JANUSZ BUGAJSKI: ETHNIC CLEANSINGS JUSTIFY THE SELF-DETERMINATION
Panorama.am
July 29 2010
Armenia
Panorama.am interviews Dr. Janusz Bugajski, Director of the Lavrentis
Lavrentiadis Chair from Center for Strategic and International Studies,
or CSIS, Washington DC.
Panorama: What are the main differences between the Nagorno Karabakh
and Kosovo issues? Do you find the advisory opinion of ICJ with regards
to Kosovo (July 22, 2010) applicable to the other unrecognized entities
such as Nagorno Karabakh?
Bugajski: Although every separatist dispute has a different
historical, demographic, and political context, the ICJ verdict on
Kosova will reinvigorate disputes between proponents and opponents of
national sovereignty for minority populations inhabiting delineated
territories. The key criterion on which independence should be based
is whether the compact territorially-based minority has been subjected
to mass expulsion or attempted genocide by the existing state. This was
clearly the case with the Kosova Albanians at the hands of the Serbian
government and legitimizes their struggle for separation. One needs
to look at the historical record and contemporary evidence to decide
which governments or ethnic leaders were primarily responsible for mass
murders and expulsions in territories such as Nagorno-Karabakh in order
to decide whether the separation of these territories is justified on
the grounds of incompatible cohabitation in the same state structure.
Panorama: Do you agree with the assumption that international relations
and politics are primarily based on so-called “double standards”
and ignore the international law?
Bugajski: International relations and inter-state politics are based
on a mixture of elements including diplomacy, mutuality, enticement,
inducement, dominance, threat, and force. There is no single standard
or even a double standard as each case has differing components.
Although the United Nations poses as the dispensary of international
law, in reality it is not a model of international legality let
alone a moral or ethical compass. For instance, the UN accepted
East European borders that were primarily established by force under
Stalin’s conquest and acquiesced to the occupation of half of Europe
and the loss of state independence to the Soviet Union for 45 years.
In the contemporary setting, we cannot hide behind alleged
international law and allow states to murder or abuse their own
minority populations. Sometimes military intervention is necessary
and sometimes state separation is essential.
Panorama: How do you estimate the regional politics of the Obama
Administration in the South Caucasus and Central Asia? Where do you
see primary differences with regards to the Bush Administration era?
Do you agree with those saying this Administration pays less attention
to these regions so far, “giving” the region to Russia?
Bugajski: One shortcoming of President Obama’s approach has been
its inability or unwillingness to clearly articulate U.S. security
interests and strategic goals in the wider European, Caucasian, and
Central Asian regions, even if these are not currently overarching
national priorities. As a result, Washington is perceived as
surrendering these regions to predominant Russian influence. U.S. and
Western interests can be encapsulated in at least four policy
objectives: first, consolidating bilateral partnerships and regional
alliances to prevent the emergence of weak, fractured, or conflicted
states that undermine regional security; second, precluding the
expansion of any dominant regional power or regional alliance that
challenges broader American interests and even the American presence;
third, involving a diverse array of states to assist Washington and
NATO in combating common threats stemming from the broader Middle
East and South Asia; and fourth, ensuring the development of energy
resources and their secure transportation from the Caspian Basin to
Europe via the Caucasus and Black Sea region to uphold the stability
of America’s European allies.
From: A. Papazian