Russia Begins Laying Legal Case That Cites The Self-Determination of Peoples

donsutherland1 · 08-14-08, 08:47 PM

Russia has begun defining a legal case that would be aimed at precluding a return to the status quo ante in Georgia. Russia is asserting that territorial integrity is subordinate to the principle of self-determination of peoples. It is asserting that the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia will determine their own fate and that Russia will act as guarantor of that decision. It is also seeking to emasculate Georgia's ability to compel the two breakaway provinces to remain part of Georgia.

Earlier today, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told reporters:

We need to prepare a completely final, binding treaty abjuring the use of force, which must be signed by the parties to the conflict and gauranteed by Russia, the EU, the OSCE, and perhaps some other actors...

I would like you to know and to convey to the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia that the position of the Russian Federation will not change: we will support any decision taken by the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in accordance with the United Nations Charter, international conventions of 1966, and the Helskinki Act on security and cooperation in Europe. And we not only support these decisions but will guarantee them in the Caucasus and in the world.

Several key points:

1) Barring the use of force will prevent Georgia from having that option for overturning the sentiment of the peoples of the two breakaway provinces. It will make it possible for the peoples in those provinces to reject any political arrangement in which they would remain a part of Georgia. Georgia would have no means to overturn that decision.

2) Russia would reserve a right to use force to guarantee the will of the peoples of those provinces.

3) Russia is making a legal case that the peoples of the two breakaway provinces, not Georgia's Government, have the authority to choose their own destiny. The references to the various international instruments concern the self-determination of peoples.

Article 1 of the UN Charter calls for "respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..."

Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which was adopted in 1966 and came into force in 1976 declares, "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

Article 8 of the Helsinki Declaration states:

The participating States will respect the equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination, acting at all times in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the relevant norms of international law, including those relating to territorial integrity of States.

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, all peoples always have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish their political, economic, social and cultural development.

4) As Russia pledges to act as a guarantor to enforce the right of self-determination of the peoples of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia implicitly places self-determination ahead of Georgia's territorial integrity and suggests that self-determination of peoples defines territorial integrity. Russia also invoked the precedent of Kosovo's separation as being operative concerning Abkhazia and South Ossetia. On August 12, President Medvedev told reporters:

Territorial integrity is a very complicated issue that cannot be decided at demonstrations or even in parliament and at meetings of leaders. it is decided by people's desire to live in one country.

You were right in asking if the Ossetians and Abkhazians can and want to live within Georgia. This is a question for them to ask of themselves and it is they who will give their own clear answer. It is not for Russia or any other country to answer this question for them. This is something tha must take place in strict accordance with international law. Though, over these last years international law has given us numerous very complicated cases of peoples exercising their right to self-determination and their emergence of new states on the map. Just look at the example of Kosovo.

This is therefore a question that the Ossetians and Abkhazians must answer themselves, based on their history and taking into account everything that has happened over these last few days.

Already, as a hint that Russia is serious about creating a mechanism for the peoples of the breakaway provinces to determine their own fate, Russia's Interfax News Agency reported today, "The Russian Central Electoral Commission [CEC] is to provide technical help for the South Ossetian Electoral Commission, head of the Russian CEC Vladimir Churov has said."

The end result is that Russia will not restore the status quo ante unless the peoples of Abkhazia and South Ossetia wish it to do so. That prospect is highly unlikely. Aside from the advantages Russia has gained on the ground from its use of force, Russia has now begun laying out a legal case aimed at solidifying the results of its armed operations. That case rests on an appeal to the self-determination of peoples in which that principle defines territorial integrity. It has also cited Kosovo as a precedent for Abkhazia's and South Ossetia's being separated from Georgia, assuming the peoples of those provinces seek such an outcome.

The Bare Knuckled Pundit · 08-14-08, 09:07 PM

Another insightful and spot on analysis, my friend.

I wonder, though, would Mother Russia be so steadfast on her position on self determination and territorial integrity were the Chechens to make the same argument and put her convictions to the test?

Ironic don't you think that Russia has cast itself as the defender of self determination while the US so laboriously struggles to prevent the emergence of a de jure independent Kurdistan.

As the Chinese love to say, we truly live in interesting times.

Kernel Sanders · 08-15-08, 05:46 AM

Russia is wading into dangerous waters here. While self determination is indeed important, that isn't to say that the south had the right to ceceed from the United States. As TBKP stated, the Russians themselves seem to oppose this position as relates to the Chechens. Saying that all people have an unrestricted right to self-determination, without regard to the need for stability or the soveirnty of nations is not a sustainable position. By next tuesday you would have a thousand different nations because Quebec wants to be independant, or because some radical Christian sect in the midwest feels oppressed, or because a political movement manages to get a temporary majority in some area.

donsutherland1 · 08-15-08, 09:28 AM

Thank you, BKP.

Quote:

I wonder, though, would Mother Russia be so steadfast on her position on self determination and territorial integrity were the Chechens to make the same argument and put her convictions to the test?

Ironic don't you think that Russia has cast itself as the defender of self determination while the US so laboriously struggles to prevent the emergence of a de jure independent Kurdistan.

I believe the Russia-Georgia situation will demonstrate anew that:

• Nations apply broad principles e.g., the principle of a right to self-determination, in a manner that suits their critical interests. There is no consistency in the global application of such principles.

• Nations creatively interpret or stretch precedents (regardless of the underlying circumstances behind those precedents) to serve their interests. There is no consistency in the global application of such precedents.

• "Spheres of influence" exist, even if some nations suggest or hope otherwise, precisely because other nations include such spheres in their worldview and that framework influences their policy choices.

• Power matters greatly. On-the-ground facts will shape the terms diplomatic arrangements. Nations in the stronger position will not accept terms that their weaker enemies would not have any realistic prospect of achieving on their own. They will insist on significant concessions in return for agreeing to those terms.

Iriemon · 08-15-08, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Thank you, BKP.

I believe the Russia-Georgia situation will demonstrate anew that:

• Nations apply broad principles e.g., the principle of a right to self-determination, in a manner that suits their critical interests. There is no consistency in the global application of such principles.

• Nations creatively interpret or stretch precedents (regardless of the underlying circumstances behind those precedents) to serve their interests. There is no consistency in the global application of such precedents.

• "Spheres of influence" exist, even if some nations suggest or hope otherwise, precisely because other nations include such spheres in their worldview and that framework influences their policy choices.

• Power matters greatly. On-the-ground facts will shape the terms diplomatic arrangements. Nations in the stronger position will not accept terms that their weaker enemies would not have any realistic prospect of achieving on their own. They will insist on significant concessions in return for agreeing to those terms.

While it is de jour for the right wing to proclaim the new cold war -- and all the new military spending that would justify -- if you look at the history of Russia over the past 20 years, it actually has an astounding record of granting self determination and territorial integrity at the expense of its own nation. It has given up control of not only several Eastern European states but huge tracts of what was formerly its territory, and had been for decades or centuries.

How many other nations have given up large tracts of its souvereign terriroty without bloodshed? Not that many in history.

Looked at from recent history, its hard to argue that Russia has been out to make land grabs and territorial expansion. The complete opposite has been true.

The Bare Knuckled Pundit · 08-15-08, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

While it is de jour for the right wing to proclaim the new cold war -- and all the new military spending that would justify -- if you look at the history of Russia over the past 20 years, it actually has an astounding record of granting self determination and territorial integrity at the expense of its own nation. It has given up control of not only several Eastern European states but huge tracts of what was formerly its territory, and had been for decades or centuries.

How many other nations have given up large tracts of its souvereign terriroty without bloodshed? Not that many in history.

Looked at from recent history, its hard to argue that Russia has been out to make land grabs and territorial expansion. The complete opposite has been true.

Indeed, the generosity of the Russia in withdrawing from Eastern European that had suffered under the yoke of its occupation during the Cold War is a testament to her magnanimity and graciousness.

Moreover, much of the generosity it displayed during the 90's in releasing control of its former republics was based on the fact it could no longer afford to administer them.

Now that the economic circumstances have shifted to their benefit, they seek to effectively exercise political control over their near-abroad while incurring minimal expense through intimidation; both covert and overt.

Sorry, but I have to concur with Mr. Sutherland's analysis and his follow-on comments.

donsutherland1 · 08-15-08, 04:46 PM

Iriemon,

While I give former President Gorbachev much credit for resisting the temptation to resort to brute force to keep the Soviet Union unified, even as he preferred a unified nation, and to prevent its satellites from choosing to chart their own destinies, such calculations were based on the concrete experience that past Soviet interventions did not prove beneficial to the USSR.

In his memoirs, Gorbachev recounted:

I have frequently been asked why the USSR did not intervene in the Romanian drama to assist the dictator’s departure. I repeat once more that we did not intervene because to do so would have contradicted the principles of our new policy. The interventions undertaken previously had eventually turned into liabilities, Pyrrhic victories, for us. That was the lesson of Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Afghanistan in 1979...

The centuries-old habit of the Russian leaders to dominate our neighbours has had its negative influence, too. It is not always overt, but it is always easy to recognize. It feeds the fears of once again becoming dependent on Moscow.

President Gorbachev offered similar rationale for allowing Germany to reunify.

Even with today's tensions concerning Russia's military intervention in Georgia, I do not believe things will necessarily evolve toward a new Cold War-type rivalry. There are some substantial mutual interests (economic and political) and needs (limiting nuclear proliferation, containing the threat of radical Islamist movements that pose a real threat along Russia's periphery and to liberal Western states, etc.) on which a constructive strategic partnership can be established. A lot of work will be required. However, the combination of far-sighted diplomacy, respect for states' sovereignty and their critical interests, restraint in the use of military power, and consideration of the balance of power can lead to that better outcome.

Although the U.S. will likely need to strike some compromises along the way, i.e., concerning future NATO expansion or placement of its missile defense system, Russia will also need to compromise. For its part, Russia will need to take a less heavy-handed approach with respect to its "Near Abroad," and learn to trust that its neighbors' building ties with a West that is a strategic partner with Russia does not entail increased risks. Russia's neighbors will also need to understand that a pro-Western tilt does not grant them license to trample on Russia's critical interests or buy them immunity from the consequences of such acts.

Should the West seek to accommodate Russia's core needs but Russia remain a prisoner of its historic fears or become seduced by ambition on account of its recent military success against Georgia, Russia could bring to fruition its national nightmare in which its longstanding fears of encirclement would become fact. If that happens, its "victories" along the way would become truly Pyrrhic and its sacrifices would become little more than sunk costs.

Given the harsh Soviet-era experience, difficulties encountered in the still relatively young post-Cold War period, and the major trends sweeping the globe ranging from increased nationalism to economic integration, the learning and adjustment on all sides remains incomplete. The transition is still ongoing. The affairs in Georgia could wind up merely a small error or setback if the challenge is managed effectively. If not, the road ahead could grow rockier.

donsutherland1 · 08-20-08, 12:02 PM

In perhaps the strongest demonstration to date that Russia is seeking to lay the legal foundation for a new situation in which self-determination for Abkhazia and South Ossetia takes precedence over Georgia's territorial integrity, Russia announced that it would oppose a French draft of a UN Security Council Resolution that, in part, reaffirmed Georgia's territorial integrity. The BBC reported:

At the UN, Russia's ambassador said the French-drafted UN resolution went against the terms of the ceasefire brokered by France's President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Vitaly Churkin said the resolution should incorporate all elements of the six-point peace plan agreed last week.

He also objected to language in the draft reaffirming Georgia's territorial integrity, saying South Ossetia and Abkhazia did not want to be part of Georgia.

Russia's objection to a reaffirmation of Georgia's territorial integrity represents a significant departure from Russia's previous role in the UN Security Council. Previous Security Council resolutions e.g., UNSC Res. 1808, which was adopted on April 15, 2008, included language proclaiming that the Security Council "reaffirms the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders..."

The ceasefire agreement contains no such language. Instead, it refers to the "opening of international discussions on the modalities of lasting security in Abkhazia and South Ossetia..." Such language would be sufficiently flexible to permit Abkhazia and/or South Ossetia to chart their own destiny.

That Russia seeks to put in place a mechanism that assures that Georgia could no longer compel either province to remain under Georgian governance, Ambassador Churkin insisted that any Security Council resolution include all six points from the ceasefire agreement. The first point in the agreement requires all parties to adhere to the principle that there would be "no recourse to the use of force."

Past Security Council resolutions called on the parties "to finalize without delay the document on the non-use of violence..." Georgia has opposed such terms. The Secretary-General's April 2, 2008 report concerning Georgia noted, "On 15 March, the Georgian leadership reiterated Georgia's commitment to settling its internal conflicts by peaceful means, but opposed signing new documents on the non-use of force in the conflict settlement process..." Georgia's objection concerned the fact that "earlier ceasefire agreements had resulted in the loss of Abkhazia." Not surprisingly, Russia is keen on ensuring that any formal documents ratify requirements that the parties agree not to use force.

All said, the end result is that Russia will not restore the status quo ante unless the peoples of Abkhazia and South Ossetia wish it to do so. In the wake of Georgia's disastrous bid to settle South Ossetia's status by force, which ran counter to previous Georgian claims that it favored a peaceful settlement of the historic disputes, Russia is likely to use its on-the-ground gains to assert that Abkhazia's and South Ossetia's exercise of their right of self-determination will ultimately determine Georgia's recognized borders. As a means of facilitating the ability of the two breakaway provinces to pursue a course of self-determination irrespective of Tbilisi's desires, Russia will likely insist that the principle of non-use of force be incorporated in all future international documents concerning the region. The non-use of force would effectively grant Abkhazia and South Ossetia a veto over Tbilisi's ability to exercise jurisdiction over those provinces and would create a new de facto border reality for Georgia.

justone · 08-20-08, 02:31 PM

donsutherland1, if you do not want to run for POTUS, you should at least apply for a commentator/news reporter position in a major cable network, they all suck if to compare to your analyses/news… What do you do, do you really make more money than they do, - is it why you are not interested?

Democrat4life · 08-20-08, 03:34 PM

Russia seems very willing to have breakaway provinces get independence but they refused Chechnya...

Russia is very strange and they are only alienating themselves from the international community.