THE "KOSOVO BOMB" IS TICKING

Practically no one doubted that the Serbian region of Kosovo would unilaterally declare its independence and, indeed, it was declared on 17 February. The event itself, however, was not the most important point: the international community has, many times before, seen declarations of self-styled independence by separatist regimes. The really important point is that some of the leading nations recognized a new political entity which, under international law, is totally illegal.

Until now, similar developments have always met with an unambiguously negative response, even when the attempts at secession were strongly ethnically motivated with the ethnic group in question having no other state: there are the examples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia.

One of the most recent examples of non-recognition of ethno-religious separatism was Chechnya's attempt to secede from Russia. Many states sympathized with the Chechens, but none of them recognized the "sovereignty of Ichkeria." They were unable to do so, not so much and not only because the conflict took place on the territory of Russia, whose strength and influence cannot be overestimated (even if they only exist as "remnants of past magnificence"). Simply, the Western countries which currently support separatism in Kosovo were not ready then to trample upon the UN Charter and the universally recognized principle of the territorial integrity of the state. Further, in Kosovo's case the application of another principle - a nations' right to self-determination - cannot be the "cornerstone" of the decision by the United States, the majority of EU countries and other "heavyweight" states, like Afghanistan, Costa Rica and others.  In the past, the negative attitude toward "self-declared" independence was a guarantee of sorts that a wave of separatism which, as Kosovo shows, thrives in other countries too, would not sweep the world. Its effects were felt in highly developed countries like Belgium, Spain, Italy and even Canada, one of the three countries in the world ranked highest for their standards of living. How, then, should economically and politically weaker states respond?

There is "right" and there is "right"…

Let me cite a chunky quote from a very interesting and edifying article by political analyst Fuad Axundov, entitled "Who Is To Blame for the Karabakh Impasse" and published in the prestigious analytical magazine Rossiya v Globalnoy Politike (Foreign Affairs, Issue #1, 2008): "As many researchers and, in particular, Yuriy Reshetov, pointed out, the right of nations to self-determination is not at all identical to the 'right to secede.' It can - and must - be exercised in the form of autonomous entities, local self-governance etc. And it is even more inadmissible to use the notions of nation, people and ethnic group interchangeably. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about the danger of a "broader interpretation" of the right of nations to self-determination, as used during local conflicts on the territory of former Socialist federations. Commenting on the West's striving to achieve recognition of Kosovo's independence, contrary to the will of Serbian authorities, Putin asked:  'Does it not occur to you that adopting the principle of the self-determination of nations will trigger negative processes, and not only in the post-Soviet area?" "Why should we provoke such things?  I think that this is very dangerous and detrimental," the president stressed.

Responsible politicians and diplomats have always realized how dangerous broad interpretations of the right to self-determination are. The UN Charter, which is a fundamental document of international law, includes no consideration of the right to self-determination as sufficient reason for an endless division of states to the notorious level of a 'self-determination of the streets' or a 'sovereignty of courtyards.'

We can follow the evolution of the principle of self-determination in the process of the formulation of the UN Charter. The proposals discussed at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference lacked the provisions of Chapter 1 on self-determination: they were introduced by the great powers as amendments to the Charter at the San-Francisco Conference. Summaries of the process of discussion of the amendments state that the principles of equality of peoples and of their right to self-determination were 'two constituent elements of the same norm.' Conference materials also read that the principles of the equality and self-determination of peoples are in line with the objectives of the UN Charter because it implies only the right to self-government, 'but not the right to secession.'  So, the origin and meaning of the principles of equality and self-determination clearly prove that these principles ruled out secession as a form of realization from the very outset. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also did not include any provision on the right of peoples to self-determination.

The principle of self-determination came to the fore during the dissolution of the colonial system.  Huge colonies and overseas dependencies, which used to be called British Tanganyika, the Belgian Congo and so on, were gaining independence. Their governments, which were thousands of miles away in European capitals, could not exercise power effectively any more in the territories which had once been under their control. Huge areas, with considerable populations, were left without any mechanisms of state governance at all and legal frameworks had to be created for this unique process. The principle of the self-determination of nations was the only possible legal basis.

Already, in the course of the African 'raw materials wars' (for example, the rebellions in the Katanga province of the former Belgian Congo and the bloody, internecine feud in the Nigerian province of Biafra) it became clear where frequent references to the right of nations to self-determination might lead, once the far-away European colonial powers had lost their grip. It resulted in a series of bloody wars, with partitioning of states, the emergence of regional warlords, tribal leaders etc.

Be that as it might, a review of the harsh 'anti-colonial' and, most importantly, post-colonial experience by UN organizations reaffirmed the following:

First, the right of nations to self-determination should not be confused with the rights of minorities, because the authors of the UN Charter did not intend to grant such a right to minorities.

Second, the right of nations to self-determination should not be exercised for the purpose of undermining the integrity of a nation or creating obstacles to its integrity in violation of national sovereignty.

Finally, the 'Right of Peoples to Self-determination' report which was prepared at the UN in 1981 stressed that the 'principle of equality and self-determination, which is established by the UN Charter, does not grant the unlimited right of separation to residents of an independent and sovereign state and that right cannot be considered lex lata (positive law - Ed.). A right of secession which is supported or encouraged by foreign countries will clearly come into egregious conflict with the principle of respecting territorial integrity on which the principle of the equality of states is based.'  And further: 'It would be dangerous to recognize in international law a general and unlimited right to secession, because the rights of the population which resides in the state are regulated by the national, constitutional law of that state.'

In the same research, the authors pointed out in particular that the 'principle of equality and self-determination of peoples should serve the purpose of uniting peoples on a voluntary and democratic basis, rather than splitting existing national entities. Any formulations of the principle which might be interpreted as broadening the spheres of its applicability and resulting in its use by peoples who are already part of an independent and sovereign state should be avoided.

Choosing any other course of action would mean conniving with separatist movements in sovereign states and might serve as an excuse for jeopardizing national unity and the territorial integrity of sovereign states.'  In the researchers' opinion, the right of peoples to self-determination is not postulated in the international documents 'to encourage separatist or nationalist movements.'

The authors also expressed their hope that the 'international community has reached sufficient maturity to be able to distinguish between true self-determination from self-determination which is cited to disguise an act of secession.'

Natalya Narochnitskaya, deputy chairwoman of the Duma Foreign Affairs Committee and head of the Duma Commission for the study of human rights and fundamental liberties and the monitoring of their protection in foreign countries, expressed the essence of not only the theoretical development of international law, but also the hard-earned political experience of the international community: 'We cannot make references to nations' right to self-determination, first and foremost because international law, contrary to common delusion, does not recognize such a right. Otherwise, it would have been a bomb under any federative or multinational state. This immediately creates a precedent and invokes analogies: for example, Chechnya in Russia and the Basques in Spain.  International law will never accept this, especially as this is really not recognized by international law. The right to self-determination is currently interpreted by international law as a right to cultural autonomy, in other words, as a right to continue ethnic life even within the framework of a state where another ethnic group is dominant.'

Valentin Romanov, professor in the Department of International Law at the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, pointed out: 'Although self-determination is called a principle in the UN Charter, it is not mentioned among the principles by which, as Chapter 2 reads, the 'organization and its members are guided.' The principle of self-determination is not a self-sufficient concept, but one of the foundations of peaceful and friendly relations between nations. In addition, the UN Charter interprets self-determination in inseparable unity with the equality of peoples, in other words, we should respect the rights of not only the entity which exercises self-determination, but also the rights of the 'non-self-determining' part of the population, whose interests are affected by the process of self-determination…"

In my view, this lengthy extract from the article gives us a clear understanding of the fundamental principles of international law which many leading powers are trying to undermine; in this they are led by Washington, which has been pursuing a dangerous policy of "divide and rule".

Realpolitik

The author of these lines is absolutely not anti-American, and neither is he, God forbid, a "pro-Russian element." In this particular case, as in many others, my concern and regrets, to say the least, are caused by the actions of Washington, the spearhead of a movement which has "fathered" a new separatist entity, one which is currently recognized by its allies.

Yet greater concerns are caused by the statements of some cracker-barrel politicians and political analysts who were "horrified" by Baku's principled refusal to recognize the independence of Kosovo and who say that Azerbaijan "went against fraternal Turkey" and its "strategic ally, the United States."

This type of subservient position is clearly dictated by a failure to realise that Azerbaijan is an independent state and has long since stopped looking for a "green-light" from abroad and that it implements a foreign policy solely in accordance with its own national interests, which can only please its true patriots.

Besides, what state which has suffered - and still suffers - from separatism can accept the recognition of some other separatist entity?

Yes, our closest ally, Turkey, has recognized Kosovo's independence and, by the way, it did so without a second thought, including any thought of what Azerbaijan might think about it or what the situation is here. This is what the world calls Realpolitik. Turkey has its Cyprus problem and, thanks to the decision on Kosovo, it now hopes that the time will come when the Turkish part of that island will also declare independence and join the EU. This, for its part, will greatly assist Turkey itself to join the organization. In addition, Ankara currently has US support on the issue of combating Kurdish terrorism on its own territory and within Iraq, which is vital for Turkey. In addition, Turkey also cites as a justification the fact that the "founding fathers" of Kosovo declared that the situation there cannot be regarded as a precedent for all other cases. True, this is the case now, but we will discuss a little later whether or not this is a precedent…

So there is nothing surprising, still less reprehensible, in the fact that Azerbaijan, just like Turkey, is guided solely by its own interests when it makes decisions and implements a sovereign foreign policy.  But we should still not forget that, although it is now fashionable to say that we are the same people, we are still two different states, whose positions might not coincide. And today, Azerbaijan's position coincides with those of Russia, China, Spain, Venezuela, Georgia, Moldova and others - and so be it, regardless of what our political allies - Turkey, the United States and Great Britain - might think.

Pandora's box

As for the US policy on Serbia, the situation is more than clear to the author of this article. During George Bush Jr's years in power - we will bid him farewell this year - the US Administration has adopted a totally different view of its psychological and military advantages. Having given incorrect assessments of its goals and capabilities, the United States under the administration of the Republicans, whose mascot is an elephant, began to act like an elephant in a china shop, wreaking havoc on the political map of the world.

The strong-arm methods and authoritarian-style dictatorship, accompanied by a policy of blatant double standards and "democracy the American way," that is to say, one sort for domestic use and another for everyone else - all this has led the country to the worst consequence one could imagine: a huge number of the planet's inhabitants no longer believe in international justice and law.

The "Elephant" Administration has effectively completely devalued the role of the United Nations as an international organization and transformed it into a none-too-seemly instrument of its policy, with unclear goals. Now humanity views the United Nations, not as the supreme arbitrator with the powers to dispense justice if need be, but as a "colossus with feet of clay," a discredited mechanism for the implementation of the will of just one country, when that will exists, but demonstrating total political impotence whenever that country has no such will. This was the case when the Americans invaded Iraq, during the "situation analysis" in the Balkans, in the Arab-Israeli confrontation, and when attempts were made to resolve conflicts in the post-Soviet area. The Kosovo situation, when the United Nations demonstrated its inability to deal with the conflict and delegated its powers fully to the United States and the "Christian club" called the EU, was decisive proof of the above. In other words, under pressure from the United States, the only universally recognized international arbitrator delegated the right to deal with such an important problem to those who were interested in a "lop-sided" resolution of the crisis and who did not care about the potential for critical consequences.

In effect, the Americans have opened Pandora's box. For some reason, many of those who have decided to dance to the US tune (in other words, those who took the bait of the "uniqueness" of the Kosovo case, which cannot be viewed as a precedent) do not want to think about the contingency that tomorrow they might find themselves in Serbia's situation or, at best, encounter the problem of creeping separatism. For example, they comfort themselves with the thought that no one recognizes the separatists on their territory, oblivious of the fact that non-recognition will not make their home-grown separatism disappear and that the problem will remain.

Anyone who has ever visited Belgium knows very well about the historical and, incidentally, very poorly disguised antagonism between the French and Flemish communities. The same is true about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where a great many Scots, Welsh and Irish are not at all delighted with the domination of English London. It should suffice to recall the quite recent history of ethnic relations in Britain. We already hear about the enthusiasm with which the Basques in the northern provinces of Spain welcomed the news of Kosovo's secession and about the statements by Corsicans and Sicilians. Even Canada is faced with an immediate reaction in the country to Kosovo's secession from Serbia. And this is just the beginning.

The United States has effectively planted a mine under the future of the EU and other rivals which grow stronger politically and economically day by day - Russia and China. The notorious policy of division and splitting in the name of a unilateral hegemony remains, and the US Administration provides a brilliant example. In fact, this seems to be the medium and long-term strategy of the White House and we are bound to come across its lamentable consequences in the future.

The sad thing is that it would have been very easy to avert this situation. After all, the situation in Serbia was under NATO and EU control. Accepting the country into the EU would eventually resolve all the problems between the Serbs and Kosovars at once, rather than one by one as now, and would save the world another global headache.

From now on, international law is replaced by the "Kosovo law." And no one can say that it cannot be viewed as a precedent. At the very least, the separation of part of a country's territory against the latter's will is a precedent. Period. No matter how you look at it.

In conclusion, I will cite the article "This dependent independence is the least worst solution for Kosovo" in the 21st February issue of the authoritative British newspaper The Guardian:

"Is this a precedent, as some fear and others hope? Of course it is. Every declaration of independence is a precedent. Russian-backed leaders in South Ossetia and Transdnistria are muttering about following the example of the American-backed Kosovans. Basque and Catalan separatists take note, and the Spanish government has reacted against the declaration of independence with startling sharpness - partly because it comes in the middle of a hard-fought election campaign. Kosovo is the top story on the website of UNPO, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation, which has 69 members, from Abkhazia to Zanzibar.

'Kosovo is a special case,' says Kosovo's declaration of independence, going on to insist (hear the adviser's whisper again) that it is not a precedent. But all the other 68 UNPO members are special cases too. Liberals have universal rules for the treatment of individuals; they have always got in a tangle about groups - both about the position of groups inside a country (witness the debate around multiculturalism) and about which group is entitled to exercise the right of self-determination. They have no consistent answer to the nationalist's question: 'Why should I be a minority in your country when you could be a minority in mine?' Kosovo's declaration of dependent independence is the least worst way forward, but don't let us pretend it's not a precedent. Both statements are true: Kosovo is unique, and there will be more Kosovos." the article reads.

So we can only await the other "unique situations," when the "smart heads" will not want to deal with the problems in ways prescribed by international law and there will be great temptation to apply a different, "Kosovo law…."