Skip to main content

View Diary: The Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty for crissake (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  security assurances are not a treaty (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kombema, Involuntary Exile

    they're assurances, which we can bow out of at any time.

    Do you understand the difference between something the executive is obligated to do by the law of the land, and an executive policy he can change by executive order at any time?

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 07:54:25 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Our assurance was that we would not attack Ukraine (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jim P, Reston history guy

      not that we would defend them.

        •  Please don't link to a nut like larouche (6+ / 0-)

          there are plenty of other links to the document.

          I've read it carefully and its quite clear what our assurances are should Ukraine be attacked: it is a matter for the UN Security Council. Not us.

          •  It references the CSCE.... (0+ / 0-)

            ...which is incorporated by reference. Have you read those too?

            •  Yes, quite clearly. (3+ / 0-)

              While Ukraine never signed the Helsinki Accords, the memo clearly states, as the Accords did, that the United States would RESPECT the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Well, we have done so. We have not occupied or attacked it.

              But what it does not do, which a mutual defense agreement would, is spell out that the United States would DEFEND such integrity.

              •  You're reading it wrong. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kharma

                The memo has a specific plank dealing with military intervention. So, it would be redundant to read the "territorial integrity" plank as solely relating to an agreement not to invade or use military force in a way contrary to Ukrainian sovereignty.

                Therefore, it is an implicit agreement -- especially given that it was also signed by Russia -- to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity from outside actors, especially the signatories of the memorandum.

                In any case, it is open to enough interpretation to legally justify military action by the US to defend Ukraine. Which, in any case, is probably moot if the Ukrainian interim government and parliament specifically asks for US help. Clearly, it is legally permissible under international law to come to the aid of a state that is requesting help.

                The only importance if the Budapest memorandum is that it gives the US grounds under international law to intervene. Something it did not have in Syria.

                •  No, you wish I were reading it wrong. (2+ / 0-)

                  Here are the parts that deal with military intervention:

                  The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
                  Seek action from the UN Security Council to provide assistance. We've done that.

                  And there is this:

                  The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
                  We promise not to nuke them. We haven't.

                  That's about the size of it. I'm not reading it wrong, I'm reading it quite clearly. Because if it were a mutual defense pact, it would read a lot more like Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and not like what you see above.

    •  The START Treaty is where the provisions of the (0+ / 0-)

      Budapest Memorandum were codified into law.

      Whenever resistance to factual information became a Progressive value is indeed one memo I did not get.

      There is no existence without doubt.

      by Mark Lippman on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 08:18:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you referring to the (0+ / 0-)

        original START treaty that expired in 2009, or the New START treaty signed in 2010? The only references I see to Ukraine, which was not a signatory to New START since it had already given up its nuclear weapons, are in the preamble section:

        Recognizing that the START Treaty has been implemented by
        the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the
        Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the United States of America,
        and that the reduction levels envisaged by the START Treaty
        were achieved,
        Deeply appreciating the contribution of the Republic of
        Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, and Ukraine to nuclear
        disarmament and to strengthening international peace and
        security as non-nuclear-weapon states under the Treaty on the
        Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of July 1, 1968,

        Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

        by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 10:37:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site