Aleksei Ostrovsky, head of the Duma’s Committee for CIS Affairs has recommended that the Russian Government create diplomatic missions at the territories of three unrecognized republics – Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Trans-Dneister (Pridnestrovie).
According to Interfax, the document, which has been prepared for discussion and further confirmation in the Duma, recommends that Russia work to “achieve representatives’ participation of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Pridnestrovie in all international organizations and forums, where their interests are discussed and touched.”
Also it was recommended that Russia should “resist firmly any attempts of external pressure – political, economical or military – concerning these three republics” and that the Russian Parliament suggest to the Russian Federation government that it“maintain existing forms of peacekeeping operations to settle conflicts around Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Pridnestrovie based on mutual conventions”.
According to the report:
“Nowadays the situation in the zone of Georgia-Abkhazia and Georgia-Ossetia conflicts becomes more and more complicated. Politics realized by Tbilisi is extravagant, unpredictable and sometimes destructive. Georgia is trying to break existing algorithims of conflict settlement and compromise the Russian peacekeepers’ mission. This gives a reason to Abkhazians and Ossetians to believe that Georgian administration chooses military option”.
The report’s authors note that mandate of peacekeeping forces, which are operating in the territory of the conflicts between Georgia and Abkhazia, Georgia and Ossetia, only allows them to “split the rivals, maintain regime of security and stop the fire”. To change this mandate would require the agreement of all sides. But neither Abkhazia, nor South Osetia have given their agreement, because they are afraid the departure of Russian peacekeepers would lead to destabilization of the situation in the region.
The authors of the project believe that the precedent set in Kosovo, wich recently declared its independence will have consequences for other “frozen conflicts.” If these conflicts remain “frozen,” this will be provoke new stage of confrontation between conflict sides. And this confrontation will be negative for the population.
Nugzar Ashuba, the head of Parliament of Abkhazia, speaking in the Duma, asked Russia to recognize independence of this self-proclaimed republic as soon as possible. He told Duma members that:
“The Russian Federation now (after the Kosovo incident) has enough reasons to declare the independence of Abkhazia all over the world. By doing this Russia will establish its international weight.”
Ashuba also mentioned that the Georgian government must be interested in recognition new status of republic, because Abkhazia has proved that it was able to survive as an independent entity.
“We think that if Georgia recognizes independence of Abkhazia, its government will solve many other socio-economical problems and the Georgian people will be free from waiting for war every moment.”
The rest of the Duma’s discussion was closed to journalists, but according to one source, some Duma deputies consider that Russia has to support these self-proclaimed republics, because they will never be part of Georgia again.
It is the time to remember words of President Putin during the visit of Angela Merkel last week. He reminded us that case of Kosovo would have a lot of consequences for the world.
Now we have the beginning. Who is next?
{ 457 comments }
← Previous Comments
Hehe.
Andy, the other side to your take is quite firm that their intentions can still succeed. As of now, it’s not like they can be called a failure or success.
I don’t know if the Soviet era Byelorrssian and Ukrainian UN examples are discredited. They exist as a precedent.
Concerning UNSCR 1244 and the arguments of both sides (Serb and Albanian), show me a policy that comes closer to agreeing with both parties:
Kosovo gets full UN and IOC membership right as an irrevocably autonomus part of Serbia.
I sense that there’re enough folks in the international community who are a bit disgusted with the flippant idea that Kosovo should be independent as a means of punishing the Serbs for not succumbing to the heavy handed antics levied against them. With this in mind, maybe it’s the pro-Kosovo independence side which might see the light if you may.
It has also been suggested that there could be deals of sorts relative to some of the disputed former Soviet bloc territories.
You’re right that if Serbia agrees to Kosovo’s independence, then Kosovo becomes fully recognized as independent. There’s talk of Montenegro and Serbia possibly forming another unuion. If Republika Srpska is allowed to go its way, I think Belgrade might be more willing to part with Kosovo.
Your incentive point has been brought up by others besides:
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/mb/063.shtml
Mr. Averko:
As the not so Serb friendly late Warren Zimmerman observed, Slovenia started that brief war.
Slovenia took the initiative in that conflict, among other things maintaining an autonomous military and taking on the JNA a day before the Yugoslav army’s planned intervention. Regardless of the nature of that conflict, Slovenia
won the war inasmuch as its basic goals were met.
“On 7 July the mediation of European diplomats at a meeting of Yugoslav and Slovene delegations produced an agreement. The Republic of Slovenia retained control over its territory, including its external borders, while the Slovene forces released their blockade of YNA units, which had to return to barracks, all prisoners of war were released and for three months Slovenia had to refrain from any further independence measures.
During this moratorium independent Slovenia was recognised by Croatia, Lithuania, Georgia, Latvia and Estonia. Since by 8 October no new agreement had been reached between Slovenia and Yugoslavia, the international verdict of Yugoslavia’s collapse was passed. Slovenia started making efforts to secure international recognition, something which elicited favourable words from French President Francois Mitterand on 3 October during the visit by President Kucan and foreign minister Rupel.
Before Christmas 1991 the European Community resolved to recognise the independent states of Slovenia and Croatia on 15 January 1992, and this resolution was indeed fulfilled. This was followed by recognition from many other countries, including recognition for Slovenia from the USA in April 1992, and in May Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina were accepted into the United Nations. In May 1993 Slovenia was accepted into the Council of Europe.”
How are nations admitted into the UN?
Based on that answer, how do you reasonably expect Kosovo to get admitted into the UN within the next 2-3 years?
Turning to Wikipedia again …
“According to the United Nations Charter, Chapter 2, Article 4:
1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
2. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”
I don’t see any intrinsic reason why Kosovo can’t be admitted to the United Nations under that article.
The only likely way I see this happening is under the Soviet era Byelorssian and Ukrainian precedent, of part of a nation being in the UN, with the whole of that nation (USSR) represented as well.
In 1945, Stalin demanded that each of the Soviet republics receive a seat at the United Nations, on the grounds that each republic was an independent state. The question of the non-recognition of the annexation of the Baltics aside, the American government counter-offered by demanding membership for the United States’ then 48 states. The Soviet Union eventually settled with receiving two seats for the European republics universally recognized as Soviet.
For that initial precedent to work, Serbia would have to be much more powerful than it is and Kosovo would have to be under Serbian control. Neither condition being met, I fail to see how this maps onto Serbia-Kosovo.
(The other examples of non-sovereign member-states of the United Nations, India and the Philippines, relate to examples of colonies which were being groomed for independence. I take it this isn’t the sort of precedent you’d like?)
Following up on the UN matter, look how long it took for the PRC to get into the UN.
Yes, when sovereignty over China was contested between the prior Republic of China and its successor the People’s Republic in the Cold War. How is that relevant to Kosovo?
All it takes is for one vote in the negative at the UNSC.</i<
More precisely, all it takes is for one cast to be cast in the negative at the UNSC. Will it?
Andy:
Mike, I think you’re probably right that it will take a while for Kosovo to be accepted into the UN – while Russia and Serbia are opposed, it will certainly not happen.
Agreed. I wonder whether Russia will remain opposed. From what I can tell, the Russian goverment has used Kosovar independence to mobilize a certain amount of anti-Western nationalism at home while taking advantage of Kostunica’s nationalism to do things like buy up Serbia’s national energy infrastructure. Past a certain point, will the Russian government care that much more about Serbia?
Past a certain point, will the Russian government care that much more about Serbia?
No – past a certain point, it will become expedient for Russia to move its position.
I’d imagine, though, that to save their own faces, Russia would pressure Serbia into accepting Kosovo, thus allowing Russia to portray themselves to the world as good Slavic allies.
However, I think Serbia is in a much weaker position than Russia on this issue. Serbia needs (and, I believe, reluctantly wants) to be integrated into the European mainstram. For financial advantages, if nothing else.
And integration will come at a price. Kosovo.
The clout of the EU is overestimated.
It hasn’t yet given full membership rights to two of its newest members.
Other nations said to be ahead of Serbia for EU membership consideration might’ve a bit of a wait.
Last week, the moderate Lead Economist (that’s his title) of the World Bank expressed the view that EU membership might not be the reasonably best option for Serbia. He added that this shouldn’t prevent the EU and Serbia from having close ties.
Meantime, it’s not really a primary Western interest to support Kosovo’s independence.
With all this in mind, the current position of Russia, Serbia and others shouldn’t be taken as weak.
Other nations said to be ahead of Serbia for EU membership consideration might’ve a bit of a wait.
For what?
The only reference that I can find to Milanovic’s statement is in your article in American Chronicle. Do you have an external link?
The emergence of the BRIC powers is a notable fact. Relying on a Russia that’s been driven by an oil boom that’s contributing to a nasty case of the Dutch disease, pushing wages and consumption up even as domestic production and the workforce shrinks, might not be the best policy decision for Serbia to make. The past two decades have seen Serbia experience a startling relative decline. Does it really want another decade like this?
The nice thing about European Union membership is that it helps secure and lock into plae a new member state as an economically viable democracy. Macedonia has received at least as much foreign investment as Serbia because of its status as an accession state.
At any rate, the idea that the various countries that have recognized Kosovo as independent are going to take thsi recognition away is unreal. Already, Kosovo is on track to join the IMF and the World Bank thanks to voting procedures in thoe institutions. Suggestions (I’m a bit skeptical of the source) that Saudi Arabia will recognize Kosovo soon will also have an impact in the wider Muslim world.
Here’s a link to the referenced Politika article citing Milanovic:
http://www.politika.co.yu/rubrike/Politika/Glas-protiv-pregovora-sa-EU.lt.html
For clarity sake, I requested and received four different translated summations of what he said. They all agreed with what was stated in that AC piece, which has been relatively well received:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Chechnya%2C+EU-Serbia+and+a+Disputed+Lands+Update%22&btnG=Google+Search
Three of the four translated requests came from trusted sources, fluent in Serbo-Croatian. To date, there’ve been no messages indicating that Milanovic was misinterpreted.
Until I acquire hyperlinking capability at the AC, my online articles there will be without hyperlinks. Feel free to drop me a private line to get on the list which forwards the emailed text versions that include hyperlinks.
It’s clear that the EU appears overextended, to go along with other countries ahead of Serbia for EU membership. Meantime, time goes by. There’re other viable options, which others besides Milanovic acknowledge.
Since 1999, Saudi Arabia has been involved with funding the building of mosques in Kosovo. During this same period, a good number of churches have been destroyed in that provinces. As recently noted at another SL thread, the “Muslim world” is by no means monolithic. Libya recently voted against Iran at the UN, while issuing a statement firmly opposed to Kosovo’s independence. Other predominately Muslim states have placed a value on the territorial sovereignty of a nation and the right to defend against terrorism. Kosovo hasn’t shown itself worthy of true independence. This is shown by how non-Balkan elements continue to hold much of the power there. A truly independent state wouldn’t exist in such a manner. Internally, Pridnestrovie (Trans-Dniester) has greater governing aspects, in addition to better human rights and economic conditions.
As for “unreal”, it continues to be unreal why countries justifiably opposed to Kosovo’s indeendendence should back down.
Given the existing reality, there’s room for further discussion. It’s unreal to believe that Kosovo’s fate is firmly sealed. UNSCR 1244 is still in existence, minus any changes to it.
On the mentiioned Macedonia aid point: if the EU foreign investment to it is equal to Serbia, then Macedonia’s portion is comparatively much greater in per capita terms. Your EU point about Macedonia and Serbia gives credence to Milanovic’s suggestion that Serbia and the EU can have close relations short of membership; with Belgrade seeking other options as well?
Should globalization be primarily about doing what Soros supported folks want?
“Already, Kosovo is on track to join the IMF and the World Bank thanks to voting procedures in thoe institutions.”
****
As in the countries that play a dominating role in those orgs. A point noted in a hyperlink to the originally quoted.
Do either or both of those orgs. have members of territories like Taiwan, Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, Palestine and the British Virgin Islands? Lands that are either not fully independent, on the likely path towards independence, on the likely path of not acquiring independence, or only recognized by some as independent?
Hey FIFA recognizes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Once again, note that Soviet era Byelorussia and Ukraine had full UN membership rights.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }