ARBITRARY APPROACH

A series of mutually-exclusive elections in the Ukraine have once again shown the biases of global centres of power held captive by their own geopolitical ambitions. In late October Kiev, in keeping with the country's constitution, held elections to the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament), and a week later the separatist leaders of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts organized elections to pick the heads of state and parliaments of those self-proclaimed political entities.

As is to be expected, the views of the West, on whose side practically all international and regional organizations stand, and the views of Moscow proved to be diametrically opposed. 

Even before the announcement of the preliminary election results to the Verkhovna Rada the OSCE, EU, the European Commission and most Western media deemed them to be open and free, calling the results of the vote a victory for the Ukrainian nation and democracy. US president Barack Obama stated that "the parliamentary vote represents another important milestone in Ukraine's democratic development." Moscow, for its part, citing "many irregularities" in the election's preparatory stages and the fact that elections were not held "over all of Ukraine's territory", nevertheless announced its recognition of the results. 

Demonstrating its willingness to respect one part of the Ukrainian people's expression of its will, Moscow openly signalled to the West that it would immediately recognize the elections in the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) as well. The US and its allies, repeatedly calling on the Kremlin to pressure the separatist regimes to call off these referendums, a priori passed their verdict of non-recognition on them. Afterwards UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, speaking at a special session of the OSCE Permanent Council, called the elections in the self-proclaimed DPR and LPR regrettable and counterproductive development. The countries of NATO and EU, calling the expression of popular choice in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts "pseudo-elections", do not plan to recognize their results. Judging from this, the West, which accuses Russia, which annexed the Crimea and supports the separatist entities in eastern Ukraine, of violating that most sacred principle in international law - the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukraine -has no intention of lightening the sanction millstone hung on Russian's neck. The Kremlin, for its part, is demonstrably unwilling to back down, accusing the West of arbitrarily choosing whose territorial integrity should be respected and which nations have the right to self-determination. 

On this Moscow is probably right. When it comes down to it, for the West there are nevertheless some states and national minorities who are, in keeping with some "standards", allowed to not only incite separatist hotspots, but also to occupy someone else's territory. And, most importantly, they can make no pretentions of abiding by international law, which they interpret any way they like, carry out innumerable illegitimate elections, knowing perfectly well that they will not suffer for it, but instead will be given financial, economic, military, and political support. It is very unfortunate that certain international and regional organizations who often indulge in such biased policies look the worse for it. 

A blatant example of this is their treatment of Armenia, which has occupied 20 per cent of Azerbaijan's territory and given rise to a separatist regime called Nagornyy Karabakh on those lands. After promptly condemning the elections in the DPR and LPR, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon and the Security Council of this organization, having passed a special condemnatory resolution, for some reason did not show similar concern over repeated "presidential" and "parliamentary" elections held by Armenian separatists in Karabakh. In each such case the UN was content to make watery, routine announcements about its not recognizing the legitimacy of elections in Nagornyy Karabakh. Nor is the "leading" international organization troubled by Armenia's I-couldn't-care-less attitude toward four UN Security Council resolutions by the UN Security Council demanding the unconditional withdrawal of Armenian troops from Azerbaijani territory. There were no attempts at political pressure, as was the case with Russia, no "regret" or sanctions whatsoever.

Similar - even strange and solicitous - attitudes towards Armenia are also shown by NATO, the EU, and most European organizations, which have not once openly declared Yerevan to be an aggressor, nor condemned the endless series of "elections" in Nagornyy Karabakh. Quite the opposite - some deputies of the EU Parliament and PACE act as if they consider it their solemn duty to show up at each of these "events", after which they call upon the world community to recognize the results of "democratic elections" in Nagornyy Karabakh. Brussels responds to all of Baku's official complaints with the banal excuse that all of these trips are personal in nature and do not reflect the official position of the EU, the EU Parliament, or PACE. 

At the same time a completely different attitude is shown towards those European officials who have visited or, even worse, expressed support for, say, the Crimea. For example, in September the European Parliament was witness to a curious case that eloquently demonstrates that organization's flawed attitudes. President of the EU Parliament Martin Schulz and Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs Elmar Brok heavily criticized EU parliament member Tatjana Zdanoka of Latvia for her visit to the Crimea, the statements she made there, and the position expressed by her statements. Completely ignored were Zdanoka's repeated assurances that she in no way spoke on behalf of the Europarliament or an official delegation of that body, but rather expressed only her own opinion. Brock, showing enviable devotion to his principles, remarked that his disobedient colleague should speak with independent legal experts, who could explain to her that the referendum was held illegally and did not have legal standing. This principled position should be held consistently, and not arbitrarily. 

The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe nearly followed the bad example of the EU Parliament. At a mid-October plenary session of the congress a report titled "Separatist Tension in Ukraine and Neighbouring Countries" was delivered, followed by discussion of the topic. However, for some reason, the congress's initial report of countries stricken with separatism included only the Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova. Only after long discussions by the body's Bureau was the decision made to include Azerbaijan in the document as well. Strange "accidents" and "forgetfulness."

So, as it turns out, for Western countries and international organizations it's "never mind the war -double standards as scheduled." 

Take note! On the very same day as talks between the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents in Paris, the separatist regime of Nagornyy Karabakh organized a kangaroo court for two Azerbaijanis who dared cross through Armenian lines to visit the graves of their loved ones in the occupied village of Kalbacar. Instead of condemning this provocation, undertaken so as to distract from the true essence of the peace talks, Washington through its official State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki delivered a rather cynical statement. Calling on the parties to the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict to step up the negotiation process, Psaki at the same time refused to comment on the latest Armenian provocation. "I don't have any confirmation of those specific reports," said the State Department spokesperson. 

And, finally, the West, which is so concerned by Russia's support of the Crimea, the DPR, and the LPR, for some reason does not consider it necessary to react to Armenia's efforts to drag the separatist regime of Nagornyy Karabakh with it into the Eurasian Economic Union. This, even though, according to the dictates of logic, at the very height of Moscow's integratory planning in the former Soviet Union, the US and its allies should pounce on Armenia for going too far. It's worth noting that even Russia, which is no stranger to double standards, in this particular case does not toe the line of Armenia's provocations. 

Such an arbitrary approach on the part of international organizations toward the issues facing its partners is regrettable, especially when one considers that one of these European bodies - the OSCE in the form of the Minsk Group -is a mediator in the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Not to mention the double standards demonstrated by the mediating countries themselves.