapidly switching sides and arming both, setting them against each other. Its also one of the reasons why the Iran-Contra scandal was so stunning.

Most of the rest of the carnage is due to sanctions pushed by the US that caused many thousands of Iraqis to starve. Madeline Albright (State Dept.) even said that the sanctions-caused deaths were worth it.

It subjects like this why Bill Clinton talked down to Amy Goodman like she was a nasty whore-- Democracy Now! didn't buy into the usual veiled narrative relayed by the big networks. Even so, Clinton treated those big networks with respect even when they were helping Republicans pistol-whip him into playing by their rules (Clinton knew who was boss).

[okaawhatever]

34. OMG, AYFKM? The US doesn't need to set Iran and Iraq against one another. I guess in your deluded

mind the Shia in Iran and the Sunnis in Iraq were getting along peachy before the US involvement? It's a joke to even suggest. The Iran Iraq war started over things the US and US allies care nothing about. Not only that, the 2003 Iraq war removed a threat to Iran. We took out their number one problem and now Iraq has a Shia gov't they are getting along quite well. Now the two countries are a greater threat to us. What you suggest is just wrong.

Also, the UN had a oil for food program set up for Iraq since the 90's. If any Iraqis starved it was because of Saddam, not anyone else. Don't kid yourself with your American hate, the people benefiting from the oil for food program was Russian and France. Certainly not the United States.

[cprise]

37. So lavishing them both with $billions in lethal arms is OK

Even if it was not the US govt 'intention' to do so, they were inclined to foster a pattern of war profiteering. Only when you do it with BOTH sides of an armed conflict, its called genocide. It was about getting both sides to wear each other down.

This is why playing cop to the world to enrich your weapons-pedalling friends is evil. Its a racket...



As for your denial over the effect of sanctions, about 500,000 Iraqi children died due to sanctions:

The US/ UN sanctions on Iraq of the 1990s, which interdicted chlorine for much of that decade and so made water purification impossible, are estimated to have killed another 500,000 Iraqis, mainly children. (Infants and toddlers die easily from diarrhea caused by gastroenteritis, which causes fatal dehydration).

So the US polished off about a million Iraqis from 1991 through 2011, large numbers of them children. The Iraqi population in that period was roughly 25 million, so the US killed or created the conditions for the killing of 4% of the Iraqi population.

If Iraq had killed 4% of Americans, it would be 12 million people dead.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/10/american-population-sanctions.html

In an Emmy-winning report, 60 Minutes noted this was more children than died in Hiroshima.

The oil for food program didn't even arrive until 1997.

[okaawhatever]

39. First of all, it wasn't AMERICAN sanctions. It was UN sanctions. Second, Juan Cole is a whack job

with zero credibility. There were several studies done, in fact, due to the lowered infant mortality rate in the Northern areas, where the UN controlled the oil for food program, one has to wonder if it wasn't the corruption in parts of the Iraqi government responsible for many of those deaths.
Also, it was the failure of Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections and other reasonable requests by the UN that led to all of this, not some unilateral embargo leveled by the United States. Place the blame where it truly lies. With Saddam Hussein, brutal dictator.

[cprise]

47. Of course he is. I would love to see your list of "whack jobs".

Cole is actually one of the most regarded academics on the left.

Two of the most credible studies put the child death toll at 500,000 or more as the result of sanctions. This is supported by the infant mortality rate which jumped to about twice the normal level during the years of the sanctions blockade. And yes, it was a US-led coalition of the willing that pushed it through the UN, where a number of professional resignations followed over the rashness of the blockade.

Of course, Hussein was a brutal dictator. Though for some years, off-and-on he was *our* guy in the region using WMD at our behest:

The Reagan administration and its special Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, did little to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against Iran, it was reported yesterday.
(...)
A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department.
(...)
"When I was walking around I saw atropine injectors lying around. We saw decontamination fluid on vehicles, there were no insects," said Mr Francona, who has written a book on shifting US policy to Iraq titled Ally to Adversary. "There was a very quick response from Washington saying, 'Let's stop our cooperation' but it didn't last long - just weeks."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/dec/31/iraq.politics

The failed Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988 bill, introduced to the Senate in response to Saddam's use of chemical weapons, was met with resistance from President Reagan who called the bill "premature" and threatened to veto. IOW, the US wasn't done having Hussein deploy chemical weapons for the sake of those oft-cited "American interests".

Another interesting read on the subject:

The two guardians of global order also expedited Saddam’s other atrocities—including his use of cyanide, nerve gas, and other barbarous weapons—with intelligence, technology, and supplies, joining with many others. The Senate Banking Committee reported in 1994 that the U.S. Commerce Department had traced shipments of "biological materials" identical to those later found and destroyed by UN inspectors, Bill Blum recalls. These shipments continued at least until November 1989. A month later, Bush authorized new loans for his friend Saddam, to achieve the "goal of increasing U.S. exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record...," the State Department announced with a straight face, facing no criticism in the mainstream (or even report).

Britain’s record was exposed, at least in part, in an official inquiry (Scott Inquiry). The British government has just now been compelled to concede that it continued to grant licenses to British firms to export materials usable for biological weapons after the Scott report was published, at least until December 1996.

In a February 28 review of Western sales of materials usable for germ warfare and other weapons of mass destruction, the Times mentions one example of U.S. sales in the 1980s, including "deadly pathogens," with government approval, some from the Army’s center for germ research in Fort Detrick.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199804--.htm

[cprise]

30. They were calling us Saddam-lovers

Only they weren't pretending to be liberals (soooo out of style at the time).

[1000words]

11. Hell of a strongly worded letter, there.

Another "Meh .." moment for Putin, I imagine.

[Kurovski]

12. He can see America from his porch, so probably, yeah.

[1000words]

13. He and Palin are trading glares

Todd is getting suspicious.

[Kurovski]

15. Mama Bear vs The Russian Bear.

Ooooooooo doggies.

[1000words]

17. For your review:

[Kurovski]

18. The bear's fancy footwork undone by human savagery and cunning.

I'd say the gent in orange waders is downright Putinesque

And now I want some lox and bagels with a schmeer.

[1000words]

20. Just as I saw it!

Mmmmmmmmmm .... bagels.

[olddad56]

24. Palin is really Putin in drag.

[jtuck004]

14. Lol, and I live here. I expect many people outside the country are rolling on the floor. n/t

[ozone_man]

27. 2. The Ukraine constitution was destroyed when the elected government was overthrown.

1. Yet we can bomb any country we want into smithereens, like Iraq.

3. What about U.S. involvement in the putsch?

4. Before even addressing international obligations, I think the U.S. has to clean up it's own act. E.g., we are waging a covert war against Syria, arming Al Queda, using Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, to do the dirty work. And how many other coup actions are we involved in? Venezuela again?

[cprise]

29. As was the treaty with the Russians

Well, I actually think its arguable whether a foreign country (the world's remaining superpower, in fact) can waltz into a country, spend $5billion fostering "democracy" with the likes of Exxon and Chevron as partners, and still claim that national sovereignty was respected when you "midwife" (i.e. assist and direct) a violent coup.

But you'd have to split some really thin hairs to say it wasn't an incursion on Ukrainian sovereignty.