Tweet
THE MOMENT OF TRUTH WITHOUT ANY HALFTONES
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1407: the-moment-of-truth-without-any-halftones&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
Monday, 24 March 2014 11:34
The events in the Crimea, developing with kaleidoscopic speed, remain
in the focus of attention of the international community.
A process of secession of the Republic of Crimea from Ukraine took
place actually in a week, creating a new geopolitical situation and
extremely deteriorating the relations between Russia and the West,
which is categorically unwilling to accept the results of the Crimean
referendum on the autonomy's unification with the Russian Federation.
A special place in a series of political events on the Crimean
issue is occupied by Russian President Vladimir Putin's statement in
connection with the appeal of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol
city on the unification with Russia, which he made on March 18 at the
Kremlin. Immediately after the statement, an agreement was signed
between Russia and the Crimea on the Republic's and Sevastopol's
unification with the Russian Federation.
There is no need to focus on the procedure of adoption of a new
subject into he structure of Russia, as there is no doubt that it
will be approved without any delay at both chambers of the Russian
Parliament. We think that in the context of the Karabakh settlement,
of much more interest is Vladimir Putin's statement, which can be
considered program in terms of assessing the situation in the field of
contemporary international law. And it should be noted that Putin's
statement, on the one hand, contains responses to Russia's political
opponents who have extremely sharply reacted to such a step by the
Kremlin and, on the other hand, it has caused a lot of questions by
the Karabakh people.
We will not make direct analogy between the Crimea and Nagorno
Karabakh, as there is no absolute analogy. Surely, there are serious
historical and political differences; similarly, they have no less
significant similarity. Say, as in the case of Karabakh, which was
given to Azerbaijan by Stalin's voluntaristic decision, the Crimea
was included in the structure of Ukraine by one stroke of Nikita
Khrushchev, regardless of the residents' national composition,
as Putin noted. And in both cases, the processes developed with
the aim of correcting the historic mistake of the past. It is from
this point of view that there is every reason to speak of something
general allowing us to state the identity of the steps by Artsakh
and the Crimea on the proclamation of their independence, which was
done in both cases, basing on the realization of the right of peoples
to self-determination.
The main postulate of Putin's statements is clear - the
self-determination of peoples is the basic principle for the
resolution of the Crimean issue. "Announcing its independence and
appointing a referendum, the Supreme Council of the Crimea referred
to the United Nations Charter, which states the right of nations to
self-determination", the President of Russia stressed. Recalling that
Ukraine itself, announcing its withdrawal from the USSR, did the same,
Putin wondered why Ukraine exercised this right, but the Crimea is
denied of it. Agree that Artsakh can address the same question both
to the Russian leadership and the international community. Why is
Artsakh denied of this right? After all, yet in 1991, the people of
Artsakh, "in full compliance with democratic procedures and rules of
international law" (Putin's quote concerning Crimea), held a national
referendum, with the participation of dozens of international observers
who stated its full legitimacy. Or, are different criteria operating?
Another reason suggested by Vladimir Putin to support the decision
of the Crimea to secede from Ukraine concerns the threat of forced
assimilation of the Russian-speaking population of the autonomy,
and later - its life. Opposing the West, which considers Kosovo
an exceptional case, as there were many human victims during the
conflict, Putin angrily asks, "So, should any conflict be brought to
human losses?" Fortunately, bloodshed didn't take pace in the Crimea
and hopefully will not. But, the people of Artsakh, which was under
the threat of physical extermination, had to experience the horrors
of the war unleashed by Azerbaijan in response to its democratic will.
Even earlier, the bloody "sumgait" and "baku" took place. Is not this
another strong argument in favor of the decision of the people of
Artsakh to establish an independent and sovereign state? "The people of
the Crimea raised the issue firmly, uncompromisingly, and without any
halftones. The referendum was conducted openly and honestly, and the
people of the Crimea expressed their will clearly and convincingly"
- this is another quote by Putin. Agree, if the words "the people of
the Crimea" and "the Crimea" are replaced by "the people of Artsakh"
and "Artsakh", the assessment of the actions of the people of Nagorno
Karabakh will be similarly convincing.
To summarize, we can say that Russia, in the name of Vladimir Putin,
demonstrated clearly and "without any halftones", its position on the
fundamental principle of international law - the right of peoples to
self-determination. And here arises a natural question related to
the morality: will Moscow demonstrate consistency in defending the
right of peoples to self-determination, which was realized in strict
accordance with the letter and spirit of international law? Perhaps,
the moment of truth is coming for it, because Russia as a state -
permanent member of the UN Security Council and Russia as a co-chair
of the OSCE Minsk Group cannot have different positions on the same
issue. Otherwise, it will become manifestation, according to Putin
himself, of not even double standards, but some surprising primitive
and clear cynicism. Let's recall his phrase, "One cannot subject
everything so rudely to his own interests, call the same thing white
today and black - tomorrow".
Leonid MARTIROSSIAN Editor-in-Chief of Azat Artsakh newspaper
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1407: the-moment-of-truth-without-any-halftones&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
Monday, 24 March 2014 11:34
The events in the Crimea, developing with kaleidoscopic speed, remain
in the focus of attention of the international community.
A process of secession of the Republic of Crimea from Ukraine took
place actually in a week, creating a new geopolitical situation and
extremely deteriorating the relations between Russia and the West,
which is categorically unwilling to accept the results of the Crimean
referendum on the autonomy's unification with the Russian Federation.
A special place in a series of political events on the Crimean
issue is occupied by Russian President Vladimir Putin's statement in
connection with the appeal of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol
city on the unification with Russia, which he made on March 18 at the
Kremlin. Immediately after the statement, an agreement was signed
between Russia and the Crimea on the Republic's and Sevastopol's
unification with the Russian Federation.
There is no need to focus on the procedure of adoption of a new
subject into he structure of Russia, as there is no doubt that it
will be approved without any delay at both chambers of the Russian
Parliament. We think that in the context of the Karabakh settlement,
of much more interest is Vladimir Putin's statement, which can be
considered program in terms of assessing the situation in the field of
contemporary international law. And it should be noted that Putin's
statement, on the one hand, contains responses to Russia's political
opponents who have extremely sharply reacted to such a step by the
Kremlin and, on the other hand, it has caused a lot of questions by
the Karabakh people.
We will not make direct analogy between the Crimea and Nagorno
Karabakh, as there is no absolute analogy. Surely, there are serious
historical and political differences; similarly, they have no less
significant similarity. Say, as in the case of Karabakh, which was
given to Azerbaijan by Stalin's voluntaristic decision, the Crimea
was included in the structure of Ukraine by one stroke of Nikita
Khrushchev, regardless of the residents' national composition,
as Putin noted. And in both cases, the processes developed with
the aim of correcting the historic mistake of the past. It is from
this point of view that there is every reason to speak of something
general allowing us to state the identity of the steps by Artsakh
and the Crimea on the proclamation of their independence, which was
done in both cases, basing on the realization of the right of peoples
to self-determination.
The main postulate of Putin's statements is clear - the
self-determination of peoples is the basic principle for the
resolution of the Crimean issue. "Announcing its independence and
appointing a referendum, the Supreme Council of the Crimea referred
to the United Nations Charter, which states the right of nations to
self-determination", the President of Russia stressed. Recalling that
Ukraine itself, announcing its withdrawal from the USSR, did the same,
Putin wondered why Ukraine exercised this right, but the Crimea is
denied of it. Agree that Artsakh can address the same question both
to the Russian leadership and the international community. Why is
Artsakh denied of this right? After all, yet in 1991, the people of
Artsakh, "in full compliance with democratic procedures and rules of
international law" (Putin's quote concerning Crimea), held a national
referendum, with the participation of dozens of international observers
who stated its full legitimacy. Or, are different criteria operating?
Another reason suggested by Vladimir Putin to support the decision
of the Crimea to secede from Ukraine concerns the threat of forced
assimilation of the Russian-speaking population of the autonomy,
and later - its life. Opposing the West, which considers Kosovo
an exceptional case, as there were many human victims during the
conflict, Putin angrily asks, "So, should any conflict be brought to
human losses?" Fortunately, bloodshed didn't take pace in the Crimea
and hopefully will not. But, the people of Artsakh, which was under
the threat of physical extermination, had to experience the horrors
of the war unleashed by Azerbaijan in response to its democratic will.
Even earlier, the bloody "sumgait" and "baku" took place. Is not this
another strong argument in favor of the decision of the people of
Artsakh to establish an independent and sovereign state? "The people of
the Crimea raised the issue firmly, uncompromisingly, and without any
halftones. The referendum was conducted openly and honestly, and the
people of the Crimea expressed their will clearly and convincingly"
- this is another quote by Putin. Agree, if the words "the people of
the Crimea" and "the Crimea" are replaced by "the people of Artsakh"
and "Artsakh", the assessment of the actions of the people of Nagorno
Karabakh will be similarly convincing.
To summarize, we can say that Russia, in the name of Vladimir Putin,
demonstrated clearly and "without any halftones", its position on the
fundamental principle of international law - the right of peoples to
self-determination. And here arises a natural question related to
the morality: will Moscow demonstrate consistency in defending the
right of peoples to self-determination, which was realized in strict
accordance with the letter and spirit of international law? Perhaps,
the moment of truth is coming for it, because Russia as a state -
permanent member of the UN Security Council and Russia as a co-chair
of the OSCE Minsk Group cannot have different positions on the same
issue. Otherwise, it will become manifestation, according to Putin
himself, of not even double standards, but some surprising primitive
and clear cynicism. Let's recall his phrase, "One cannot subject
everything so rudely to his own interests, call the same thing white
today and black - tomorrow".
Leonid MARTIROSSIAN Editor-in-Chief of Azat Artsakh newspaper