Tweet
TRIPLE STANDARDS
by Boris Tumanov
Translated by Pavel Pushkin
Source: Novoe Vremya, No. 15, 2006, p. 22
Agency WPS
April 17, 2006 Monday
What the Papers Say Part A (Russia)
Russia's current foreign policy is confined to one formula; Russia's
contemporary foreign policy is confined to a single formula: "Why can't
we do what they do?" For example, the West is going to recognize the
independence of Kosovo - so why can't Russia recognize the independence
of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the Trans-Dniester Republic?
Leaving aside Gazprom's projects aimed at "energy security" on a
global scale, Russia's contemporary foreign policy is confined to a
single formula: "Why can't we do what they do?" Lately, we have started
speaking in the same terms about the problem of unrecognized states:
"They're going to recognize the independence of Kosovo, so why can't
we recognize the independence of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the
Trans-Dniester Republic?"
Meanwhile, the solving of the Kosovo problem that has already
practically become a precedent is primarily resolving of the
fundamental contradiction embodied in the international law that has
declared territorial integrity of countries and the right of nations
for self-determination equally sacred. In other words, if Serbia
did not announce through its Foreign Minister Draskovic about its
agreement with separation of Kosovo, proceeding from international
practice it would be impossible to legitimize the striving of ethnic
Albanian people populating Kosovo for independence. Russia defended
its territorial integrity in Chechnya even in a more cruel way
that Milosevic in Kosovo but the international community condemned
it only for "excessive cruelty" without questioning of the right
of Moscow to retain Chechnya within Russian borders. That is why
belligerent joy of Russian politicians hoping to use the precedents
of Kosovo for official annexing of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and for
transformation of the Trans-Dniester Republic into a Russian military
base is untimely or is even ungrounded. All this may happen without
undesirable consequences for Russia only if Chisinau and Tbilisi give
up these territories voluntarily.
Of course, knowing the psychological condition of the Russian
establishment it is definitely difficult to believe that Moscow
will take this condition into account. In the worst case Russian
diplomacy will simply wave it off referring to the fact that the West
"has twisted hands" of the Serbian authorities. This circumstance
allegedly enables us not to take into account the soft-body stance
of Belgrade caused by terrible tortures because territorial integrity
of any state is sacred.
However, very soon we will definitely learn that not only Georgian
and Moldovan wines but also cheeses are polluted with pesticides or,
say, radioactive and hence their import to the Russian Federation
is prohibited. We will also definitely witness more hysterically
humanitarian raids of the Emergency Situations Ministry to the
Trans-Dniester Republic being as pointless as the notorious transfer
of airborne troops to Pristina.
In any case, let us temporarily get abstracted from the selfless
defending of independence of Abkhazia or Trans-Dniester Republic by
Russia under the flag of the right of nations for self-determination.
Let us forget about the Cossack volunteers and battalion of the
Confederation of Peoples of Caucasus commanded by Shamil Basaev,
about the Abkhaz attack aviation that has appeared suddenly and has
disappeared equally suddenly, as well as about Russian generals who
have crushed Georgian and Moldovan invaders. Let us forget about
Russian citizenship of Abkhaz and South Ossetian people. Let us
formulate the question in the following way: in a hypothetical case if
Tbilisi and, by the way, Baku generously agrees to give up Abkhazia,
South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh, would the obvious choice of Abkhaz,
Ossetian and Armenian people contradict the letter of international law
then? Definitely it would not. In this case the matter is right about
nations or ethnic groups that have the right for self-determination.
For God's sake, explain to me what kind of nation lives in the
Trans-Dniester Republic whose population consists of three ethnic
groups of Moldavan, Russian and Ukrainian people being approximately
equal? What has this incidentally appeared mixture to do with the right
of nations for self-determination? What kind of ethnic notion it is,
Trans-Dniester people?
At any rate, it is true that Russian politicians who feel nostalgia
about the Soviet Union still are not abashed by this nonsense because
they know perfectly well that political expedience can create a nation
or abolish it. Can you recall such ethnic groups as Karabakh and
Nakhichevan people? Behind these exotic names were ordinary Armenians
and equally ordinary Azerbaijanis. However, Moscow decided that it
would not be expedient to call Nagorno-Karabakh in accordance with
ethnic belonging of its population (like it was common in all the
rest of the territory of the Soviet Union) the Armenian Autonomous
Region and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
the Azerbaijani Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. In the first
case Moscow was afraid to wake up (but finally woke up) a natural
striving of Armenians of Karabakh for reunion with Armenia and in
the second case Moscow did not wish to explain why an autonomous
region in the territory of Armenia was subordinated not to Yerevan
but to Baku according to demand of Turkey specially included into
the Russian-Turkish agreement on "friendship" singed in 1921.
Now Moscow got it into its head that separatism of the Trans-Dniester
Republic deliberately provoked by Anatoly Lukyanov back in the times
of the agony of the Soviet Union could be used by it as a tool to
pressurize Moldova and Ukraine and as a military bridgehead against
NATO. That is why Russia will keep making believe that Trans-Dniester
people are a normal nation and their wish of "self-determination"
is protected by the same international law that Moscow interprets
in the aforementioned manner, "Why is this allowed to them and not
allowed to us?"
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
by Boris Tumanov
Translated by Pavel Pushkin
Source: Novoe Vremya, No. 15, 2006, p. 22
Agency WPS
April 17, 2006 Monday
What the Papers Say Part A (Russia)
Russia's current foreign policy is confined to one formula; Russia's
contemporary foreign policy is confined to a single formula: "Why can't
we do what they do?" For example, the West is going to recognize the
independence of Kosovo - so why can't Russia recognize the independence
of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the Trans-Dniester Republic?
Leaving aside Gazprom's projects aimed at "energy security" on a
global scale, Russia's contemporary foreign policy is confined to a
single formula: "Why can't we do what they do?" Lately, we have started
speaking in the same terms about the problem of unrecognized states:
"They're going to recognize the independence of Kosovo, so why can't
we recognize the independence of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the
Trans-Dniester Republic?"
Meanwhile, the solving of the Kosovo problem that has already
practically become a precedent is primarily resolving of the
fundamental contradiction embodied in the international law that has
declared territorial integrity of countries and the right of nations
for self-determination equally sacred. In other words, if Serbia
did not announce through its Foreign Minister Draskovic about its
agreement with separation of Kosovo, proceeding from international
practice it would be impossible to legitimize the striving of ethnic
Albanian people populating Kosovo for independence. Russia defended
its territorial integrity in Chechnya even in a more cruel way
that Milosevic in Kosovo but the international community condemned
it only for "excessive cruelty" without questioning of the right
of Moscow to retain Chechnya within Russian borders. That is why
belligerent joy of Russian politicians hoping to use the precedents
of Kosovo for official annexing of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and for
transformation of the Trans-Dniester Republic into a Russian military
base is untimely or is even ungrounded. All this may happen without
undesirable consequences for Russia only if Chisinau and Tbilisi give
up these territories voluntarily.
Of course, knowing the psychological condition of the Russian
establishment it is definitely difficult to believe that Moscow
will take this condition into account. In the worst case Russian
diplomacy will simply wave it off referring to the fact that the West
"has twisted hands" of the Serbian authorities. This circumstance
allegedly enables us not to take into account the soft-body stance
of Belgrade caused by terrible tortures because territorial integrity
of any state is sacred.
However, very soon we will definitely learn that not only Georgian
and Moldovan wines but also cheeses are polluted with pesticides or,
say, radioactive and hence their import to the Russian Federation
is prohibited. We will also definitely witness more hysterically
humanitarian raids of the Emergency Situations Ministry to the
Trans-Dniester Republic being as pointless as the notorious transfer
of airborne troops to Pristina.
In any case, let us temporarily get abstracted from the selfless
defending of independence of Abkhazia or Trans-Dniester Republic by
Russia under the flag of the right of nations for self-determination.
Let us forget about the Cossack volunteers and battalion of the
Confederation of Peoples of Caucasus commanded by Shamil Basaev,
about the Abkhaz attack aviation that has appeared suddenly and has
disappeared equally suddenly, as well as about Russian generals who
have crushed Georgian and Moldovan invaders. Let us forget about
Russian citizenship of Abkhaz and South Ossetian people. Let us
formulate the question in the following way: in a hypothetical case if
Tbilisi and, by the way, Baku generously agrees to give up Abkhazia,
South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh, would the obvious choice of Abkhaz,
Ossetian and Armenian people contradict the letter of international law
then? Definitely it would not. In this case the matter is right about
nations or ethnic groups that have the right for self-determination.
For God's sake, explain to me what kind of nation lives in the
Trans-Dniester Republic whose population consists of three ethnic
groups of Moldavan, Russian and Ukrainian people being approximately
equal? What has this incidentally appeared mixture to do with the right
of nations for self-determination? What kind of ethnic notion it is,
Trans-Dniester people?
At any rate, it is true that Russian politicians who feel nostalgia
about the Soviet Union still are not abashed by this nonsense because
they know perfectly well that political expedience can create a nation
or abolish it. Can you recall such ethnic groups as Karabakh and
Nakhichevan people? Behind these exotic names were ordinary Armenians
and equally ordinary Azerbaijanis. However, Moscow decided that it
would not be expedient to call Nagorno-Karabakh in accordance with
ethnic belonging of its population (like it was common in all the
rest of the territory of the Soviet Union) the Armenian Autonomous
Region and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
the Azerbaijani Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. In the first
case Moscow was afraid to wake up (but finally woke up) a natural
striving of Armenians of Karabakh for reunion with Armenia and in
the second case Moscow did not wish to explain why an autonomous
region in the territory of Armenia was subordinated not to Yerevan
but to Baku according to demand of Turkey specially included into
the Russian-Turkish agreement on "friendship" singed in 1921.
Now Moscow got it into its head that separatism of the Trans-Dniester
Republic deliberately provoked by Anatoly Lukyanov back in the times
of the agony of the Soviet Union could be used by it as a tool to
pressurize Moldova and Ukraine and as a military bridgehead against
NATO. That is why Russia will keep making believe that Trans-Dniester
people are a normal nation and their wish of "self-determination"
is protected by the same international law that Moscow interprets
in the aforementioned manner, "Why is this allowed to them and not
allowed to us?"
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress