Tweet
VAGUE CRITERIA, or WHY RUSSIA SHOULD BE CONSISTENT
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1395: vague-criteria-or-why-russia-should-be-consistent&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
Saturday, 15 March 2014 12:33
Exactly a day is left till the referendum on the future
political status of the Crimea, which is to answer a single question:
will Ukraine remain a unitary state or will the autonomy join Russia?
In fact, the dynamics of the situation convincingly demonstrates that
the further events will go on the second scenario.
It is obvious for many people that the citizens of the Crimea, the
overwhelming majority of which are Russians, will vote for the
reunification of the peninsula with Russia, from the structure of
which it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954.
Such an outcome of the referendum scheduled for March 16 is confirmed
also by the preliminary social survey among the Crimean voters, as a
result of which 70-80% of the respondents stated their readiness to
join the Russian Federation.
We can definitely state that the Crimea's joining Russia will create
quite a new geopolitical situation in the world. Ukraine has become
the epicenter of the conflict of interests of the West and Russia.
When putting aside the rhetoric with democratic touch and the
conflicting parties' appeal to international law, which is interpreted
by each of them in their own way, exclusively in their own favor, then
the developing events can be viewed purely as a struggle of the West
and Russia for influence in Ukraine. This process should be viewed in
the context of division of the spheres of influence between Russia and
the West as geopolitical centers of power, which started even before
the collapse of the USSR and hasn't actually ended yet. The purpose of
the Western coalition led by the U.S. is clear - to weaken Russia and
in the future - to involve Ukraine in NATO, with the prospect of
installing missiles along the perimeter of the Ukrainian-Russian
border. For Russia, it is obvious that it lost the so-called mainland
Ukraine after the violent overthrow of President Yanukovich and the
pro-Western radicals' coming to power, and Moscow's current goal is to
keep in the orbit of its interests, at least, the strategically
important Crimea, with its pro-Russian population.
We're not going to discuss now whether the Crimea's decision to join
Russia is legitimately or not. If we consider the issue through the
prism of one of the imperative principles of international law - the
principle of self-determination of peoples, so we can state with some
reservations that such a step by the Crimean autonomy does not
contradict the rules of the UN Charter. Article 1 of the Pact on Human
Rights of 1966 directly reads, "All peoples have the right to
self-determination. In accordance with this right, they freely
determine their political status and freely ensure their economic,
social and cultural development". There is another problem - namely
the international law enforcement practice. Here we come to the
unpleasant thought that certain erosion of international law has taken
place in the modern world.
As is known, before the serious geopolitical tectonic processes
related to the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia, an international
security system based on the Helsinki Act of 1975 and signed by 33
European states, as well as the United States and Canada acted in the
world. According to many experts, recently the right of peoples to
self-determination has pushed the principle of territorial integrity
into the background. As a result, there are over 50 states today in
Europe, due to the formation of new ones. And I must say that this
process is not completed yet, as referendums on independence are also
planned in Scotland and Catalonia. But the problem is that currently
international law is applied selectively and is interpreted depending
on who is backing the self-determining entity.
Assessing the existing situation in the international jurisprudence,
it is difficult to resist the temptation to make comparative analysis
and parallels between different facts, strictly - acts of secession.
We remember that when Nagorno Karabakh pointed out fairly to the
Kosovo precedent, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs responded that the
comparison with Kosovo was incorrect. However, one can fully agree
with such an opinion - in view that Artsakh, which has self-determined
in its historic territory, has much more rights to independence than
Kosovo, which has proclaimed its statehood on the native Serbian
lands. We received a nearly similar answer, but already from Russia,
after its recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. They didn't want to listen to our grounds on the perfect
right of Artsakh to self-determination and sovereign statehood. In
other words, the dual standards were acting, hiding behind the screen
of international law.
But, let's recall the Crimean situation. Listening to the current
arguments of the Russian side for the resolution of the Crimean
Supreme Council on joining Russia, we have the feeling of déjà vu, or
repetition of the past. Our past. But, we are also sad and regretful.
Over 20 years ago, Karabakh appealed to the same principles and norms
of international law, to which Russia is sending its political
opponents now. The top leadership of the Russian Federation has
recognized the right of the Crimean people to self-determination.
Speaker of the Upper Chamber of the Russian Parliament Valentina
Matviyenko stated clearly that "the RF Federation Council will support
the resolution of the Crimean Parliament on a referendum and this
resolution will be legitimate", emphasizing that just a referendum is
the basic criteria of expression of a people's will.
Agree that quite an unpleasant situation has occurred for Russia -
accusing today its political opponents of using dual standards,
Russia, actually, did it yesterday itself. Will it be a lesson for the
country? We believe that a universal approach should be used for the
resolution of ethno-political conflicts, and Russia as a co-chair
state of the OSCE Minsk Group should be consistent, basing on the key
principle applied to the Crimea - a people should determine its fate
independently.
Leonid MARTIROSSIAN
Editor-in-Chief of Azat Artsakh newspaper
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1395: vague-criteria-or-why-russia-should-be-consistent&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
Saturday, 15 March 2014 12:33
Exactly a day is left till the referendum on the future
political status of the Crimea, which is to answer a single question:
will Ukraine remain a unitary state or will the autonomy join Russia?
In fact, the dynamics of the situation convincingly demonstrates that
the further events will go on the second scenario.
It is obvious for many people that the citizens of the Crimea, the
overwhelming majority of which are Russians, will vote for the
reunification of the peninsula with Russia, from the structure of
which it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954.
Such an outcome of the referendum scheduled for March 16 is confirmed
also by the preliminary social survey among the Crimean voters, as a
result of which 70-80% of the respondents stated their readiness to
join the Russian Federation.
We can definitely state that the Crimea's joining Russia will create
quite a new geopolitical situation in the world. Ukraine has become
the epicenter of the conflict of interests of the West and Russia.
When putting aside the rhetoric with democratic touch and the
conflicting parties' appeal to international law, which is interpreted
by each of them in their own way, exclusively in their own favor, then
the developing events can be viewed purely as a struggle of the West
and Russia for influence in Ukraine. This process should be viewed in
the context of division of the spheres of influence between Russia and
the West as geopolitical centers of power, which started even before
the collapse of the USSR and hasn't actually ended yet. The purpose of
the Western coalition led by the U.S. is clear - to weaken Russia and
in the future - to involve Ukraine in NATO, with the prospect of
installing missiles along the perimeter of the Ukrainian-Russian
border. For Russia, it is obvious that it lost the so-called mainland
Ukraine after the violent overthrow of President Yanukovich and the
pro-Western radicals' coming to power, and Moscow's current goal is to
keep in the orbit of its interests, at least, the strategically
important Crimea, with its pro-Russian population.
We're not going to discuss now whether the Crimea's decision to join
Russia is legitimately or not. If we consider the issue through the
prism of one of the imperative principles of international law - the
principle of self-determination of peoples, so we can state with some
reservations that such a step by the Crimean autonomy does not
contradict the rules of the UN Charter. Article 1 of the Pact on Human
Rights of 1966 directly reads, "All peoples have the right to
self-determination. In accordance with this right, they freely
determine their political status and freely ensure their economic,
social and cultural development". There is another problem - namely
the international law enforcement practice. Here we come to the
unpleasant thought that certain erosion of international law has taken
place in the modern world.
As is known, before the serious geopolitical tectonic processes
related to the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia, an international
security system based on the Helsinki Act of 1975 and signed by 33
European states, as well as the United States and Canada acted in the
world. According to many experts, recently the right of peoples to
self-determination has pushed the principle of territorial integrity
into the background. As a result, there are over 50 states today in
Europe, due to the formation of new ones. And I must say that this
process is not completed yet, as referendums on independence are also
planned in Scotland and Catalonia. But the problem is that currently
international law is applied selectively and is interpreted depending
on who is backing the self-determining entity.
Assessing the existing situation in the international jurisprudence,
it is difficult to resist the temptation to make comparative analysis
and parallels between different facts, strictly - acts of secession.
We remember that when Nagorno Karabakh pointed out fairly to the
Kosovo precedent, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs responded that the
comparison with Kosovo was incorrect. However, one can fully agree
with such an opinion - in view that Artsakh, which has self-determined
in its historic territory, has much more rights to independence than
Kosovo, which has proclaimed its statehood on the native Serbian
lands. We received a nearly similar answer, but already from Russia,
after its recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. They didn't want to listen to our grounds on the perfect
right of Artsakh to self-determination and sovereign statehood. In
other words, the dual standards were acting, hiding behind the screen
of international law.
But, let's recall the Crimean situation. Listening to the current
arguments of the Russian side for the resolution of the Crimean
Supreme Council on joining Russia, we have the feeling of déjà vu, or
repetition of the past. Our past. But, we are also sad and regretful.
Over 20 years ago, Karabakh appealed to the same principles and norms
of international law, to which Russia is sending its political
opponents now. The top leadership of the Russian Federation has
recognized the right of the Crimean people to self-determination.
Speaker of the Upper Chamber of the Russian Parliament Valentina
Matviyenko stated clearly that "the RF Federation Council will support
the resolution of the Crimean Parliament on a referendum and this
resolution will be legitimate", emphasizing that just a referendum is
the basic criteria of expression of a people's will.
Agree that quite an unpleasant situation has occurred for Russia -
accusing today its political opponents of using dual standards,
Russia, actually, did it yesterday itself. Will it be a lesson for the
country? We believe that a universal approach should be used for the
resolution of ethno-political conflicts, and Russia as a co-chair
state of the OSCE Minsk Group should be consistent, basing on the key
principle applied to the Crimea - a people should determine its fate
independently.
Leonid MARTIROSSIAN
Editor-in-Chief of Azat Artsakh newspaper