Conflicts should be solved via talks, if not, via people's will
"Where does the idea of inviolability of the soviet republics come from? Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transdnistria, Nagorno Karabakh are products of objective circumstances: demographic and political displacements, decline of states, wars. It's important to comprehend the logic of these displacements taking into account the objective reality. Kosovo can become a regular but extra argument while the initial motive is the characteristics of the epoch and region, certain circumstances," says the article titled "Political atlas of conflicts and two Helsinki principles" by OSCE MG Russian Co-chair in 1994-1996, Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov.
"Appliance and efficiency of two principles depends on plenty of factors. Here are some of them. Is that the dynamic of ethnic composition of the population that became the topic of the dispute (in the course of a century, for example)? Is it the movement of masses for independence or manifestation of mafia? Is the movement characterized by peaceful demands or terrorist acts. Is it the 'experience' of the state system, peculiarities of 'plebeians' led by 'patricians' (if we use the vocabulary of Rome where the phenomenon of secession was born? Have the 'plebeians' come to struggle against 'patricians'? Were these battles frequent, lasting and severe? Does the matter concern survival of the sides: 'plebeians' as the ethnic population or state of 'patricians'? Is it the prestige and benefits of 'patricians' and their desire to keep their lands? How long and how efficient the 'plebeians' control their territory? No doubt, the process and peculiarities of the armed conflict is important. Who stands for a peaceful settlement and who wanted to settle it by force? Were the norms of the international humanitarian law violated? Who violated them? Who stands against immediate contacts, dialogue and trust? Who fails to fulfill agreements? Was a referendum conducted? What were the issues on the vote? Does the new state have chances to survive? Does it possess real attributes of state system and self-government? To what extent is its system electoral and democratic, especially as compared to the order of 'patricians'?
The causes and consequences, their exact division, the pre-history and juridical specification are extremely important in each conflict. The fact of cessation of a republic or an autonomous structure from a union or republic is also significant.
Misunderstanding will also emerge. Administrative borders of the USSR were rather arbitrary (the mess of decisions of the Caucasian Bureau on Karabakh and voluntary conveyance of Crimea are well known). Those who orient to the West and reject everything soviet idolize the USSR borders. Is it bad or good? It's good in order to avoid new conflicts. But what should be done with the conflicts where blood was shed. To pretend as if nothing has happened?
In short, a detailed scale of criteria is needed. All elements should be united in a system. A wide discussion with participation of all those interested in peaceful settlement of disputes (foreign relations specialists, political scientists, media, people's diplomacy) on the issue would be useful.
It will form a 'political atlas' of each conflict (totality of the epoch features, region and peculiarity of the conflict. It will yield some coefficients for both principles. Multi-level composition of arguments is much more persuasive than 'bare' appeal to 'profitable principle'. It will be a cold shower for the sides and a good system guiding line for the international community.
Nevertheless, the fate of the conflicts should be decided by talks, if not, via the expression of will of the population. It should by no means be references to "own principle" without taking into consideration all circumstances," Kazimirov writes.
"Appliance and efficiency of two principles depends on plenty of factors. Here are some of them. Is that the dynamic of ethnic composition of the population that became the topic of the dispute (in the course of a century, for example)? Is it the movement of masses for independence or manifestation of mafia? Is the movement characterized by peaceful demands or terrorist acts. Is it the 'experience' of the state system, peculiarities of 'plebeians' led by 'patricians' (if we use the vocabulary of Rome where the phenomenon of secession was born? Have the 'plebeians' come to struggle against 'patricians'? Were these battles frequent, lasting and severe? Does the matter concern survival of the sides: 'plebeians' as the ethnic population or state of 'patricians'? Is it the prestige and benefits of 'patricians' and their desire to keep their lands? How long and how efficient the 'plebeians' control their territory? No doubt, the process and peculiarities of the armed conflict is important. Who stands for a peaceful settlement and who wanted to settle it by force? Were the norms of the international humanitarian law violated? Who violated them? Who stands against immediate contacts, dialogue and trust? Who fails to fulfill agreements? Was a referendum conducted? What were the issues on the vote? Does the new state have chances to survive? Does it possess real attributes of state system and self-government? To what extent is its system electoral and democratic, especially as compared to the order of 'patricians'?
The causes and consequences, their exact division, the pre-history and juridical specification are extremely important in each conflict. The fact of cessation of a republic or an autonomous structure from a union or republic is also significant.
Misunderstanding will also emerge. Administrative borders of the USSR were rather arbitrary (the mess of decisions of the Caucasian Bureau on Karabakh and voluntary conveyance of Crimea are well known). Those who orient to the West and reject everything soviet idolize the USSR borders. Is it bad or good? It's good in order to avoid new conflicts. But what should be done with the conflicts where blood was shed. To pretend as if nothing has happened?
In short, a detailed scale of criteria is needed. All elements should be united in a system. A wide discussion with participation of all those interested in peaceful settlement of disputes (foreign relations specialists, political scientists, media, people's diplomacy) on the issue would be useful.
It will form a 'political atlas' of each conflict (totality of the epoch features, region and peculiarity of the conflict. It will yield some coefficients for both principles. Multi-level composition of arguments is much more persuasive than 'bare' appeal to 'profitable principle'. It will be a cold shower for the sides and a good system guiding line for the international community.
Nevertheless, the fate of the conflicts should be decided by talks, if not, via the expression of will of the population. It should by no means be references to "own principle" without taking into consideration all circumstances," Kazimirov writes.
