The coming of the micro-states
June 05, 2006 edition
By Fred Weir | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
MOSCOW ` As goes Montenegro, so goes Kosovo, Transdniestria, and South
Ossetia?

As Montenegro officially declared independence this weekend, accepting
the world’s welcome into the community of nations, a handful of
obscure “statelets” are demanding the same opportunity to choose their
own destinies.

In the latest example, Transdniestria, a Russian-speaking enclave that
won de facto independence in the early 1990s, declared last week that
it will hold a Montenegro-style referendum in September as part of its
campaign for statehood.

Experts fear that many “frozen conflicts” around the world – in which
a territory has gained de facto independence through war but failed to
win international recognition – could reignite as ethnic minorities
demand the same right to self-determination that many former Yugoslav
territories have been offered by the international community.

Even more significant than Montenegro’s rise to statehood would be the
international community’s acceptance of Kosovo’s bid for
independence. The province of Serbia was seized by NATO in
1999. Ongoing talks discussing that possibility are being watched with
intense interest by rebel statelets. But as tiny, newly independent
states such as East Timor find themselves mired in ethnic violence,
international observers are wary of the implications of such a move.

“If Kosovo becomes independent, this precedent will cause further
fragmentation of the global order and lead to the creation of more
unviable little states,” predicts Dmitri Suslov, an analyst with the
independent Council on Foreign and Defense Policy in Moscow.

Russia has backed the emergence of several pro-Moscow separatist
enclaves in the post-Soviet region, as a means of keeping pressure on
defiant neighbors, but has so far been deterred from granting them
official recognition by international strictures against changing the
borders of existing states. Montenegro’s successful May 21 vote of
independence from Yugoslavia – recognized by the world community – has
encouraged others’ thoughts of following the same path.

The United Nations Charter mentions both the right of
“self-determination” of peoples and the “territorial integrity” of
states as bedrock principles of the world order. But these principles
come into conflict when a separatist minority threatens to rupture an
existing country. Russia, which has a score of ethnic “republics,”
including an active rebellion in Chechnya, has long championed the
“territorial integrity” side of the equation. But the Kremlin’s
emphasis, at least regarding some of its neighbors, appears to be
shifting.

“If such precedents are possible [in the former Yugoslavia], they will
also be precedents in the post-Soviet space,” President Vladimir Putin
told journalists Friday. “Why can Albanians in Kosovo have
independence, but [Georgian breakaway republics] South Ossetia and
Abkhazia can’t? What’s the difference?”

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, all of its 15 major republics
gained their freedom and basked in the glow of global acceptance. But
within some of those new states, smaller ethnic groups raised their
own banners of rebellion. In the early 1990s, two “autonomous
republics” in Georgia – Abkhazia and South Ossetia – defeated
government forces with Russian assistance and established regimes that
are effectively independent but stuck in legal limbo because they
remain officially unrecognized, even by Moscow. The Russian-speaking
province of Transdniestria, aided by the Russian 14th army, similarly
broke away from the ethnically Romanian republic of Moldova. The
Armenian-populated enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan fell
under Armenian control after a savage war; and rebels in Russia’s
southern republic of Chechnya briefly won de facto independence in the
late ’90s after crushing Russian forces on the battlefield.

In all of these cases, the international principle respecting the
“territorial integrity” of existing states has so far trumped the
yearning of small nationalities for their own statehood. Citing that
rule, Moscow launched a brutal military campaign in 1999 that has
since largely succeeded in reintegrating Chechnya as a province of
Russia.

But Russia’s relations with Georgia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan have
soured in recent years, as those countries have broken from Moscow’s
orbit and charted a more pro-West course. That, plus the precedents
being set in the former Yugoslavia, has led some nationalist
politicians in Moscow to demand the Kremlin salvage what influence it
can in the region by granting recognition – or even membership in the
Russian Federation – to some of those breakaway entities.

Transdniestria has already signed an economic pact with Moscow that
will allow the tiny but heavily-industrialized territory to sell its
goods in Russia and eventually join the Russian ruble’s currency
zone. Also in the focus of Russia’s changing policies are the
breakaway Georgian republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

“Russia needs to be more active in solving the problems of Abkhazia
and South Ossetia,” says Igor Panarin, a professor at the official
Diplomatic Academy in Moscow, which trains Russian diplomats. “Both
the people and governments of [these statelets] want to join Russia,
and there’s every legal reason for them to do so. Polls show the
majority of Russians support this, too.”

Eduard Kokoity, president of the Georgian breakaway republic of South
Ossetia, said last week he will ask Russia to annex his statelet,
which has existed in legal limbo since driving out Georgian forces in
a bitter civil war in the early ’90s. “In the nearest future, we will
submit documents to the Russian Constitutional Court proving the fact
that South Ossetia joined the Russian Empire together with North
Ossetia as an indivisible entity and never left Russia,” Mr. Kokoity
said.

South Ossetia, with a population of about 70,000, is ethnically and
geographically linked with the Russian Caucasus republic of North
Ossetia. Experts say there is a local campaign, supported by Russian
nationalists, to join the two territories into a new Moscow-ruled
republic that would be named “Alania” – the ancient name of the
Ossetian nation. “South Ossetia really wants to join Russia, and I
wouldn’t rule this out as a long-term prospect,” says Suslov.

Abkhazia, a sub-tropical Black Sea enclave, expelled its Georgian
residents during the 1992-93 civil war, and now is home to about
200,000 ethnic Abkhaz who eke out a living exporting fruit to Russia
and welcoming the few Russian tourists that visit each year.

Georgians cry foul, and complain the entire issue is a made-in-Moscow
land grab. “South Ossetia and Abkhazia were created as a Bolshevik
divide-and-rule device to control Georgia, and they are still being
used that way,” says Alexander Rondeli, president of the Strategic and
International Studies Foundation, an independent think tank based in
the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. “What is actually going on is the de
facto annexation of these territories by Russia. Since Russia is
strong, the Western powers let it do whatever it wants.”

Many Western experts argue that the process of dismantling the former
Yugoslavia is a unique event, directly supervised by the UN and
carried out with a maximum of democratic safeguards. If Russia acts
alone in its region, it risks alienating the world and multiplying
regional conflicts. “This is a double-edged sword,” says Ariel Cohen,
a senior researcher at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. “By
recognizing Moscow-supported statelets, Russia would perpetuate
frictions for decades to come. Post-Soviet borders should remain
inviolate. This would save a lot of headaches, first of all for Russia
itself.”

But for now, the mood in Moscow appears to be hardening. “We disagree
with the concept that Kosovo is a unique case, because that runs
counter to the norms of international law,” Russian Deputy Foreign
Minister Vladimir Titov warned in an interview with Vremya Novostei, a
Russian newspaper, last week. “The resolution on Kosovo will create a
precedent in international law that will later be applied to other
frozen conflicts.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

CO-RAPPORTEUR OF PACE COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION, REFUGEES AND POPULATION
TO VISIT ARMENIA

YEREVAN, JUNE 2, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. Co-Rapporteur of the
PACE Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population Leo Platvoet
(Netherlands, UEL) will visit Armenia on June 3-5. According to the
Council of Europe Information Office in Armenia, Leo Platvoet is
preparing a report on missing persons in Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia. He will submit the report to the PACE in the first half of
2007. During his visit, Leo Platvoet will meet with families of
missing persons in each of these countries, members of the commissions
dealing with issues of missing persons, government representatives,
ombudsmen, deputies of the parliaments and representatives of the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

MNATSAKAN PETROSIAN ELECTED CHAIRMAN OF NA STANDING COMMITTEE ON
SOCIAL, HEALTHCARE AND NATURE PROTECTION ISSUES

YEREVAN, JUNE 2, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. By the results of the
secret ballot held on June 2 at the parliament, member of the United
Labor Party faction Mnatsakan Petrosian was elected Chairman of RA NA
Standing Committee on Social, Healthcare and Nature Protection
Issues. He was the Vice-Chairman of the above-mentioned committee. 72
out of 131 MPs took part in the voting, 71 of them voted for the
candidature, 1 voted against. M.Petrosian was born on February 16 1956
in the Georgian town of Akhaltsikhe. In 1980 he graduated from Yerevan
Institute of People’s Economy, he is an economist by speciality.
He started his working activity in 1973, worked at different
enterprises, as well as at Armeconombank and Armagrobank. Before being
elected RA MP on December 11 2003 by a proportional system he held the
post of the Deputy Director of the Arsoil company. He is a member of
the United Labor Party, is married, has two children.

ARAMAYIS GRIGORIAN ELECTED CHAIRMAN OF NA STANDING COMMITTEE ON
DEFENCE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS

YEREVAN, JUNE 2, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. By the results of the
secret ballot held at the parliament, independent MP Aramayis
Grigorian was elected the Chairman of NA Standing Committee on
Defence, National Security and Internal Affairs. 72 out of 131 MPs
took part in the voting. There were 71 ballot-papers in the
ballot-box. 70 MPs voted for A.Grigorian, 1 voted against.
A.Grigorian was born on October 6 1965 in the village of Avshar,
Ararat region.
In 1988 he graduated from the Institute of Light Industry of Saint
Petersburg (RF), he is an engineer-technologist by speciality. He
started his working activity in 1987 at the factory of knitted wear in
Ararat. Before being elected an MP on May 25 2003 he held the post of
the Director General of Avshar wine factory. At present he is the
owner of the same factory. He was elected an MP by a majoritarian
system, from Ararat electoral district N 25. He is non-partisan. He
is married, has three children.

CHANGE ENVISAGED IN NA ARF FACTION’S STAFF

YEREVAN, JUNE 2, NOYAN TAPAN. In connection with being elected as
Rector of Armenian Engineering University on June 2, member of NA ARF
Dashnaktsutiun faction Vostanik Marukhian will soon prematurely resign
his MP commission. He had been elected RA MP by a proportional system
in 2003, so the next candidate of ARF Dashnaktsutiun’s preelection
list will replace him at the parliament.
As Noyan Tapan correspondent was informed by Armen Rustamian,
representative of ARFD Armenian Supreme Body, Chairman of RA NA
Standing Committee on Foreign Relations, at the June 3 sitting of the
Supreme Body it will be clarified who will replenish the parliamentary
faction’s staff in the future.

HAYK BABUKHANIAN CALLS ARMENIAN AUTHORITIES FOR ACTIVIZING THEIR
EFFORTS IN PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF THEIR CITIZENS IN RUSSIA

YEREVAN, JUNE 2, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. As a state Armenia
should more actively protect the rights of its citizens living in
other countries, but Armenia, in essence, is doing nothing in this
direction. Hayk Babukhanian, Deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Law
Union, declared this at the June 2 discussion at the Hayeli (Mirror)
club dedicated to cases of violence towards Armenians that have become
frequent recently. According to him, one should not consider the
recent murder of the 19-year-old boy in Moscow out of touch with the
processes going on in Russia. “We see that there is a problem of
racialism and Fascism in Russia and the Armenian authorities should be
consistent in the issue of protection of the rights and interests of
their citizens in this country.” In the opinion of another participant
of the discussion, former Armenian Parliament Vice-Speaker Karapet
Rubinian, national hatred and Fascism existing in Russia is first of
all the problem of Russia itself: “These phenomena did not do good any
country in the world, especially as we speak about such a
multi-national state as Russia.” Karapet Rubinian expressed confidence
that today’s Russia has sound forces capable of resisting
manifestations of Fascism and racialism, but these forces in Russia,
as well as in Armenia, are marginalized, and everything is decided
only by forces of authoritarianism dominating in this country. In his
opinion, the best solution of this issue for Armenia is return of
Armenians from Russia to the homeland. According to Hayk Babukhanian,
the reason of such processes is that Russia is a non-formed state and
has not been determined yet, whether it wants to become a superpower
or a democratic state. Undoubtedly, different groupings arise in this
period, which look for those guilty in the problems of their country
and one cannot exclude that Russia’s enemies, who want to blow up it
from within, can stand behind these groupings. In this context we
should also consider the problems of Russia in the Caucasus increasing
day by day.

RUSSIAN OFFICERS’ EVIDENCES ABOUT BAKU AND SUMGAYIT CASES INVOLVED IN
“CONTINUATION OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE” BOOK

YEREVAN, JUNE 2, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. Russian officers’
evidences and memories about Baku and Sumgayit events are involved in
the “Continuation of Armenian Genocide” book that was published by the
“Zinvori Mayr” (Soldier’s Mother) public organization. All the
materials of the book are gathered from the Russian press. As Greta
Mirzoyan, the Chairwomen of the “Zinvori Mayr” organization during the
June 2 presentation of the book, the book title is not accidently
chosen as we “got sure that the process of the Armenians’ genocide has
not stopped after 1915.” Mrs. Mirzoyan attached importance to
publication of the book from the diplomatic veiwpoint as well, as
constantly raising this issue at international conferences taken place
in Strasbourg and Geneva, the Armenian delegation was not able to
present a corresponding document concerning the cases. Meanwhile
Azeris spread in Moscow numerous false documents and brochures about
those cases. According to Greta Mirzoyan, after publication of the
book the organization got numerous similar materials from different
people. “This proves that the book is very actual, and the time came,
by summing up all memories as a factual material, to show those
displays of vandalism which took place in Azerbaijan,” she
emphasized. The Chairwoman of the “Zinvori Mayr” organization also
mentioned that materials gathered during the recent period of time
will also be published in already completed way in a collection. The
book will soon be translated in English.

IT WOULD BE BETTER TO REACH AGREEMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER MAY 12 1994,
VLADIMIR KAZIMIROV SAYS

YEREVAN, JUNE 2, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. “Undoubtedly, after
Nagorno Karabakh ceased to take part in the negotiations process, a
step back was done,” Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov, former
Plenipotentiary of RF President on Nagorno Karabakh, Co-chairman of
OSCE Minsk Group from Russia (1992-1996), declared to Noyan Tapan
correspondent. According to him, in the decisions of OSCE Budapest
summit of 1994 at the level of the heads of the states, as well as in
the mandate of the Minsk conference Co-chairmen it was written that
the negotiations should be conducted between the conflict sides: “No
word “state” is mentioned there, there is no clause mentioning that
the negotiations should be conducted by sovereign states. Whereas, the
decisions of the Budapest summit of 1994 are the highest ones, as
summits at the level of foreign ministers were conducted only after
this,” Ambassador Kazimirov declared. He reminded that in the first
half of the 90-s the western powers did not like Russia’s active role.
In particular, according to him, nothing about the already established
ceasefire was said in the resolution of the OSCE Permanent Council of
May 19 1994 that met in Vienna. “The things even reached the point
that representatives of some western countries demanded that the
agreement be signed in another city but not only in Moscow. Whereas,
the agreement prepared with Moscow’s active participation worked while
all the previous agreements were failing,” V.Kazimirov declared. (NT:
the agreement “On Ceasefire” was signed among Armenia, Nagorno
Karabakh and Azerbaijan with Russia’s mediation on May 12 1994 in
Moscow). According to him, no terms of action were specially mentioned
in the text of this document for the agreement to work termlessly. ”
One more useful resolution was found in July 1994, which was accepted
by all sides and figured in public statements, including the highest
level, according to which ceasefire will be observed by the sides
until concluding an agreement on ceasing the armed conflict.” However,
in Vladimir Kazimirov’s opinion, “it would be better to reach
agreement immediately after the agreement “On Ceasefire” signed on May
12 1994, as the inertia of the agreement on truce permitted to move
forward,” whereas, the moment was missed.

PanARMENIAN.Net
PACE Delegation Lad by Leo Platvoet to Arrive in
Armenia

02.06.2006 15:54 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ PACE delegation led by Leo Platvoet
will arrive in Armenia June 4, RA NA Speaker, head of
the Armenian delegation to PACE Tigran Torosian told a
PanARMENIAN.Net reporter. In his words, the purpose of
the visit is to prepare a regional report on missing
and refugees. The delegation members are scheduled to
meet with the committee on missing at the Armenian
parliament. They are also expected to visit Georgia
and Azerbaijan,’ Torosian said.

PanARMENIAN.Net
Azerbaijan Tries to Defile Armenia in Sight of International Community
02.06.2006 16:28 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ According to some Azeri media, Armenian Ambassador
to Iran Gegham Gharibjanian offered `official Tehran to engage
Armenian forces for stifling rallies in South Azerbaijan.’
The Azeri side has many times made provocative statements aiming at
defiling Armenia in the sight of the international community. However,
this statement is targeted not against Armenia but against Iran,
political scientist Levon Melik-Shahnazaryan told a PanARMENIAN.Net
reporter. In his words, Baku wants to represent Iran as a state
incapable to solve its domestic and external problems
independently. `As a matter of facts the things are quite
different. First, the rallies of the Turkish-speaking Iranians are not
so numerous as the Azeri press writes. Second, the failure of
Pishevari and Sattar khan’s adventures proved that Iran is capable to
suppress any dissent that jeopardizes the unity of the state,’ he
remarked.
As for the rallies of the Turkish-speaking Iranians, now Azerbaijan
tries to address a message to the Unites States as if saying `Look,
Armenians want to help Iran.’ Armenia really enjoys friendly relations
with Iran. But our army is changed with other tasks and Baku perfectly
knows how it can solve them,’ the Armenian expert said.
To note, acting Spokesman of the RA MFA Vladimir Karapetyan told
PanARMENIAN.Net reporter that `Gegham Gharibjanian has been appointed
Deputy Foreign Minister in early 2005.’