The Hypocrisy of Annexation: Comparing Crimea and Hawaii

There has been a great deal of international condemnation against Russia for the annexation of Crimea. Unlike the United States, which annexed Hawaii last century, Russia's actions have faced intense scrutiny for violating international law and the principles of self-determination. This raises the question: why does the U.S. not free Hawaii, which was annexed well before the founding of the Soviet Union?

Understanding Annexation: The Case of Crimea

Crimea's annexation by Russia in 2014 sparked global outrage and condemnation. The U.S. and a majority of countries have consistently denounced the move, viewing it as an unlawful grab of territory resulting from the internal conflicts in Ukraine. Pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region, with assistance from Russian forces, sought to reclaim areas they perceived as historically Russian.

Domestic Consent and the Case of Hawaii

On the other hand, the annexation of Hawaii by the United States in 1898, resulting from the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, raises different ethical and legal issues. The U.S. territory itself, though, is a unique case where a referendum on independence has been proposed. Critics often argue that the inhabitants of Hawaii should have the right to self-determination, reminiscent of the Crimean case.

The U.S. Annexation of Hawaii

Hawaii was annexed in 1898 when the United States took control during a period of internal turmoil following the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893 by a group of American businessmen. The U.S. then proceeded to declare the establishment of a republic and, four years later, the annexation by Congress. The legality of this annexation has been a subject of debate, but it did occur with the consent of the United States government.

International Law and Self-Determination

Under international law, the principle of self-determination is enshrined, yet there are varying interpretations. While Crimea's annexation was widely condemned as a violation, Hawaii's situation is different. The U.S. government has already made its position on Hawaii's status clear. However, some argue that a referendum should be held to allow the residents of Hawaii to express their wishes, akin to the way Crimea was handled.

Compared to Russian ACTIONS

When faced with accusations of annexing land, Russia often uses whataboutism, a defensive statement designed to divert attention from the original claim by using a similar accusation against another party. This is seen as an Attempt to excuse their actions through distraction. For example, instead of addressing the annexation of Crimea, Russia might suggest that the U.S. should address any perceived annexations it has engaged in, like the annexation of East Prussia from Germany. This approach is not only a distraction but also an attempt to shift blame.

What about East Prussia?

East Prussia was a region of Germany that, after the end of World War II, was transferred to Poland and the Soviet Union. In this case, there is a clear historical and legal context to the transfer, which was done in the aftermath of the war with territorial agreements made by the Allied powers. This is in stark contrast to the more recent and controversial annexation of Crimea, which occurred without the consent of the international community or the people of Crimea.

Conclusion: A Hypocritical Double Standard?

The comparison between the U.S. annexation of Hawaii and Russia's annexation of Crimea highlights a complex issue of historical and legal standards. While the U.S. justified its actions in Hawaii based on internal dynamics and the consent of the government, Russia's actions in Crimea represent a violation of international laws and norms. The U.S. has not chosen to revisit the annexation of Hawaii, but it is imperative for nations to uphold the rule of law and the principle of self-determination. Call for a transparent and fair mechanism, like a referendum, to allow the people of Hawaii to voice their opinions. This would bring the issue into line with the norms and standards in contemporary international relations.

By addressing such historical injustices, nations can contribute to a more just and lawful international order, which is crucial for the stability and prosperity of the entire world.