Intermediate Debate Competition R3: The Crimean Referendum was was not legitimate or democratic

NOTE: I have no objection to continued consideration of this debate as part of the Intermediate Debate Competition. After all, we have only bragging rights at stake and win or lose those rights can only be improved by completion of this round.Thanks to Con for his lucid arguments. I. The Ukrainian people were cheated out of a fair election.Let's keep in mind that the question before us is the legitimacy of the 2014 Crimean Referendum, not the 2010 Presidential Election. Con doesn't quite complete his argument, but implies that Crimean Secession is justified because Yanukovich is out of power. Con characterizes Yanukovich's removal from office as a "violent ouster," but this is false. Yanukovich scampered off to hide under the protection of his foreign masters in Moscow. If Yanukovich retained popular Ukrainian support outside of Kiev, why didn't he move his base of operations to Sevastapol or some other eastern enclave? The answer is that after the slaughter of Feb 18-20, Yanukovich had lost support from the moderates and even much of his base. [1]I think we can agree that the 2010 Elections were relatively representative and that the Ukrainian people have a history of vacillating wildly between Russian and European influences without in any way justifying Yanukovich's violent overreach in attempt to quash Euromaidan's opposition to the Russian treaties or his violation of the terms of truce with Euromaidan on Feb 19th. Ukraine's politics have been on a pendulum for the past two decades, sometime favoring the more democratic, but less lucrative prospects of a European alliance, sometimes preferring the less free but more fiscally rewarding prospects of renewing traditional ties with Russia. When Yanukovich broke the peace of Feb 19th with ethnic Russian gangs on the street and military snipers on the rooftops on Feb 20th, Yanukovich forced the pendulum to swing dramatically in favor Europe by favoring Russian interests over his Ukrainian electorate. That Yanukovich preferred to hide under Putin's wing rather than face the just wrath of his countrymen is entirely on Yanukovich.II. The history of the Crimea does not lie with Ukraine.Here Con argues that the Crimean Referendum must be recognized because the majority of Crimeans prefer greater autonomy over a deeper confederacy with the Ukraine. Con and I agree that most Crimeans prefer increased autonomy. Clearly then, had the March 16 Referendum accurately reflected the will of the Crimean electorate, both Con and I would expect to see the overwhelming majority of Crimeans to have favored the second, more autonomous ballot choice: Choice 2: Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine? But the Referendum's results as reported by the government of Russian occupation laughably reflected on 2.53% popular support for increased Crimean autonomy and ridiculously trumpets 97.47% support for an abdication of any autonomy in favor of confederacy with Russia.Using Con's own argument regarding Crimean preferences for autonomy, we can be confident that the March 26 Referendum was a total sham.III. The decision was made with popular sovereignty. Con's own argument demonstrates that the election results are nowhere close to the 2008 polling data he cites:Exit polls of the referendum found that an overwhelming 96.8% of the 83% voters who voted wanted to cede Ukraine and join the Russian Federation [10].A 2008 poll found that 63.8% of Crimeans would like to cede Ukraine and join Russia [11], and this no doubt has increased in 2014.If the 2008 data were at all relevant, we'd expect to see the Russian secession vote in the 60-70% support range, right? Con blissfully reports the 96.8% Russian figure while ignoring the obvious discrepancy that reveals Russia's distortion of the truth. Worse, Con relies on 6 year old data and states without any support that these numbers have "no doubt" increased. Of course, the same source cited by Con, the Razumkov center has continued to poll Ukrainians in general and Crimeans specifically regarding secession. Unfortunately for Con's argument, the trends do match his blithe expectations: "in a more recent Razumkov Center survey (from December 21-25 2013), while substantial minorities endorsed either Crimean independence (35 percent) or joining “another state” (29 percent), a majority (56 percent was opposed to either of the political options involving Crimea’s separation from Ukraine." [2]Why does Con use 2008 Ramukov polling rather than 2013 polling data? Because the trends in the interim have been moving away from Russian confederacy as the old Russian population emigrates and dies off and the native Tartars continue their return from Stalin's brutal Diaspora.IV. Sanctioning the Referendum is hypocritical. Con states: "even if the Referendum was completely fraud.... it is obvious that a vast majority of Crimeans would like to join Russia."How does Con support this statement? If Con agrees with me that the referendum is fraudulent, what other evidence supports an argument for "vast majority" None. In truth, we can know that Putin's agents in Crimea were less confident of that majority than Con, since they felt the need to invade the territory before holding the election. If the majority was so overwhelmingly pro-Russian why wouldn't Putin simply allow Crimea to secede and petition for Russian federation on its own volition. We can be certain that if Putin thought that such a result was likely, he would not have bothered to suffer the international condemnation that accompanied his peremptory invasion.Con argues: "Forcing Crimea to remain as a part of Ukraine would be a humanitarian disservice, and would tarnish the “pro-democratic” tone that the West likes to tout."Nobody, not even Ukrainians, are arguing that Crimea should be forced to remain in the Ukraine. The question is whether the Referendum to secede accurately reflects the will of the Crimean majority, since as even Con is wlling to admit, the majority has traditionally favored autonomy before Russian federation."If the West does not recognize Crimea as independent, the world will see the West as a hypocritical power who only recognized “democratic” decisions in their favor."Since the vote to secede is patently fraudulent, as recognized and confirmed by the majority of internation powers, Western recognition of Crimean independence would be a disgraceful appeasement of Russian agresssion. All nations should insist that Crimea be allowed to determine its own destiny in the absence of foreign occupying forces and after ensuring that all ethnicities and national identities are permitted full participation. Anythin less is a betrayal of the fundamental priniciples of national sovereignity and democratic principle.[1] http://www.nytimes.com...[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com...