Tweet
'NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA': WHY OTHERS CAN'T, IF KOSOVO CAN?
Arminfo
2010-07-27 17:04:00
ArmInfo. Last week the International Court of Justice in the Hague
declared that Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia
is legal, writes Yuri Roks, Nezavisimaya Gazeta correspondent, in
his item "Waiting for Honesty".
He brings the words by Philip Crowley, U.S. Assistant Secretary of
State, saying that "Now is the time for them - for Kosovo and Serbia
to put aside their differences and move forward, working together
constructively to resolve practical issues to the betterment of the
lives of the people of Kosovo, Serbia, and the region." However,
Crowley did not say how to do that in practice, for sovereignty is
the very stalemate in the relations of Belgrade and Pristina.
Nevertheless, Crowley highlighted that it is not applicable to any
other situation and cannot trigger more nationalistic movements in
the rest of Europe.
"Crowley as any other American official may speak of everything. After
bedlam made in Iraq by Washington, statements by American officials
no longer surprise anyone. Of course, one can say like Crowley
that the decision by Hague Court will have no impact on Abkhazia
and South Ossetia or Nagorny Karabakh and Transdniestria. One can
pretend not seeing the high response to that decision. For instance,
one can neglect the call of the Nagorny Karabakh Republic to Armenia
to recognize sovereignty of the NKR and speed up the process of
international or at least partial recognition of the republic
patronized by Armenia," the author writes.
As regards inadmissibility of making Kosovo a precedent, the authors
of the project say that conflicts are different. In particular,
they say that in the post-Soviet area the centralized authorities
lost jurisdiction over the autonomous regions that later declared
independence and now demand the world community to recognize
their independence as a fair solution to the situation as they
think. One can share this thesis partially. It is not important
that the Abhkazian-Georgian or Moldavian-Trasndniestrian conflicts
might be provoked by a third party that wanted to retain power in
the post-Soviet republics-"colonies." The matter is that there was
favorable situation for such provocation, especially when a nation
or part of the society had a hidden or open desire to dominate over
the other more than it was laid in the history of relations of those
antagonists. Therefore, having gained de-facto independence from the
center, these regions will not refuse their proclaimed sovereignty.
Especially, when this sovereignty has already been recognized once.
For instance, Abhkazia and South Ossetia were recognized by Russia
and Venezuela, Nicaragua and Nauru. Hence, such a differentiated
approach to separatist problems when Kosovo can because :but others
cannot because:is becoming archaic. And the following statement
by the Nagorny Karabakh Foreign Ministry seems quite legitimate:
"By its resolution of July 22, 2010, the International Court of
Justice confirmed and legally endorsed that the right of nations to
self-determination and its realization do not violate any principle
or norm of the general international law, including the principle of
territorial integrity.This resolution is of extremely legal, political
and moral, as well as universal precedent-related significance and
cannot be limited just with Kosovo's example."
The peoples that declared independence and have been living in freedom
for almost 20 years do not care for legal, political, economic nuances,
combinations and expediencies. They have much simpler approach:
Kosovo was pressed, but gained independence and we did so.
They suffered thousands of victims and we did, so why they are allowed
to be sovereign but we are not, despite our centuries-long history?
From: A. Papazian
Arminfo
2010-07-27 17:04:00
ArmInfo. Last week the International Court of Justice in the Hague
declared that Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence from Serbia
is legal, writes Yuri Roks, Nezavisimaya Gazeta correspondent, in
his item "Waiting for Honesty".
He brings the words by Philip Crowley, U.S. Assistant Secretary of
State, saying that "Now is the time for them - for Kosovo and Serbia
to put aside their differences and move forward, working together
constructively to resolve practical issues to the betterment of the
lives of the people of Kosovo, Serbia, and the region." However,
Crowley did not say how to do that in practice, for sovereignty is
the very stalemate in the relations of Belgrade and Pristina.
Nevertheless, Crowley highlighted that it is not applicable to any
other situation and cannot trigger more nationalistic movements in
the rest of Europe.
"Crowley as any other American official may speak of everything. After
bedlam made in Iraq by Washington, statements by American officials
no longer surprise anyone. Of course, one can say like Crowley
that the decision by Hague Court will have no impact on Abkhazia
and South Ossetia or Nagorny Karabakh and Transdniestria. One can
pretend not seeing the high response to that decision. For instance,
one can neglect the call of the Nagorny Karabakh Republic to Armenia
to recognize sovereignty of the NKR and speed up the process of
international or at least partial recognition of the republic
patronized by Armenia," the author writes.
As regards inadmissibility of making Kosovo a precedent, the authors
of the project say that conflicts are different. In particular,
they say that in the post-Soviet area the centralized authorities
lost jurisdiction over the autonomous regions that later declared
independence and now demand the world community to recognize
their independence as a fair solution to the situation as they
think. One can share this thesis partially. It is not important
that the Abhkazian-Georgian or Moldavian-Trasndniestrian conflicts
might be provoked by a third party that wanted to retain power in
the post-Soviet republics-"colonies." The matter is that there was
favorable situation for such provocation, especially when a nation
or part of the society had a hidden or open desire to dominate over
the other more than it was laid in the history of relations of those
antagonists. Therefore, having gained de-facto independence from the
center, these regions will not refuse their proclaimed sovereignty.
Especially, when this sovereignty has already been recognized once.
For instance, Abhkazia and South Ossetia were recognized by Russia
and Venezuela, Nicaragua and Nauru. Hence, such a differentiated
approach to separatist problems when Kosovo can because :but others
cannot because:is becoming archaic. And the following statement
by the Nagorny Karabakh Foreign Ministry seems quite legitimate:
"By its resolution of July 22, 2010, the International Court of
Justice confirmed and legally endorsed that the right of nations to
self-determination and its realization do not violate any principle
or norm of the general international law, including the principle of
territorial integrity.This resolution is of extremely legal, political
and moral, as well as universal precedent-related significance and
cannot be limited just with Kosovo's example."
The peoples that declared independence and have been living in freedom
for almost 20 years do not care for legal, political, economic nuances,
combinations and expediencies. They have much simpler approach:
Kosovo was pressed, but gained independence and we did so.
They suffered thousands of victims and we did, so why they are allowed
to be sovereign but we are not, despite our centuries-long history?
From: A. Papazian