SERGEY SHAKARYANTS: RECOGNITION OF UNRECOGNIZED STATES
Regnum, Russia
June 28 2006
In the last few days the new US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group
Mathew Bryza (who is also US Assistant Deputy Secretary of State
for Europe and Eurasia and, apparently, the new State Department
"coordinator" for all the post-Soviet conflicts) has given start to
quite unambiguous processes: through Bryza Washington is obviously
beginning to actively take the side of one of the conflicting states
(nations) though continuing to say that it is just an unbiased
mediator. However, almost all the conflicting sides (obviously,
except Georgia) have a great deal of questions to Bryza.
No sooner had Bryza taken over "the business" from Steven Mann than
he began (roughly, starting from June 9-10, though earlier too, when
visiting the South Caucasus, he acted quite inadequately and was, in
fact, engaged in peremptory dictation) taking measures, seemingly,
to quickly finish the talks between the conflicting sides and, in
fact, to stop the peace-making process as such: to take the side
of the Moldavian and Georgian authorities and to openly ignore the
counter-arguments of the authorities of Transdnestr, Abkhazia and
South Ossetia, to tear out of the general context and to make public
part of the elements of the Karabakh-Azeri conflict settlement…
That’s hardly the whole list of Bryza’s "initiatives." It is noteworthy
that supporting Bryza in the Moldavia-Transdnestr case is a person
people in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh know well: acting Charge
d’Affaires of the US Embassy in Moldova Rudolf Perina.
On June 14, on the day of the St. Petersburg meeting of Russian
President Vladimir Putin and Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili,
the presidents of three of the four de facto independent but yet
internationally unrecognized post-Soviet states, Abkhazia (Sergey
Bagapsh), South Ossetia (Eduard Kokoity) and Transdnestr-Moldavian
Republic (TMR) (Igor Smirnov), as if having a foreboding (or, more
likely, just being well informed) that the US would toughen its
position on the post-Soviet conflicts, also decided to meet and to
discuss their urgent problems in Sukhumi. The result of their meeting
was more than eloquent: almost everybody noticed that Bagapsh, Kokoity
and Smirnov reached agreement on who and how their states will have to
confront in the coming years. The formation of a specific integration
structure – Association For Democracy and the Rights of Nations (ADRN)
– was their adequate response to the Americans’ previous initiatives
in the four conflict zones.
At a briefing in Tiraspol on June 24, Smirnov told journalists about
the results of the trilateral meeting in Sukhumi.
At first, he said that during their two-day meeting the three
presidents tried to strictly fulfill the will of their peoples so as
to safeguard the key components of each human life. "The fact is that
nations having big economic, political and military potential use the
basic principles of democracy to deprive other nations of this right.
I think that the signing of an agreement to form an Association
for Democracy and the Rights of Nations is exactly a display of true
democracy. In this light, we will do our best to observe all the rights
and freedoms of Transdnestr, Abkhazian and South Ossetian citizens,"
Smirnov said. He also said that one of the key questions today is
how the three unrecognized republics will develop strategically:
"The documents signed show that we will coordinate our efforts in all
spheres of life, particularly, in security. That was exactly our goal
and we have achieved it. I point out security because the Abkhazian
and South Ossetian presidents were mostly interested in forming joint
peacekeeping forces. I am sure that the development of our association
will give us big opportunities for joint efforts in the political,
economic and social spheres."
Smirnov also noted that the formation of the ADRN is a big chance
for all the three states to exercise the right of their nations to
self-determination. "We can ask ourselves why we didn’t do that before
but we can as well answer this question. The geo-political development
of our countries depends not only on our internal development but also
on the developments around the world. The Association for Democracy
and the Rights of Nations will allow us to coordinate our efforts to
resist any attempts to force us to change our lives in one or another
way. I thing this association has a big future. Our association is a
million of former USSR citizens who are eligible to self-determination
both democratically and historically.
In particular, TMR who has been formed in compliance with the people’s
will and in conformity with all the international laws and human
rights principles has the right to international recognition.
This document is effective also because it clearly defines the
decisions we should make to conduct a referendum to decide whether
to develop in unipolar or in multipolar world. To decide who we will
further develop with, who we will further build our economy, education,
and defense with. We should also coordinate our efforts in legislation
and the activities of our parliaments. I think that we will shortly
start active inter-parliamentary cooperation and then we will jointly
get into cooperation with the parliamentary organizations of Russia,
Belarus, Ukraine and other states," Smirnov said.
In our opinion, the key focus should be exactly on what the Transdnestr
authorities say because, strange as this might seem, it is exactly TMR
who has all the necessary attributes of an independent state and will,
sooner or later, be recognized by the world community as an absolutely
sovereign territory.
A scholarly paper on the state sovereignty of the Transdnestr Moldavian
Republic (TMR) within the framework of the international law has been
presented in Washington. The authors are Stefan Talmon, Christofer
Goebel, Nancy Furman, Paul Williams, Stephen Krasner, Andrew Lorenz,
Michael Scharf, and William Wood, the international scholars from
Oxford, Stanford, Harvard, and Cambridge universities who contributed
to the elaboration of the Dayton agreements on the division of former
Yugoslavia. The experts conclude that historically, Transdnestr has
never been part of Moldova. While Transdnestr originated from the
collapse of the USSR, its people and territory have roots that go far
into history. The foundation and the existence of the modern Republic
of Moldova are based on a unilateral declaration of independence that
formalized the forced unification of Moldova and Transdnestr effected
by Stalin at the onset of WWII. It lacked any "actual legal basis,"
i.e., was instituted illegally.
Legal and factual analyses reveal that during the collapse of the USSR,
the Moldavian SSR broke up into two successor states: Moldova and
Transdnestr whose today’s border fully correspond to the traditional
historical border that divided them since the early Middle Ages. At
the moment of Moldavia’s secession from the USSR, Transdnestr had
already seceded and governed its territory on its own.
The report says that many years of international practice compiled
into charters allow listing the criteria used to define state
sovereignty. These are permanent population, definite territory,
government capable of establishing relations with other nations.
Today Transdnestr meets all the criteria. It has its own democratically
elected President and a legislative body currently controlled by an
opposition party. Its government controls armed forces and enters into
discussions with foreign states. TMR has proved the viability of its
statehood and the legitimacy of the process of state building. More
than a half million people live in Transdnestr over a territory
of 4,163 sq. km. They successfully meet all the criteria of state
sovereignty in conformity with the international law. Transdnestr
has an effectively functioning government that has its own agencies,
the Constitution, currency, tax system, legal system, and population
exceeding in its numbers that of many UN member states.
Now it is clear why Smirnov does not doubt that TMR will be recognized
as an independent state and will be respected by all the other UN
member-states and the European integration structures. Let’s admit
that TMR, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have small populations and none
of them forms an annual budget of no less than $2bn! Nor do they have
bi- or multi-lateral industrial and agricultural agreements "tying"
them with partners from other states. Obviously, in preparing their
report on TMR the Western experts considered the economic factor,
too. As regards the level of democracy… During the last parliamentary
elections the observers from the OSCE and the EU, including strongly
anti-Russian Poles, could not but admit that the elections in TMR
were fully compliant with the European criteria and standards and
that there is much more democracy in TMR than there is in Moldova.
This very complex of quite different but inter-related problems
that concern the international community inasmuch as some people are
calling for recognizing a new independent state in Europe contains
the answer to the question: which of the yet unrecognized post-Soviet
states has the best chances to be officially recognized the first. On
the other hand, there is one more very important factor: quite a
big percentage of the TMR population – a total of 100,000 people –
is Russian and Ukrainian citizens, though over 90% of the population
are TMR citizens. And even though today the Ukrainian authorities
are openly betraying their citizens permanently residing in TMR and
Ukrainians having TMR citizenship by continuing to keep Transdnestr in
blockade, they may still give up at some point their baneful policy
of support for the thesis about "the territorial integrity of the
Republic of Moldova."
In all other respects, the grounds on which the Western experts,
in fact, deny Moldova’s right to insists on the "return" of TMR
under its jurisdiction fully correspond to the conditions under
which Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), Abkhazia and South Ossetia
seceded from the USSR, in general, and from the Soviet Azerbaijan
and Georgia, in particular. This means that their people may also
hope that they in Washington will, at least, issue similar expert
reports on their "cases" too. In Abkhazia and South Ossetia the de
facto dual citizenship of the overwhelming majority of local residents
may also be a big trump. As you may know, along with Abkhazian and
South Ossetian citizenships, no less than 90% of Abkhazians and South
Ossetians have legally got Russian one.
Thus, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and TMR have formed an Association
"For Democracy and the Rights of Nations," a structure many CIS
media, half jokingly-half seriously, termed as CIS-2 – Commonwealth
of Unrecognized States. ADNP says it is going to form its collective
armed "peacekeeping" forces. However, you should not be misled by
the word "peacekeeping" – if they in ADRN antipode, the Organization
for Democracy and Economic Development (ODED)-GUAM, are considering
forming collective "peacekeeping" forces (a project suggested by
Ukraine and Azerbaijan and supported by Georgia and Moldavia) (i.e.
to form a special punitive quadrilateral force to be used against the
peoples of Nagorno-Karabakh, Transdnestr, Abkhazia and South Ossetia –
in the case of the last three, after forcing out Russian peacekeepers),
they in ADNP too can talk only about "peacekeepers" who will replace
their Russian counterparts and will try to prevent OEDE-GUAM forces
or "international policemen" from entering the conflict zones –
a project suggested by Bryza to Georgia who continues insultingly
pushing the Russians out. That’s why the US Embassy in Georgia was so
seriously concerned on June 23 for Bagapsh’s statement that if Georgia
continues driving the Russian peacekeepers outside the conflict zone,
Abkhazia will stop negotiations, will bring in its troops to replace
the Russians and will mine Abkhazia’s administrative border with the
other regions of Georgia.
A day before the embassy nervously "laughed" at the statement of
the South Ossetian leadership that American military structures take
part in the provocations organized by Georgian law enforcers in the
Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone.
Thus, all the concerned parties more or less involved in all the four
conflicts perfectly understand that very shortly extra-regional forces
will be ready to push the Moldavian, Georgian and Azeri authorities
into re-using force "methods" for resolving the conflicts. Of course,
the calls for peace and continuation of talks will be continued,
but they can hardly deceive anybody in a situation when, for example,
Georgia continues leading in the CIS in the extent and the speed of
its arms growth. The same is true for Azerbaijan.
These countries are arming with the help of the US and Turkey as well
as Ukraine and the Baltic states.
So it is becoming more or less clear for TMR, Abkhazia and South
Ossetia what they will have to do in the near future: they will first
of all have to raise their preparedness for beating off any external
aggression, whoever undertakes and whoever supports it.
The problem of Nagorno-Karabakh … has become kind of isolated:
recently increasingly often people forget to mention NKR when talking
about unrecognized republics. We certainly can be super-optimistic
and say that NIR is "already recognized" as an independent South
Caucasian state, but things are a bit different. In 1996-1997,
obviously "advised" by Armenia, the NKR authorities stopped to take
part in the "CIS-2" summits even though they were quite active in
four-sided presidential meetings in the early 1990s (this format was
even five-sided once!). As we see from media reports, until quite
recently NKR FM officials and experts have still been meeting with
their colleagues from the other three unrecognized republics.
Who are we trying to please when refusing to take part in the actions
of the Abkhazian, South Ossetian and Transdnestr presidents?!
Moldova, Georgia, the US with Turkey? Probably, Azerbaijan?!
Obviously, it is the Nagorno-Karabakh or even the Armenian authorities
who should ask this question. If they do not want to "annoy" Georgia,
they have obviously failed to get Georgia to refuse to support
Azerbaijan in the Karabakh problem and to be more constructive when
our compatriots from the Georgian provinces of Samtskhe-Javakheti and
Kvemo-Kartli report violations of their civil and other rights and
freedoms. Consequently, by showing an "ostrich" attitude to whatever
happening around NKR, TMR, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the NKR and
Armenian foreign ministries are making a very big mistake. In our case,
if something happens and if the peace talks are stopped, the factor of
dual or Russian citizenship will not work as explosively as it will in
case if external forces push Georgia and Moldova into applying force
against Abkhazia-South Ossetia and TMR, respectively. In our case, the
Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenian peoples will be left face to face with
Azerbaijan and its secret and open political and military allies, like
they were at the very beginning of NKR’s independence war. "Want peace
– make ready for war." We regret to say that this Roman proverb is
becoming increasingly relevant for all the four post-Soviet conflicts.
In conclusion, let’s note that Bryza’s unrestrained statements have
already received critical reaction from the Armenian pro-government
and opposition forces who have seen nonsense in the words of the US
State Department official preparing to become a diplomat on conflicts.
Let’s not quote all the statements made in Yerevan on June 26,
the reply of the presidential spokesman Viktor Sogomonyan would be
enough: "The points of the framework agreement publicized by the new
US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Mathew Bryza are just certain
elements of this agreement which do not reflect the whole content
of the document." "If the media continue making such revelations
in the future, the Armenian side will promulgate all the documents
negotiated in the last 7-8 years: the draft agreement on "common
state," the document discussed in Key-West and the project considered
quite recently in Bucharest. I am sure that this will make everything
absolutely clear. "By the way, all the three documents were rejected
by the Azeri side," Sogomonyan said.
As a matter of principle, they in Yerevan have begun to understand
what a baneful policy they have been carrying on in the last years –
by keeping top confidentiality about the talks in order to please the
OSCE MG co-chairs (or just one of them). Sogomonyan’s words can be
also interpreted as a warning to the US that everything has its limits
and the patience of the Armenian side, in particular. The question
is why the NKR authorities are silent and are failing to show high
activity. It is time for them to bravely show their initiatives and
to remind the world community about the will of their people to fight
for the comprehensive and unconditional recognition of the right to
national-liberation struggle.
Especially as they in Baku have turned out to be quite inclined
to admit that in some cases, in some countries, there can be
national-liberation struggle – for example, for stopping the "divided
people" situation. True, Azerbaijan admits this only with respect
to the so-called "Southern Azerbaijan" and urges the US, Turkey,
and the EU to "help" Azeris reunify.
>>From our point of view, NKR has all the chances to "outrun" our
Azeri neighbors in all respects, but, first of all, in presenting
proofs of national-liberation struggle, struggle for restoring
infringed legal rights (including merely civil) and the interests of
the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. NKR’s advantage is that it has much
higher statehood and democracy development level than Azerbaijan or
even Armenia have.