Tweet
Tiraspol Times & Weekly Review, Moldova
Dec 1 2006
U.N. plea: "We are not a threat to anyone"
In a text to the United Nations, Pridnestrovie answers claims by
Moldova that so-called "frozen conflicts" are a danger to world
peace. It says that it is not a threat to anyone, and that it is
simply concerned with re-building its wartorn economy. The
alternative is worse.
By Karen Ryan, 01/Dec/2006
NEW YORK (Tiraspol Times / Inner City Press) - How on earth can a
tiny, little land-locked country be a threat to anyone? That is the
question which Pridnestrovie, also called Transnistria, asks in a
formal text filed at the United Nations along with two other
unrecognized states, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
The threats, say the foreign ministers of the three countries, come
from their much larger neighbors: Aggressive states who, says the
text, have a history of using force, waging war to impose their
sovereignty on people who do not wish to live under their rule. This,
argues the ministers, is a remnant of the worst of Stalin's
Soviet-era imperalism ... and it must be rejected by peaceful,
democratic folks everywhere.
The joint message from the unrecognized states came after Moldova,
Azerbaijan and Georgia managed to pass a resolution to put the issue
of the so-called "frozen conflicts" in front of the United Nations
General Assembly. The United States, which considers itself an
interested party with respect to every disagreement and territory,
spoke in favor of the resolution. So did Ukraine, on behalf of "the
GUAM states": Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova.
The response from the foreign ministers of three unrecognized
countries says, in part, that: "We have managed to restore a
war-destroyed economy and effectively overcome the economic and
social consequences of the aggressive wars which our larger neighbors
waged against us. We are a threat to no one, but are simply concerned
with the development of the economies of our countries, and with
solving social problems that still exists. We are ready to live as
peaceful members of the world community and have friendly relations
with all states.
It also points out that an attempt to escalate the conflicts and
involve other countries, even at the United Nations level, will have
unforeseen consequences. Armenia, although not a co-signer, agrees
that by bringing in new parties, existing status talks are disrupted.
Armenia's Foreign Minister its UN Ambassador publicly stated that if
Azerbaijan continues pushing the issue before the United Nations,
existing peace talks will stop. Armenian sources privately speak more
darkly of an alliance of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova,
collectively intent on involving the UN in reigning in their
breakaway regions including South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and
Pridnestrovie (Transdniestria).
Strange antics at the United Nations
As a first salvo in this dark alliance, a panel discussion in
November in the United Nations Trusteeship Council featured two law
professors, Christopher J. Borgen and Mark A. Meyer, arguing against
a series of secessionist states. Although supposedly representing the
New York City Bar in front of the UN panel, Meyer is also a partner
in a private law firm doing a great deal of government related
business in Romania, perhaps the closest ally of Moldova in its quest
to subdue the will of the people of Pridnestrovie to
self-determination.
While the underlying report concerns Moldova and Pridnestrovie, which
is referred to in the report as Transnistria, the two professors
repeatedly referred to other conflicts, including Kosovo and
Montenegro. Their point was to try to distinguish those two from the
so-called frozen conflicts, which apart from Pridnestrovie also
include Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Ambassadors
of Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Georgia (the other members, with Moldova,
of the "GUAM" group) all spoke, before the panel deigned to take
questions.
A Tiraspol Times' collaborator, New York based journalist Matthew
Russell Lee, asked the professors to explain the basis for Abkhazia
being dealt with in the UN Security Council, while the other
conflicts are before the OSCE, and infrequently the General Assembly.
" - That's a political question," the moderator said. "We're talking
about the law."
As if their unconnected, one muttered. "Okay, then - are you saying
that the Security Council has or would have no power, under Chapter
Seven of the UN Charter, to move for Kosovar independence?"
" - Sure there are vast powers under Chapter Seven," said one. "But
our report is not about that." Then what is it about, asks Lee? And
why did the Bar Association of the City of New York get bought into
one side of a two-sided argument? No answer yet ... We'll see.
Dec 1 2006
U.N. plea: "We are not a threat to anyone"
In a text to the United Nations, Pridnestrovie answers claims by
Moldova that so-called "frozen conflicts" are a danger to world
peace. It says that it is not a threat to anyone, and that it is
simply concerned with re-building its wartorn economy. The
alternative is worse.
By Karen Ryan, 01/Dec/2006
NEW YORK (Tiraspol Times / Inner City Press) - How on earth can a
tiny, little land-locked country be a threat to anyone? That is the
question which Pridnestrovie, also called Transnistria, asks in a
formal text filed at the United Nations along with two other
unrecognized states, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
The threats, say the foreign ministers of the three countries, come
from their much larger neighbors: Aggressive states who, says the
text, have a history of using force, waging war to impose their
sovereignty on people who do not wish to live under their rule. This,
argues the ministers, is a remnant of the worst of Stalin's
Soviet-era imperalism ... and it must be rejected by peaceful,
democratic folks everywhere.
The joint message from the unrecognized states came after Moldova,
Azerbaijan and Georgia managed to pass a resolution to put the issue
of the so-called "frozen conflicts" in front of the United Nations
General Assembly. The United States, which considers itself an
interested party with respect to every disagreement and territory,
spoke in favor of the resolution. So did Ukraine, on behalf of "the
GUAM states": Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova.
The response from the foreign ministers of three unrecognized
countries says, in part, that: "We have managed to restore a
war-destroyed economy and effectively overcome the economic and
social consequences of the aggressive wars which our larger neighbors
waged against us. We are a threat to no one, but are simply concerned
with the development of the economies of our countries, and with
solving social problems that still exists. We are ready to live as
peaceful members of the world community and have friendly relations
with all states.
It also points out that an attempt to escalate the conflicts and
involve other countries, even at the United Nations level, will have
unforeseen consequences. Armenia, although not a co-signer, agrees
that by bringing in new parties, existing status talks are disrupted.
Armenia's Foreign Minister its UN Ambassador publicly stated that if
Azerbaijan continues pushing the issue before the United Nations,
existing peace talks will stop. Armenian sources privately speak more
darkly of an alliance of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova,
collectively intent on involving the UN in reigning in their
breakaway regions including South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and
Pridnestrovie (Transdniestria).
Strange antics at the United Nations
As a first salvo in this dark alliance, a panel discussion in
November in the United Nations Trusteeship Council featured two law
professors, Christopher J. Borgen and Mark A. Meyer, arguing against
a series of secessionist states. Although supposedly representing the
New York City Bar in front of the UN panel, Meyer is also a partner
in a private law firm doing a great deal of government related
business in Romania, perhaps the closest ally of Moldova in its quest
to subdue the will of the people of Pridnestrovie to
self-determination.
While the underlying report concerns Moldova and Pridnestrovie, which
is referred to in the report as Transnistria, the two professors
repeatedly referred to other conflicts, including Kosovo and
Montenegro. Their point was to try to distinguish those two from the
so-called frozen conflicts, which apart from Pridnestrovie also
include Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Ambassadors
of Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Georgia (the other members, with Moldova,
of the "GUAM" group) all spoke, before the panel deigned to take
questions.
A Tiraspol Times' collaborator, New York based journalist Matthew
Russell Lee, asked the professors to explain the basis for Abkhazia
being dealt with in the UN Security Council, while the other
conflicts are before the OSCE, and infrequently the General Assembly.
" - That's a political question," the moderator said. "We're talking
about the law."
As if their unconnected, one muttered. "Okay, then - are you saying
that the Security Council has or would have no power, under Chapter
Seven of the UN Charter, to move for Kosovar independence?"
" - Sure there are vast powers under Chapter Seven," said one. "But
our report is not about that." Then what is it about, asks Lee? And
why did the Bar Association of the City of New York get bought into
one side of a two-sided argument? No answer yet ... We'll see.