Tweet
MOST RECENT ARGUMENT OF THE SUPER-STATES
Karine Ter-Sahakyan
PanARMENIAN.Net
25.09.2008 GMT+04:00
The right of the strongest has been prevailing in international
community lately; it has replaced both the principle of territorial
integrity and the right of nations to self-determination.
The principle of territorial integrity of a state is gradually becoming
the most recent argument in the dispute of competence to recognize
the self-declared republics in the post-Soviet territory. Appealing
to the world community and playing on different approaches and
contradictions between the chief players, mini-mother countries of
the former USSR are trying to confirm their right to this or that
territory. Especially persisting in the verification of this fact
are Azerbaijan and Georgia. The issue became even more painful after
Kosovo's declaration of independence, as South Ossetia, Abkhazia,
Transnistria and Nagorno Karabakh have no less authority and claims
for recognition of their independence than the Albanians of Kosovo had.
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The right of the strongest has been prevailing
in international community lately; it has replaced both the
principle of territorial integrity and the right of nations to
self-determination. On the whole, it has always been so, but refusal of
this or that ethnic group to live as before has become more relevant
lately. Former unrecognized republics of the CIS had all gained
independence except for Kosovo, which was offered it not long ago in
spite of all the objections of sober politicians against making such
an ill-considered and far-reaching step. And now we have what we have:
chaos in the Caucasus region, harsh statements of super-states about
immovability of borders of former USSR countries, which collectively
result in new tensions. Recalling the recent history we can't but
acknowledge that borders as such did not exist between the former
USSRrepublics. There had been a random /subjective/, administrative
division based on the pretensions and significance of this or that
region. We have the same picture now, only in place of the Soviet
Union appear the United States, EC and the Russian Federation.
Saakashvili's ill-considered and spontaneous step aimed at "restoration
of Constitutional order in Georgia" instantly changed the priorities
and called into question 10 basic principles of the Helsinki final
Act on security and cooperation in the Europe of 1975. An interesting
detail should be mentioned here: in 1991 the South Caucasian states
refused the succession of Soviet republics and as a model for their
new states they chose the independent republics of the Transcaucasia
of 1918. It is quite unlikely that current leaders of Georgia and
Azerbaijan are unaware that in 1918 South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno
Karabakh and Nakhijevan were not part of the Azerbaijan Democratic
Republic (ADR) or Georgia. If we view the territorial integrity from
the historical point of view, both ADR and Georgia must be considered
aggressors. However, much has been changed since then - World War II,
breakdown of the USSR, end of the "Cold War". And current statements
of such kind are made solely for political reasons. The South Caucasus
must be "torn off" from Russia at any rate. Besides, it would be more
preferable to carry the Baku oil to Europe bypassing Russia, and,
naturally, Armenia... But how efficient would this policy be, taking
into consideration the rather inflexible position of Russian leaders?
By the way, the USA never speaks about the territorial integrity of
Serbia, Iraq, and Kuwait realizing the consequences quite well. The
same is true about Russia: Moscow is unwilling to enter into a
dispute with Baku over Nagorno Karabakh. Unlike Mikhail Saakashvili,
Ilham Aliyev is a sober politician and he will enter into a war
only when he is a 100% sure of his victory. Thus, a new war is not
expected in the region as long as there is no 100% of confidence
in success. And though no one knows when the suppositions of Ilham
Aliyev will grow into confidence, we should enlist the support of
world leading power-holders. On the other hand, conflicts in distant
countries are not in the center of attention of the world powers:
crisis in the USA considerably shook the position of chief advocate
of democracy George Bush and his Vice-President Dick Cheney.
However, it would be appropriate to mention that after the
establishment of diplomatic relations between the USSR and USA in 1993,
Washington recognized the Soviet Union exactly with its then-existent
borders and not with the expanded borders, which Russia acquired
after the treaty signed with Hitler in 1940. Basing on the above
mentioned, after the USSR breakdown the USA took its stand against
all the self-declared post-Soviet republics. This is exactly what
the Russian Federation is doing today, grounding the presence of
its "peacemakers" in the territory of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and
Transnistria. In this respect Nagorno Karabakh is simply left out -
it is too small to be considered Russia and too independent...
Karine Ter-Sahakyan
PanARMENIAN.Net
25.09.2008 GMT+04:00
The right of the strongest has been prevailing in international
community lately; it has replaced both the principle of territorial
integrity and the right of nations to self-determination.
The principle of territorial integrity of a state is gradually becoming
the most recent argument in the dispute of competence to recognize
the self-declared republics in the post-Soviet territory. Appealing
to the world community and playing on different approaches and
contradictions between the chief players, mini-mother countries of
the former USSR are trying to confirm their right to this or that
territory. Especially persisting in the verification of this fact
are Azerbaijan and Georgia. The issue became even more painful after
Kosovo's declaration of independence, as South Ossetia, Abkhazia,
Transnistria and Nagorno Karabakh have no less authority and claims
for recognition of their independence than the Albanians of Kosovo had.
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The right of the strongest has been prevailing
in international community lately; it has replaced both the
principle of territorial integrity and the right of nations to
self-determination. On the whole, it has always been so, but refusal of
this or that ethnic group to live as before has become more relevant
lately. Former unrecognized republics of the CIS had all gained
independence except for Kosovo, which was offered it not long ago in
spite of all the objections of sober politicians against making such
an ill-considered and far-reaching step. And now we have what we have:
chaos in the Caucasus region, harsh statements of super-states about
immovability of borders of former USSR countries, which collectively
result in new tensions. Recalling the recent history we can't but
acknowledge that borders as such did not exist between the former
USSRrepublics. There had been a random /subjective/, administrative
division based on the pretensions and significance of this or that
region. We have the same picture now, only in place of the Soviet
Union appear the United States, EC and the Russian Federation.
Saakashvili's ill-considered and spontaneous step aimed at "restoration
of Constitutional order in Georgia" instantly changed the priorities
and called into question 10 basic principles of the Helsinki final
Act on security and cooperation in the Europe of 1975. An interesting
detail should be mentioned here: in 1991 the South Caucasian states
refused the succession of Soviet republics and as a model for their
new states they chose the independent republics of the Transcaucasia
of 1918. It is quite unlikely that current leaders of Georgia and
Azerbaijan are unaware that in 1918 South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno
Karabakh and Nakhijevan were not part of the Azerbaijan Democratic
Republic (ADR) or Georgia. If we view the territorial integrity from
the historical point of view, both ADR and Georgia must be considered
aggressors. However, much has been changed since then - World War II,
breakdown of the USSR, end of the "Cold War". And current statements
of such kind are made solely for political reasons. The South Caucasus
must be "torn off" from Russia at any rate. Besides, it would be more
preferable to carry the Baku oil to Europe bypassing Russia, and,
naturally, Armenia... But how efficient would this policy be, taking
into consideration the rather inflexible position of Russian leaders?
By the way, the USA never speaks about the territorial integrity of
Serbia, Iraq, and Kuwait realizing the consequences quite well. The
same is true about Russia: Moscow is unwilling to enter into a
dispute with Baku over Nagorno Karabakh. Unlike Mikhail Saakashvili,
Ilham Aliyev is a sober politician and he will enter into a war
only when he is a 100% sure of his victory. Thus, a new war is not
expected in the region as long as there is no 100% of confidence
in success. And though no one knows when the suppositions of Ilham
Aliyev will grow into confidence, we should enlist the support of
world leading power-holders. On the other hand, conflicts in distant
countries are not in the center of attention of the world powers:
crisis in the USA considerably shook the position of chief advocate
of democracy George Bush and his Vice-President Dick Cheney.
However, it would be appropriate to mention that after the
establishment of diplomatic relations between the USSR and USA in 1993,
Washington recognized the Soviet Union exactly with its then-existent
borders and not with the expanded borders, which Russia acquired
after the treaty signed with Hitler in 1940. Basing on the above
mentioned, after the USSR breakdown the USA took its stand against
all the self-declared post-Soviet republics. This is exactly what
the Russian Federation is doing today, grounding the presence of
its "peacemakers" in the territory of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and
Transnistria. In this respect Nagorno Karabakh is simply left out -
it is too small to be considered Russia and too independent...