Jump to content

Talk:Commonwealth of Independent States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.192.211.221 (talk) at 19:13, 20 August 2008 (→‎Georgia & Ukraine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Moldova

Moldova is associate member because it has never ratified the CIS treaty in its parliament (just like Ukraine). The official CIS site may say whatver they want, but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine made a clear statement yesterday: http://novynar.com.ua/politics/34641 (article is in Ukrainian) -Andriy155 —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why is Moldova an assosicate member? and no need to hav a fromer members catagory, as turkminestan joined as assosicate member, unless add the baltics as former members, which isnt accurate snice they never joined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia & Ukraine

Well, a statement by the president of Georgia was loud and clear. I don't think we should "wait and see". Also, Ukraine is not a member because it never ratified the agreements - it may only be considered associate member at most. By the way, turkmenistan is not a member either.-Andriy155

its too early to say if Georgia has left the CIS, I say we wait a while for something officail, and Georgia would be silly to leave the CIS, as it would piss Russia off even more, and you dont want to do that to a nation that just kicked your ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

site

I'm not convinced about the credibility of http://www.cis.minsk.by/, as the site failed to list Turkmenistan as a member state(!), but I listed the link to it, since it has some good info. -Guppie It takes 12months to withdraw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.37.30 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

list

There should be a list of countries here Theanthrope

Also, the map does not agree with the first paragraph. Georgia is the same color with the CIS states. I know the creator of the map is busy for the next year but does anyone know which of the two is correct? Ulixes 18:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia

Georgia, for now at least, is still officially a member of the CIS, regardless of anything else. A statement by anybody, even the president, doesn't make it law or policy. In order for this to happen, the parliament has to ratify withdrawal from the CIS. We cnanot make prophecies at this point - what if Saakashvili isn't president soon? What if Russia gives in to Georgian demands and Georgia no longer has a reason to leave CIS? Neither of these scenarios will probably happen, but in any case, Wikipedia can't and shouldn't tell the future. Until it is official (passe dby Georgian parliament at least), the country is still a member of CIS. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.23.172 (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

I don't know enough about this subject to say, but is that second paragraph NPOV? "Signed an illegal agreement"? "Ignoring the referendum results (...) in fact, without disclosing the referendum results"? -Rwv37 05:19, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

This is english wiki. You have to expect russophobic articles. It's their cold war mentality.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody check Georgian civil war

People, somebody check the statement concerning Russia's direct involvment in Georgian Civil War of 1993. Of course, Russia did interfere with every each conflict in the FSU, but not always directly. The contributor could mistakingly write about Russia's involvement on the side of Abkhaz separatists. However, Moscow did support the Shevardnadze's coup in both political and financial means.AlexPU 05:48, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just discovered that User:Rydel in his contribution seems to have essentially copy-pasted several sentences from http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2005/apr/04/yehey/opinion/20050404opi6.html This is *BAD*. Frankly even the copy-pasted sentences were bad Wikipedia material and POVed, but that they were copy-pasted from an article makes this extra-extra bad.

Always, always, rewrite in your own words the information you find elsewhere -- and for that matter, it's good practice to cite your sources as well. I'll be now removing the offending sentences as soon as I can find a way to rewrite them. Aris Katsaris 06:53, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

My bad. Sorry! I was too lazy to make a good addition. I first stumbled upon this article a couple weeks ago, and I was totally shocked by its POV (I am still). If a person reads this article, he might think CIS is some really cool organization like EU. In reality, there is almost NOTHING working in CIS now. It's falling apart. Nobody wants to meet anyobdy, and when they finally meet and sign something, nobody follows those aggreements. It's dying (which I think is the natural way of development for this strange "union"). I think the article should be rewritten, and this information should also be included in the opening paragraph. Just search news.google.com for "CIS", "Lukashenka(o)", "Putin", etc. to get an understanding on how this article fails to reflect the real situation with CIS. --rydel 08:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Confederation

The Commonwealth of Independent States is a confederation...

Does anyone else feel, like me, that "confederation" is too strong a term in respect of the CIS? Wikipedia's own entry on "confederation" states that:

A confederation in modern political terms, is usually limited to a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states

To me, this goes beyond the present reality of a CIS which includes Ukraine (and a number of Central Asian states hosting US military bases). -- Picapica 18:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Confederation also states that the European Union and United Nations are confederations. If those are confederations, why would the CIS not be one? (Note the presence of U.S. military bases in a number of EU members as well.) PubliusFL 17:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.

. there i s12 countries in CIS

Flag question

Can anyone tell if the difference between Image:CIS.gif and Image:Flag of the CIS.svg is significant, or is it a different representation of a same flag? Conscious 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing [1], I see no evidence for the flag change. I am therefore removing the reference to the "original flag" from the article and deleting the GIF image. Conscious 17:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Membership list

I think might be helpful to categorize the membership list. (i.e. full members, associate members, members outside the military treaties, etc).Joshua Friel 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine and the CIS

[2][3] ??? --Bogdan що? 08:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to give a link to a google-translated page for the second link so those of us who can't read it can get a rough understanding of what's on the page?72.27.24.167 (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the document says that Ukraine is not even an associate member of CIS. Andriy155 —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan, can you provide a translation of the second link? And whether or not it airbrushes away Kravchuk's signing of the Belavesha Accords and Alam-Ata Protocol in December 1991?72.27.24.167 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I underestand that you need to read the document in English. However, just briefly: in Ukraine all the foreign accords have to be ratified by parliament. If a treaty has been signed by the president, it is not considered valid unless it is ratified by the parliament. The Rada has never ratified the CIS treaty. Hence, Ukraine is not a member. In addition, the second document also states that Ukraine never applied for the associate status in the organisation either. Unfortunately, google translate does not support Ukrainian. Will need to find some other way to translate the article in full or perhaps find some other English-language source to reference on Wikipedia.Andriy155

Except the agreements were signed during the murky legal period of Ukrainian independence (between August and December 1991), so does it fall under current legislative rules or pre-independence legislative rules? Was Ukrainian legislative approval needed for treaties before independence? For instance was Ukraine's signing up to be a UN member in 1945 ratified by the Ukrainian legislature at the time? Did it need to be? And if it needed to be and wasn't does that mean Ukraine isn't a UN member even now? If it can be established that Ukraine never ratified any of the agreements forming the CIS and that such ratification was necessary at the time for Ukraine to join then perhaps a new category is needed under the membership section and for the map - perhaps "Signatory"? With the note that the signatory (with date of signature but not joining) participates in some functions and agreements of the organization (although I don't know how it would work if Ukraine ratified a subsequent agreement concerning the CIS if it hadn't ratified the original agreements for it to officially join the CIS)?72.27.24.167 (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine never signed up as a UN member, Ukrainian SSR did so instead. I am not sure whether the Ukrainian SSR parliament had to ratify this. However, this is irrelevant because Ukrainian SSR and Ukraine are different political entities. I found this English-language source confirming that Ukraine is not a member: [4]. Whoever is responsible for it, please remove the country from the CIS map. Ukraine has indeed ratified certain CIS documents which it deemed necessary. However, it also has ratified some of the EU treaties too (even though it is not an EU member)Andriy155

Okay, but my question was whether the Ukrainian legislature (whatever is what called) had to ratify the CIS accords before 1991/1992 in the same vein as whether or not the Ukrainian legislature (be it the Ukrainian supreme soviet or rada or whatever) had to ratify the UN signature. It isn't irrelevant because the Ukrainian SSR and Ukraine are related politic entities insofar as one succeeded the other. Otherwise it means Ukraine isn't a UN member today if independent Ukraine isn't bound by the agreements made by the Ukrainian SSR and under the Ukrainian SSR constitution. In addition the Ukrainian constitution from what I gather changed in 1995, not 1991/1992 and until 1995 it was the old Ukrainian SSR constitution with amendments that was used. So under the old constitution was Rada ratification required for any accord signed by the executive to go into force? If it didn't, then a change in the constitution is not supposed to affect international agreements. I bring this up because the Ukrainian SSR parliament was the same body as the independent Ukrainian parliament after independence and as the same constitution (with amendments) was in force, then the rules governing ratification of treaties (unless changed by those amendments) should still have been the same before and after independence. That's why I wonder if under the old constitution/pre-independence legislative ratification was strictly necessary.72.27.91.3 (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points here. Unfortunately, I was not able to find any information about whether or not any foreign accords had to be ratified by the parliament of the Ukrainian SSR. My understanding, and I am simply speculating here, is that any foreign accords had to be ratified after Ukraine declared in independence in August (or even earlier when it declared its own sovereignity in 1990). But again, I am neither a lawyer nor a historian. Andriy155 —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy, having been puzzled about this I found two sources which might be helpful. The first is the constitution of the Ukrainian SSR which was in effect from 1978 until 1996 but with some amendments after 1991: http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=888%2D09 . Not sure if it has the amendments noted, but unless the amendments affected the treaty ratification process it would have been the same as from 1978. Of course, this now seems to be irrelevant since Bogdan has a source from the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice stating that the Ukrainian Rada had ratified the original treaty in December 1991. As for the treaty ratification process according to a google preview of the Encyclopedia of Soviet Law [5], "The 1977-1978 USSR and union republic constitutions reserve to their respective jurisdictions the links with 'foreign states and international organizations'. The Supreme Soviets are empowered to decide all questions regulated by their constitutions to their jurisdiction. The presidia of the supreme soviets are expressly empowered to 'ratify and denounce international treaties of the USSR', and the respective council of ministers to 'confirm and denounce intergovernmental international treaties'. The procedures for proposing, negotiating, initialling, signing, ratifying, confirming, or acceding to international treaties are laid down in great detail in the 1978 Law and 1980 Decree on treaties. Certain kinds of international treaties under the 1978 Law must be ratified. These include treaties on friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance, treaties on the mutual renunciation of the use or threat of force, peace treaties, treaties on the territorial delimitation of the USSR with other states, treaties estbalishing rules other than those which are contained in USSR legislative acts, treaties which the parties have stipulated will be subject to ratification, and others which the Presidium may wish to ratify. Ratification edicts of the Presidium do not require subsequent confirmation of the full supreme soviet." Now having found that it brings up a number of questions: 1. If the rules governing Soviet treaty ratification in the USSR constitution were similar as those governing union republic ratification in the union republic constitutions then the presidium of the Ukrainian supreme soviet (rada) could ratify and denounce treaties without having to have the entire soviet/rada vote on it. Was this case in 1991 with the Belavesha Accords and Alma-Ata Protocols? It may have been, but it seems Ukraine had signed and ratified the accords in 1991 according to its own ministry of justice. 2. Were the two initial agreements (Belavesha Accords and Alma-Ata Protocol) which established the CIS and it's founding membership treaties "which the parties have stipulated will be subject to ratification"? If not and they were signed, then according to the constitutional rules at the time, they wouldn't need to be ratified and the signing would thus be a de jure ratification by whoever signed it. Again, though the ministry of justice in Ukraine states that Ukraine signed and ratified it, so whether the CIS treaty needed ratification wouldn't matter since it got ratified anyway apparently.I'm just wondering if some of the sources and claims out there are not basing the claim that Ukraine isn't a member because they are applying post-1996 rules on pre-1996 agreements when they should have been looking at the rules at the time.208.131.184.17 (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Quote([6]):

8 грудня 1991 року Президентом України підписано Угоду про створення Співдружності Незалежних Держав за якою Україна стала однією із держав-засновниць СНД. Ця Угода ратифікована Верховною Радою України 10 грудня 1991 року.

Translation:

December 8, 1991, the president of Ukraine signed the treaty on creating the Commonwealth of Independent States, with which Ukraine became one of the founders of the CIS. This treaty was ratified by the Rada of Ukraine on December 10, 1991.

--Bogdan що? 11:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that Bogdan has assembled some very important sourced information since the beginning of this section and his information (plus reference [4] in the main CIS article) justifies a thorough rewrite of everything that has been written recently on Ukraine in different places in the CIS article. The rewrite should be done without emotions and with careful attention to NPOV. --Zlerman (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bogdan's reference from the ministry of justice in Ukraine also matches the reference for Molodova's membership: Сведения о ратификации документов, принятых в рамках СНГ в 1991 – 2008 годах (действующих по состоянию на 15 января 2008 года). - Doing a rough google translation, the first line/block referring to the original treaty establishing the CIS makes reference to Ukraine ratifying it on 10.12.91.208.131.184.17 (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the statement by Ukraine's foreign minister that was released today: [7]. This clearly says that Ukraine is not a member. Furthermore, one of the links provided by Bogdan clearly state (although in Ukrainian) that the country is not an associate member because CIS does not have such a status. Andriy155 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia will be able to leave the CIS only in 12 months

According to a news article Russian ambassador to Azerbaijan said Georgia will be able to leave the CIS only in 12 months. Baku87 (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia has already left that organization [ http://www.civilgeorgia.ge/eng/article.php?id=19064]Iberieli (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Устав СНГ any country can leave the organization only in 12 months (раздел 1, статья 9).--Переход Артур (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Iberieli, the article says Georgia would, not Georgia has. This indicates that Georgia intends to leave. I don't see what the big deal is anyway whether Georgia can officially leave now or 12 months from now or could have left yesterday. One would think people expected legal changes to happen as fast as wiki-edits. We should all remember that legal process are very slow unfortunately.72.27.24.167 (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well nobody in Georgia cares for "Ustav" the parliament just now voted and annulled all CIS agreements and membership itself. Iberieli (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and if the parliament voted to annex the moon or the president simply said Georgia has left the OSCE, it would mean that the moon was now Georgian (despite international agreements regarding space) or that Georgia had immediately left the OSCE without following the procedures in the protocols to which it originally signed and was legally bound to right?72.27.24.167 (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody really cares for your sarcasm here. Anon vandalism will be followed by protection request of this article. Iberieli (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the answer to those questions is "yes"? I just love how myopic nationalism on wikipedia is studiously defended by invocation of the rules that are supposed to prevent chaotic additions to wikipedia (such as wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and so forth) as long as it suits some. You assume I will vandalize the page, probably because your outlook is limited to some conspiracy theory in your life (I feel sorry for you). However, ask yourself, why would anyone want to "vandalize" a page so that page the keeps in order of actual procedures in the real world? As it is, half the links on this page are practically useless to non-Ukrainians and non-Russians and for an English wikipedia are inappropriate as citable proof butnow you have provided a link that Georgia's parliament has annulled all CIS agreements and membership itself, which is very good for the article and wikipedia as a whole because it constitutes a proper reference. However it appears to conflict with another link cited by another user above. But instead of being rational and perhaps including both in the article to further inform people, you simply change the article and declare that "Anon vandalism" will be followed by a protection request for the article with the obvious undertone that any change you don't like constitutes "vandalism". Perhaps it is you who are vandalizing the page when you knowingly submit only one reference and refuse to coutenance the possibility of another reference which conflicts with your own and your favoured sequence of events? As it is I don't give a damn whether Georgia leaves or stays in the CIS, in fact I don't give a damn if the tomorrow Canada dissolved itself and it's provinces applied for admission to the US or if tomorrow 90% of all astronomers started claiming the world had become flat or was becoming flat and the sun started to orbit it - as long as someone can cite it, then it should be able to go in wikipedia. But if someone can also cite references that refute either event as having never taken place or not occurring then that too should be able to go in wikipedia, whether by an anon or a regular user. What is really sad is that you seem to be able to communicate well enough in English but when someone points out the simple difference between future tense (subject would do something) and past tense (subject has done something) in one of your articles you get all defensive and talk about "nobody in Georgia cares....". Maybe nobody in Georgia does care (although I don't know how one person can speak for an entire country especially in a non-official capacity), but it is evident that you don't care for correction.72.27.24.167 (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Andriy, don't bring your Ukrainian nationalism to forum okay, and be logical. Ukraine is a full-member of CIS. They, among Russia and Belarus founded the CIS. Check your history before right crap on the board. Even if you Yuschenko wanted to leave the CIS, the people of Ukraine won't allow it. Especially in the East. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.59 (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIS membership

I suggest we clear this up a bit, the article is in chaos. 9 republics - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - are members. Turkmenistan is an associate member. So far so good. Ukraine is neither, it never ratified the treaty, but since it participated in the organisation anyway, let's give it a specific colour on the map and call it a "Founding member". As for Georgia - why don't we specify this country as "Downgraded membership", and rename it "Former member" in 12 months, if all goes as it bureaucratically should. Could someone edit the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.117.61.59 (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Ukraine should be listed as former candidate member on the article and template? 70.51.11.210 (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_of_Independent_States&oldid=233166820"