Skip to comments.Ukraine crisis: Capture of German observers prompts tougher talk from Berlin
Posted on 05/02/2014 2:58:37 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
The spectacle of German army officers being held prisoner and paraded before television cameras in eastern Ukraine could provoke a hardening of the German response to the ongoing crisis.
Angela Merkel's government has reacted furiously after pro-Russian rebels showed off captured observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for the cameras, calling it an act of "hostage-taking" and a "revolting spectacle", and demanding their immediate release.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
German officers captured by Russian partisans in Ukraine are happy to be alive.
I do not mean “Lucky”. I mean “Happy”.
Was it smart for Merkel to send German military officers right into a hot separatist conflict, when her own words have made it clear that Germany is not neutral in it?
Fortunately, incidents like this are opening a lot of naive eyes in Europe and elsewhere as to Putitler’s real nature.
Time for Gen Heinz Guderian to pick up the white courtesy phone?
“Was it smart for Merkel to send German military officers right into a hot separatist conflict, when her own words have made it clear that Germany is not neutral in it?”
Yes, it was perfectly normal. These OSCE officials travel with diplomatic immunity and/or other authority to perform their duties in the conflict zones under the protection of international law. The fact that the captors have violated a variety of international laws designed to protect thse people in situations just like this highlights the criminal conduct of the captors and their total lack of civilized behavior. By all rights these captors have forfeited the protection of law and are subject to captial punishment for their illegal acts. In ancient times the Roman Senate and their Cletic enemies agreed a Roman officer who made war upon the Celts without the authorizatoin of the Roman Senate was subject to capital punishment by the Celts, and they handed their own officer over to the Celts for punishment. In the centuries since then, the people who breached the immunity of an enemy or neutral in a manner like we see today with the seizure of the OSCE observers was deemed by all governments to be outlaws, meaning outside the protection of any and all governments and subject to being enslaved or killed by any military or civilian person at any time without government approval. in other words, this was regarded as such a serious crime, the so-called brigand or pirate could be killed by anyone at anytime as an incentive to discourage brigandage and piracy. The seriousness of mistreating people under the protection of such international laws is neither taught nor respected in the Communist and former Communist societies. They have devovled into a jungle of thuggery and depravity.
You can’t expect your military officers to be treated with the rights of neutral observers, when your country is not neutral.
“Maybe they shouldnt have sent their spies to east Ukraine then?”
The OSCE observers were performing their duties under the protection and immunities of international law, including OSCE Vienna Document 2011 on Confidence and Security-Building Measures. The Ukraine and the Russian Federation are both members of OSCE and authorized the OSCE mission. The violent capture and maltreatment of the OSCE observers are comparable to the serious violations of international law when an ambasssador is similarly held captive in violation of his diplomatic immunity.
Consider whether or not your comment constitutes a violation of The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Part 3; Article 20 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
“You cant expect your military officers to be treated with the rights of neutral observers, when your country is not neutral.”
That is a totally false statement. There are innumerable instances of diplomatic and/or military officers from belligerents in declared wars being accorded immunities and permissions to observe and inspect their enemy’s territories and/or forces for mutually agreed purposes. It is a common practice.
Of course it was smart. The way to learn what is happening is to have eyes observing events.
Actually it’s a completely true statement.
“There are innumerable instances of diplomatic and/or military officers from belligerents in declared wars being accorded immunities and permissions to observe and inspect their enemys territories and/or forces for mutually agreed purposes. It is a common practice.”
Your logic is completely broken here.
They did not negotiate or receive permission to observe and inspect from the separatist forces controlling the region they were operating in.
If they haven’t received permission, they shouldn’t expect to be treated as if they had.
If they’re not neutral, and they are not, they shouldn’t expect to be treated as neutral observers.
The best way to put out a fire is to throw gasoline on it.
Well, if you are the European Union.
Well, you one hundred percent live up to your screen name. I will give you that.
That is a false statement.
“They did not negotiate or receive permission to observe and inspect from the separatist forces controlling the region they were operating in.”
The separatist forces have no diplomatic recognition, no sovereignty, and no legal authority for their insurrectionist and terrorist activities. Their current status is that of unlawful combatants, insurrectionists, brigands, and pirates subject to capital punishment. Until such time as the separatist forces gain adeqaute diplomatic recognition they remain subject to the laws of the Ukraine or the laws of Russia in the event you assume the separatists are Russian citizens. In either case, Ukraine and Russia are both members of the OSCE, so their citizens are also subject to the obligations of the OSCE Vienna Document 2011. Even if you choose to argue the separatists are no longer citizens of Ukraine or Russia, this just puts you back into the situation where the separatists are outlaws who have forfeited the protections of domestic and international laws. In the case of outlaws, their capture and maltreatment of lawful OSCE inspectors adds to their liability for severe punishment and illegitimacy of the insurrections. If the outlaws chose to reject the OSCE observers, they could have done so without the additional grave breaches of international law incurred by the llegal captures and maltreatment. All the separatists had to do was escort the OSCE observers to the limits of the separatist control and reject the mission. instead the separatists committed very grave violations of many criminal laws.
“If they havent received permission, they shouldnt expect to be treated as if they had.”
First, the only permission required by the OSCE observers was that of the Ukraine, and they had such permission. The United Nations Charter and other international agreements set forth what the separatists can and cannot do with respect to such international peacekeeping missions. if the separatists wanted to violate those laws, they did so at their peril and at the peril of their seeking diplomatic recognition.
Second, even if it was to be assumed the OSCE were not under the protection and immunities of international law, the separatists were obligated to deport the OSCE observers unharmed. Even if you argue the separatists had some kind of nonexistent right to capture the OSCE observers and detain them as enemy prisoners of war, the separatists have committed a variety of grave breaches of international law related to the conventions respecting prisoners of war. The way in which the separatists have subjected the captives to public view while held captive by violent armed force is a grave crime and formal act of terrorism. No matter how you try to argue the case, the maltreatment of the OSCE captives cannot be justified under any form of international law whatsoever.
“If theyre not neutral, and they are not, they shouldnt expect to be treated as neutral observers.”
It makes no difference whatsoever whether the OSCE observers could be regarded as friendly, neutral, or hostile observers. The laws regarding diplomatic and/or military missions under the auspices of international law obligate every person on the planet to respect the inviolability of the persons in the mission. A sovereign may reject the such a mission and escort the mission out of the sovereign's jurisdiction, but a non-sovereign has no such authority. If the non-sovereign seperatist usurps the authority of a sovereign, the non-sovereign remains subject to the minimum standards which are the obligation of a sovereign.
So, no matter how you cut it, the separatists are in flagrant violation of practically every norm of civilized domestic and international law and human decency.
And those in Kiev who overthrew their legally elected government do?
“And those in Kiev who overthrew their legally elected government do?”
Yes, they do. What Maidan did essentially was ratified by a UNANIMOUS vote of the Ukrainian parliament. https://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv/euromaidan-rallies-in-ukraine-feb-21-live-updates-337287.html
For some reason the Putinists at FR keep ignoring obvious facts.
“Nope, only civilian OSCE mission was agreed upon. Germany and some other NATO countries obviously tried to send their spies along official OSCE observers. Even OSCE confirmed that the detainees are NOT OSCE monitors, and were invited only by Ukraine.”
That is disinformation and false propaganda used to condone and excuse the war crimes and illegal war propaganda of the separatists and Russia. The Vienna Document 2011:
Note: This document was reissued according to the Forum for Security Co-operation
Decision on Reissuing the Vienna Document (FSC.DEC/14/11) adopted at the 665th Special
Meeting the OSCE Forum for Security Co-operation in Vienna on 30 November 2011
Consequently the OSCE Forum conveyed their authority through the Vienna Document 2011 for the military members to perform their military transparency missions. The military transparency missions are a separate function of the OSCE members which by the provisions of the Vienna document 2011 must be granted permssion by the sovereign government of the Ukraine. The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission was a totally separate OSCE function established by the Joint Geneva Statement on Ukraine from April 17, 2014.
“Joint Geneva Statement on Ukraine from April 17, 2014
It was agreed that the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission should play a leading role in assisting Ukrainian authorities and local communities in the immediate implementation of these de-escalation measures wherever they are needed most, beginning in the coming days. The U.S., E.U. and Russia commit to support this mission, including by providing monitors.”
The military tranparency mission is not supposed to be the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission and OSCE Monitors of that mission, because the military transparency mission is a much older OSCE function.
“And those in Kiev who overthrew their legally elected government do?”
That little piece of Russian false propaganda has been refuted time and time again, and here you are trotting that lie aout all over again.
“Russian claims that the Ukrainian authorities are illegitimate
The current Ukrainian president and government were approved by an overwhelming majority in the Ukrainian parliament (371 votes out of 417 registered) on 27 February 2014, including members of the Party of Regions.
That parliament was elected on 28 October 2012. The Russian Foreign Ministry at the time declared that the elections were held peacefully, without any excesses and in line with generally-accepted standards and confirmed Ukraines commitment to democracy and the rule of law. The statement can be read in Russian here.
The parliament which Russia called legitimate then can hardly be called illegitimate now.”
Yanukovych chose to vacate his office and gave member of the Ukrainian Parliament his resignation, which he belatedly claimed to have withdrawn and then changed his story and tried to deny ever happended, despite Parliament’s witnesses to the event. The Ukrainian government is just as legitimate as it was when Russia acknowledged its legitimacy in 2012. So, please stop disseminating such proven lies to the readers.
“Nope. The impeachment was completely illegal. Article 111 of the Ukrainian constitution clearly states that:
1. Constitutional court must make a verdict on the charges of treason against the president
3. 3/4 of the members of parliament need to vote for the impeachment - that is 338 out of 450 MPs. On February 21 only 328 MPs voted for the impeachment.”
There you go again with the false statements claiming the Verkhovna Rada unconstitutionally impeached Yanukovych for committing treason. Yanukovych gave the National Deputies his resignation before the Verkhovna Rada could take any action for impeachment, and then fled the Ukraine. After he was safe in the custody of the Russians, Yanukovych belatedly denied his giving the national Deputies his resignation. The Verkhovna Rada determined Yanukovych had in fact given his resignation to the parliament and passed the following resolution in accordance with Article 112 of the Constitution:
Press office of Presidents Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada No. 764-VII of 23.02.2014
On conferring powers of the President of Ukraine on the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine
given that President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych withdrew from performing the constitutional powers
The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine hereby resolves:
1. To confer the powers of the President of Ukraine on Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Turchynov Oleksandr Valentynovych according to article 112 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
2. The given Resolution shall enter into force upon its adoption.
Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada
If Yanukovych decides to continue to contest the Verkhovna Rada’s decision to accept his resignation from office, his recourse is to file a complaint with the Constitutional Court. To date Yanukovych has chosen to not file such a complaint with the court. Consequently the Verhovna Rada had the constitutional authority and the required minimum quorum and votes to provide a caretaker administration pending the next scheduled election/s.
This item has been deleted by submitter
She Said That Her Dress Was ‘Too Tight’, But...
Which is it?
“He never resigned, please dont make things up, everyone knows that.”
You have no credible evidence to support your accusation against the multiple elected Deputies of the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament). All you have is the claim of the former convicted criminal and alleged rapist who is wanted to stand trial for far more momentus crimes subject to the International Court of Justice. You are engaging in false propaganda by saying I am making something up after I already quoted the exact wording of the resolution adopted by the overwhelming majority of Deputies of the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament). Name calling the Deputies elected in 2012 and earlier as “thugs” is yet another example of you using false propaganda to excuse a Russian war of aggression. If you want proof of the resignation of Yanukovych, all you have to do is take him to the Constitutional Court and assist him to file a lawsuit in that court to restore him to office. If you refuse to do that much, it is readily apparent Yanukovych withdrew from his office and refuses to perform his duties as he is obligated to do.
“But I guess when thugs say ‘you resigned’ without offering anything to back that up, there is only so much you can do.”
No. What they did was nullify a honest election, by all accounts, by the majority. The parliament appointed a 'caretaker', not someone that would high-jack the country, until an election could be held ~May 25th.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.