Tweet
What Will Principle of Lay-Out of New Borders Be?
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - Wednesday, 14 May 2014, 17:25
There are too many indications of ongoing global stage of
`perestroika', and this time highlighting of perestroika of state
borders is one of the trends of corrections in the balance of forces.
Any global matter, including political ones, has an incubation and
latent period, which may last from several days to centuries, but one
way or another, the problem is actualizing and receiving the right to
citizenship. It is hard enough to mention categories or criteria which
would indicate that the incubation and latent period is over, and an
active period of layout of state borders has started. The best
indication, however, is the process itself.
The great powers of the world were, in fact, aligned to prevention or
conservation of this process which is, first of all, related to the
goals of the national liberation fight, the fight of the nation for
its political rights. The international communities tried long to
replace the rights of a nation with human rights, which has ended up
in disasters for many nations, their deprivation of their natural
historical and human rights, as well as serious security challenges to
more or less well-off states and continents.
The ongoing U.S.-Russia confrontation over the Ukrainian developments
has any hidden motive except annexation of Crimea. Little attention is
paid to how fast and readily the international community forgot about
annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Russia and its reluctance
to use these developments as political games.
The confrontation between the West and Russia has other reasons and
has nothing to do with the violation of principles of international
law. Modern forms of international relations do not enable conducting
an open and legitimate policy of the next division of the world to
spheres of influence? Why? Because the West does not allow for such an
approach and supposes expanding its influence all over the world. Some
countries undergo isolation and blockade as a zone where the society
is put on rehabilitation.
However, on the one hand, a breakthrough in this issue by the United
States and Russia, almost simultaneously, as the most interested
states, proves the legitimacy of this process. On the other hand, an
unpleasant picture is outlining ` lack of systemic approaches and
tricks in the performance of specific goals. Propaganda and
counterpropaganda are increasingly inefficient because some actions
are overwritten by others, analogical ones.
At the same time, the United States holds a controversial position on
new `perestroika', or rather geopolitical `perestroika'. The United
States is, no doubt, satisfied that Russia demonstrates precedents of
`perestroika' but at the same time is reluctant to give Russia a
chance to come up with relevant initiatives. Speaking about system as
such, a systemic stalemate is concerned.
However, arrangements on `perestroika' are impossible and useless
because arrangements mean emergence of a system similar to that of
Yalta and Potsdam, which is not handy for anyone.
But why is the price of just a right of a nation so high? No rights
are concerned. The problem is that the current state borders is a
factor of new wars and conflicts, it is the most serious threat to
international and global security. The world cannot and will not exist
with its current borders. If the `geopolitical perestroika' does not
happen downward, it will be done upward but the cost will be
incomparable, there will be bloodshed, economic and political losses.
Perhaps, it would be too original but, in any case, one needs to
suppose that they may go as far as revision of criteria and meaning of
state sovereignty. In other words, some states, maybe most states, may
be deprived of an internal independent status. They may focus on Max
Weber's ideal type, including of `states'.
Several dozens of states demonstrate that their peoples and societies
are repelled by statehood, and they would like to revise their
sovereign status. However, the problem is not the wish of these
peoples but that `failure states' are growing dangerous and are used
by other countries to achieve their goals. And in international
competition there is no place for blank spots and vacuum, everything
must be filled in.
For some great powers annexation or incorporation of such states by
others appears to be more acceptable than their indefinite and
vulnerable existence. However, it may take place only if `perestroika'
matures and the time for considering legitimacy comes, especially that
the demographic situation in the world is changing not in favor of the
Western community, and it somehow needs to cope with threats coming
from the `Third World' which exists objectively and continues to make
claims.
- See more at: http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32427#sthash.Hd9tVN4C.dpuf
From: Baghdasarian
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - Wednesday, 14 May 2014, 17:25
There are too many indications of ongoing global stage of
`perestroika', and this time highlighting of perestroika of state
borders is one of the trends of corrections in the balance of forces.
Any global matter, including political ones, has an incubation and
latent period, which may last from several days to centuries, but one
way or another, the problem is actualizing and receiving the right to
citizenship. It is hard enough to mention categories or criteria which
would indicate that the incubation and latent period is over, and an
active period of layout of state borders has started. The best
indication, however, is the process itself.
The great powers of the world were, in fact, aligned to prevention or
conservation of this process which is, first of all, related to the
goals of the national liberation fight, the fight of the nation for
its political rights. The international communities tried long to
replace the rights of a nation with human rights, which has ended up
in disasters for many nations, their deprivation of their natural
historical and human rights, as well as serious security challenges to
more or less well-off states and continents.
The ongoing U.S.-Russia confrontation over the Ukrainian developments
has any hidden motive except annexation of Crimea. Little attention is
paid to how fast and readily the international community forgot about
annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Russia and its reluctance
to use these developments as political games.
The confrontation between the West and Russia has other reasons and
has nothing to do with the violation of principles of international
law. Modern forms of international relations do not enable conducting
an open and legitimate policy of the next division of the world to
spheres of influence? Why? Because the West does not allow for such an
approach and supposes expanding its influence all over the world. Some
countries undergo isolation and blockade as a zone where the society
is put on rehabilitation.
However, on the one hand, a breakthrough in this issue by the United
States and Russia, almost simultaneously, as the most interested
states, proves the legitimacy of this process. On the other hand, an
unpleasant picture is outlining ` lack of systemic approaches and
tricks in the performance of specific goals. Propaganda and
counterpropaganda are increasingly inefficient because some actions
are overwritten by others, analogical ones.
At the same time, the United States holds a controversial position on
new `perestroika', or rather geopolitical `perestroika'. The United
States is, no doubt, satisfied that Russia demonstrates precedents of
`perestroika' but at the same time is reluctant to give Russia a
chance to come up with relevant initiatives. Speaking about system as
such, a systemic stalemate is concerned.
However, arrangements on `perestroika' are impossible and useless
because arrangements mean emergence of a system similar to that of
Yalta and Potsdam, which is not handy for anyone.
But why is the price of just a right of a nation so high? No rights
are concerned. The problem is that the current state borders is a
factor of new wars and conflicts, it is the most serious threat to
international and global security. The world cannot and will not exist
with its current borders. If the `geopolitical perestroika' does not
happen downward, it will be done upward but the cost will be
incomparable, there will be bloodshed, economic and political losses.
Perhaps, it would be too original but, in any case, one needs to
suppose that they may go as far as revision of criteria and meaning of
state sovereignty. In other words, some states, maybe most states, may
be deprived of an internal independent status. They may focus on Max
Weber's ideal type, including of `states'.
Several dozens of states demonstrate that their peoples and societies
are repelled by statehood, and they would like to revise their
sovereign status. However, the problem is not the wish of these
peoples but that `failure states' are growing dangerous and are used
by other countries to achieve their goals. And in international
competition there is no place for blank spots and vacuum, everything
must be filled in.
For some great powers annexation or incorporation of such states by
others appears to be more acceptable than their indefinite and
vulnerable existence. However, it may take place only if `perestroika'
matures and the time for considering legitimacy comes, especially that
the demographic situation in the world is changing not in favor of the
Western community, and it somehow needs to cope with threats coming
from the `Third World' which exists objectively and continues to make
claims.
- See more at: http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32427#sthash.Hd9tVN4C.dpuf
From: Baghdasarian