Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Self-determination of nations: pros and cons

Self-determination of nations: pros and cons 
 
Moscow. (Sergei Cheshko for RIA Novosti) - The Georgian-Abkhazian and
Georgian-South Ossetian conflicts, as well as Russia's role in settling
them, are a major factor in Russia's relations with Georgia, as well as
NATO and the European Union. 
Georgian leaders and their Western and Russian sympathizers believe that
both conflicts are a typical example of separatism. Abkhazia and South
Ossetia, as well as their supporters in Russia, advocate the right to
self-determination based on referendum results. This position also hinges
on the fact that most Abkhazians and South Ossetians have Russian
citizenship and it is impossible for them to live under Georgian
jurisdiction. 
Historical arguments rest on the fact that both regions were made part of
Georgia in Soviet times for purely political reasons; moreover, a medieval
Abkhazian state had emerged earlier than Georgia. 
An opinion that is increasingly often voiced in this country is that
Russia should stop kowtowing to Georgian leaders, respond to the call of
the fraternal nations and stand up for its regional interests. 
It is hard to contest the arguments of both sides, all of which are right
in their own way. But the main problem is that international law,
including UN documents, still highlights a conflict between the
sovereignty and territorial integrity principles of UN member-states and
the right to self-determination. 
The concept of self-determination in international legal acts was
formalized during the post-war decolonization period and primarily aimed
to legalize independence of emergent countries and to facilitate their
statehood. 
It may appear that this latter circumstance rules out the right to
self-determination today because it is already an established fact, and
these nations are part of the UN. 
But the situation is not as simple as it seems. 
During the break-up of the Soviet Union, Georgian autonomies, namely,
Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as Transdnestr and Gagauzia in Moldova
declared they did not want to gain independence together with these
republics and voiced their desire to join the Russian Federation. 
In response they were explained that they did not have the same rights as
the titular nations in former Soviet republics, but this inadequate logic
was not accepted. 
The West has tended to revise the inviolability of post-war borders after
the Soviet Union's break-up and continues to assert double standards. This
trend was manifested vividly in the Yugoslav conflict, the plan for
Kosovo's independence, efforts to pressure Moscow on the Chechen issue and
the position on Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnestr. 
The recent Serbian constitutional referendum has polled voters on the
status of Kosovo and made the situation even more obscure. 
What are its possible consequences in the context of international law and
a new world order? What will happen if Georgia and Moldova hold similar
referendums on the status of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnestr? How
will the West respond in all these cases? What foreign policy strategy
will Russian leaders choose in a changed and extremely unstable
international situation when customary norms and principles of
international relations are being revised? 
The cautious statements of top-level Russian politicians imply this is a
blind alley. 
Technically speaking, Russia could de jure recognize the de facto
independence of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnestr, admit them in the
federation or establish any other associated relations. This scenario,
although it is fraught with serious international implications for Moscow,
would end uncertainty and ensure Russian interests in these regions. 
Alternatively, Moscow could continue to maneuver in the hope that the
problem would eventually be resolved by itself. However, this less
precarious option is fraught with several equally serious dangers. Russia
may not be able to keep up with the events, and failure to make crucial
decisions would signify defeat. 
Sergei Cheshko is Professor of Anthropology at the Ethnography Institute 
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not
necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board. 
-- 
[si parla della censura sulla strage israeliana di Beit Hanoun sul blog di
tonibaruch]
[sergio]: da perfetto goebbelsuccio quale sei, meglio non parlarne cosi'
nessuno la ricorderà
[Tonibaruch] :  Vero
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 Self-determination of nations: pros and cons
Interessante l'articolo del Prof. Cheshko, IMHO non hai capito cosa
dice.
Palmiro Pangloss

 IMHO non hai capito cosa
 ROTFL!


 ragione alla Cecenia.
e sarà la soldataglia britannica a cacciare i russi dalla Cecenia?
LOL!!!!!!!!
In Cecenia c'e' un presidente che vuole mantenere la Cecenia nella
Federazione.
Mi spiace per te , porgiculo dei nazisti. Dovrai rosicare ancora li' al
Pincio dove ti nascondi da vigliacco. LOL!