The International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF) is about to change its Statute and then apply the Amendments retrospectively to suspend the Belarus Federation and Russian Federation.
The ICCF has announced an Extraordinary Congress without explicitly explaining the reason.
https://www.iccf.com/Proposals.aspx?id=76
Online voting begins on April 27 and ends on May 9, 2022. The required majority to change the Statute is 2/3.
The proposals made are dubious from a legal and moral point of view.
Article 17
Under Article 17 of the current Statute, the activities of a national correspondent association in the ICCF can be suspended or stopped only for non-payment of the membership fee. On this basis, Venezuela, which is in a confusing situation, was recently expelled from the ICCF in turbulent circumstances.
However, it is intended to amend Article 17 so that one can be expelled or suspended for reasons other than financial ones:
"The Executive Board is empowered by Congress to propose suspension or dismissal of member federations for non-financial reasons."
Only "self-evident" is mentioned as a "consideration".
However, the only thing that is self-evident is that the aim is to punish Russia and Belarus for the Ukraine invasion — even if they do not say it.
But why has the ICCF not understood the obvious thing before, and only now — especially in the context of the Russian/Ukrainian war? In the context of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, the ICCF has not taken such a matter for granted...
Article 10
Article 10 says:
"ICCF is a democratic association and does not discriminate based on race, skin colour, sex, language, religion, political, or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth origin or any other status. ICCF observes strict neutrality with respect to the internal affairs of member federations and affiliated organizations".
The proposal is to modify Article 10 by removing the following words, "national or."
First, this amendment is redundant if the aim is to suspend Russia and Belarus. Russia and Belarus are the states, not nations. Punishing the state for the state's actions, like starting a war, is not the same as a punishment based on the nationality of the citizens of that state.
Second, this amendment is dangerous as it removes a barrier to real discrimination. For example, the amended Statute would allow excluding Israel from the ICCF based on Jewishness and implemented by the majority of votes.
However, if the amendment to Article 10 fails, it does not prevent suspending Russia and Belarus.
Suspending Russia and Belarus
The next nuance is that the amendment to Article 17 of the Statute is to be implemented retrospectively — Russia and Belarus are to be suspended based on a clause in the Statute adopted after Russia started the war against Ukraine. It is a backwards-looking jurisdiction:
"If approved, this change to the ICCF Statutes would take effect immediately after approval of Congress (with the requisite 2/3 minimum votes of those voting)."
"Suspend the Russian Federation in accordance with ICCF Statute Article 17."
This is also called an ad hoc argument (an argument, evidence, law, etc., used specifically for the present case).
The status of Russia and Belarus is to be voted at the same virtual congress under a new clause in the Statute. Evidently, the Ukraine war is kept in mind. But they are not going to vote, retrospectively, for example, about the membership of the US, on the basis of the still ongoing US occupation of Iraq.
However, no justifications are given here. Only the majority is quoted as the "rationale":
"The ICCF Executive Board called for an Extraordinary Congress to consider the request from a majority of delegates to suspend the Russian Federation."
This means that anyone can be expelled from the ICCF if the majority wants to. Every delegate may even have a different reason why to do that. But, of course, their reasons may converge. For example, imagine that the strongest grandmasters are in country A. The other countries compose the majority. So they may get rid of country A. Simply vote it out.
Conclusion
It is difficult to avoid the impression that the chess players/administrators are not so bright and not so moral. The proposals made are discriminative and ad hoc. One may even say that despotic. They would probably understand it only when they themselves become the victims of such legal creativity.
It is far from being a general and entrenched rule that every country that starts a war or occupies another country should be suspended from the international sports organization. Instead, it looks like politicizing the international sports organization and choosing the side — but only in the current international conflict.
What you're saying all makes sense but these types of complaints only serve to discourage future actions against invaders. "Either you ban all invaders or ban none" is not the answer.
You will see similar double standards with China who have their human rights abuses ignored by those who don't want to be banned from China's massive markets. The solution is not to complain when other nations are punished for human rights abuses just because China wasn't.
You have to stop looking at this issue as "hypocrisy" (even though it is) and understand there are certain harsh realities that are unfair.
Imagine a husband slaps a man for harassing's his wife. Now imagine that another much more powerful and dangerous man starts harassing his wife, but he doesn't slap that more powerful man. Is he a hypocrite? Should he still endanger himself and possibly his family by not also slapping that more dangerous man?
Regardless of your answer to the above, the fact remains the answer isn't for the man to do nothing; either he "attacks everyone who harassers his wife or no one" is not the solution.
Of course, I'm hyperbolizing a bit, since the ICCF isn't in any danger by banning the U.S. but just understand that countries like the U.S. or China are special cases due to their massive power and influence. But the answer isn't to complain about any and all punishment for injustice just because some unfair exceptions were made. That's like not punishing criminals just because a politician got away with the same crime.
@eintaluj saidDoes suspending a country's Federation mean that individual players from that country cannot compete in any events?
The International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF) is about to change its Statute and then apply the Amendments retrospectively to suspend the Belarus Federation and Russian Federation.
The ICCF has announced an Extraordinary Congress without explicitly explaining the reason.
https://www.iccf.com/Proposals.aspx?id=76
Online voting begins on April 27 and ends ...[text shortened]... national sports organization and choosing the side — but only in the current international conflict.
@vivify saidIf the ICCF suspends Russia merely on the basis of majority voting, it creates a precedent of despotism. Ruling without fixed rules and laws, based on decrees is a despotism. It is so even if it is based on the current majority voting. It opens the door for future tyranny.
What you're saying all makes sense but these types of complaints only serve to discourage future actions against invaders. "Either you ban all invaders or ban none" is not the answer.
You will see similar double standards with China who have their human rights abuses ignored by those who don't want to be banned from China's massive markets. The solution is not to compla ...[text shortened]... e made. That's like not punishing criminals just because a politician got away with the same crime.
For example, you are talking about the economic, political and military dominance of such powerful countries as the US or China. Granted. And when the organization makes decisions not based on some fixed set of rules, such an influence can become astronomic. Even now, the decision to punish Russia and not the US may be regarded as an example of the influence of the powerful US. However, if the precedent is established, the next time they may demand to remove all Islamic countries from the chess federation. Whatever.
Therefore, the only reasonable way, if non-financial reasons are allowed is to fix some principles.
For example, the chess federation may decide that making war propaganda is prohibited for the chess players. Or it may decide that the country that starts a war is suspended from the organization.
The first problem is that the only possibility to apply the clause about war propaganda to Karyakin would mean to apply the fresh law backwards. To apply the fresh clause about starting a war on Russia would also mean applying the fresh law backwards.
Therefore, the only reasonable way is to make some new principles, but not apply them backwards.
The second problem is more serious. Namely, international sports organizations are not in a position to decide who is right and who is wrong concerning complex international conflicts. Neither are they in a position to decide who commits the war crimes and who does not. The influence of big powerful countries is present again. The delegates are to vote, but they are very probably under the impression of the mainstream media of their own countries. Their impression might be wrong. It might be the case, for example, that Russia is right in saying that Ukraine committed war crimes and genocide in Donbas. But they will be outvoted due to, for example, Wikipedia and CNN.
Therefore, I suggest that it is not the business of sports organizations to decide who is right and who is wrong in international conflicts.
If the International Criminal Court already makes a decision that, say, Russia committed a war crime, then one can rely on it. But not when the only proof is the newspapers of your own military block.
The chess federations like FIDE and ICCF should rather look at the behaviour of the sportsmen and organizations. For example, a rule not allowing making political propaganda during the competition at the place, etc, would be acceptable.
The whole idea of using international sports organizations as weapons to punish some countries is suspicious.
But if it will be done, then at least based on some fixed rules and not in a backwards-looking manner.
Thank you.
@EintaluJ
It is abundantly clear Russia has committed war crimes, the attack on the maternity hospital was just one instance of that.
That said, just how do you conduct a war crimes trial on those dudes who will hide out in Russia giving us the middle finger salute?
So they go through with the trial and conclude direct evidence shows Putin and X, Y and Z are directly involved in these crimes.
So what now? A public statement, these are bad dudes, and that is the end of it?
What would happen next?
Putin gets to take over all of Ukraine and then starts thinking about the NEXT country it can attack? Poland next? and the like?
So what good would this crimes commission do in the long run?
@no1marauder saidUsually, when the country is suspended or excluded from the International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF), the individual players can still play, but only individually. For example, Venezuela was recently removed from the ICCF. But Venezuelan chess players can still participate in the tournaments - individually.
Does suspending a country's Federation mean that individual players from that country cannot compete in any events?
Among other things, it is more costly as the individual player has to pay itself all the tournament fees. It is called "Direct Entry". You can play chess even if you do not have citizenship.
Concerning the present case, I shall quote below the text from the ICCF proposal "Suspend Russian Federation":
"Considerations
A suspended federation cannot participate in the ICCF Congress (the federation loses its voting rights). A suspended federation is not allowed to organise tournaments on the ICCF webserver (or postal events) or participate in ICCF Zonal or Invitational team tournaments.
All existing national and unrated events will be immediately canceled. Only existing international events may continue with the participation of (former) RUS/BLR players. Players from these federations may enter new tournaments using ICCF Direct Entry (DE). Players may request to change federations subject to the approval of the gaining delegate."
https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1366
@sonhouse saidWhile your questions do not belong to the present thread, I am still trying to answer them as it might be helpful.
@EintaluJ
It is abundantly clear Russia has committed war crimes, the attack on the maternity hospital was just one instance of that.
That said, just how do you conduct a war crimes trial on those dudes who will hide out in Russia giving us the middle finger salute?
So they go through with the trial and conclude direct evidence shows Putin and X, Y and Z are directly in ...[text shortened]... attack? Poland next? and the like?
So what good would this crimes commission do in the long run?
"It is abundantly clear Russia has committed war crimes, the attack on the maternity hospital was just one instance of that."
- I am convinced that there are SOME clear cases when Russians have committed war crimes in Ukraine war 2022, and there are also SOME clear cases when the Ukrainians have did it. Concerning the case of the maternity hospital - this case is indeed not yet so clear. Merely the videos and witnesses of ONE side are insufficient. You cannot duly convict anyone based on your own country's mainstream media and propaganda, while Russian information sources are globally blocked. Probably, you even do not know what the Russian Foreign Ministry said about that case. The method of rejecting all contrary evidence as "Russian propaganda" is circular reasoning that allows convicting anyone for nothing. There is also a problem with the definition of "war crime". In the present propaganda, the news never say precisely enough what exactly is meant by "war crime".
One should take a look at Genova conventions. One should know what countries have signed what conventions. For the survey, see Encyclopedia Britannica:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/war-crime
"That said, just how do you conduct a war crimes trial on those dudes who will hide out in Russia giving us the middle finger salute?
So they go through with the trial and conclude direct evidence shows Putin and X, Y and Z are directly involved in these crimes."
- Usually, the winners are outside the law. After the second WW, in the Hague court, the US was not accused of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden. Later, some war criminals escaped thanks to getting asylum. Note also that the US has not joined the International Criminal Court (ICC) altogether. After Afghanistan and Iraq war crimes became public and sufficiently proved, the US has denied the right of the ICC to discuss the issue.
"So what good would this crimes commission do in the long run?"
- They have succeeded to punish, after the second WW, some of the Nazi leaders, and later, some persons guilty of genocide.
International law does not work out very well if there are conflicts between the states. The state can punish the individuals for violating the state's laws, and also for violating international laws. But if the state denies a crime, there is no SUPER-state on the planet who could legally punish individual states. The UN sometimes works, but the biggest countries have the veto-right.
@eintaluj saidThe proposals made are dubious from a legal and moral point of view.
The International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF) is about to change its Statute and then apply the Amendments retrospectively to suspend the Belarus Federation and Russian Federation.
The ICCF has announced an Extraordinary Congress without explicitly explaining the reason.
https://www.iccf.com/Proposals.aspx?id=76
Online voting begins on April 27 and ends ...[text shortened]... national sports organization and choosing the side — but only in the current international conflict.
I agree, but the sad fact is war and politics have a habit of punishing those who want nothing to do with either war or politics.
@eintaluj saidDespotism? This is a chess organization. What kind of "tyranny" do you expect to come out of this? You're being pretty dramatic.
If the ICCF suspends Russia merely on the basis of majority voting, it creates a precedent of despotism. Ruling without fixed rules and laws, based on decrees is a despotism. It is so even if it is based on the current majority voting. It opens the door for future tyranny.
But I do agree with you that the U.S. should've been subject to the same backlash that Russia is receiving. My concern is when people protest any punishment for evils just because one country got away with it.
@vivify said"Despotism" according to the definitions of John Locke, the founder of the ideology of modern democracy and liberalism. Above, I already gave an exact definition. You are ignoring it and presenting it as if I have used that term with purely emotional and evaluative meaning.
Despotism? This is a chess organization. What kind of "tyranny" do you expect to come out of this? You're being pretty dramatic.
But I do agree with you that the U.S. should've been subject to the same backlash that Russia is receiving. My concern is when people protest any punishment for evils just because one country got away with it.
@EintaluJ
Come on, the attacks on clear civilian targets and now suspected use of chemical weapons on CIVILIANS and bombing of maternity hospitals, train stations with ONLY civilians just trying to get out and stay alive, you figure ANYTHING the Ukrainians did
somehow balances all that barbaric behavior? TOTAL destruction of many towns, that is the proper way to conduct a war, just flatten ALL the buildings to dust?
What the HELL is wrong with you?
Do you WANT Putin to reestablish the Soviet Union?
Do you have any serious doubt that is EXACTLY what this former KBG agent wants?
Like Trump saying about the killing by car in Charlottesville, there were good people on BOTH sides. Yeah right, a crazed white nationalist deliberately runs into people at a protest and kills one, yep GREAT people on both sides.
Do you maybe see a parallel here?
@sonhouse saidI do not respond to such purely propagandistic nonsense that completely ignores or distorts what I have said.
@EintaluJ
Come on, the attacks on clear civilian targets and now suspected use of chemical weapons on CIVILIANS and bombing of maternity hospitals, train stations with ONLY civilians just trying to get out and stay alive, you figure ANYTHING the Ukrainians did
somehow balances all that barbaric behavior? TOTAL destruction of many towns, that is the proper way to conduct a ...[text shortened]... ple at a protest and kills one, yep GREAT people on both sides.
Do you maybe see a parallel here?
@EintaluJ
Are you saying Putin is not responsible for war crimes destroying hospitals and train stations filled with civilians? You seriously propose that was say, fake actors placed on streets by Ukrainians to make just LOOK like those poor misunderstood Russians would do that?
The problem with that POV is sat images showing those bodies lying in the streets for WEEKS and not even dead RUSSIAN soldiers pulled from the wreckage of Russian tanks.
How many militaries you hear of who don't even give a crap about their own soldiers?
How can you defend such atrocity?
@eintaluj saidWe know by now that is code for:-
I do not respond to such purely propagandistic nonsense that completely ignores or distorts what I have said.
I’m not going to answer any question that I cannot twist into a pro Putin perspective. It’s getting a bit tiresome in its predictability