Under the Radar News

As I sit here without a car on a Sunday to get out of the metropolis of Maseru (with the added injury of being called at 7 ON A SUNDAY MORNING about borrowing it), I've been going over some news snips about matters that rarely covered but which may be of interest and - like the butterfly effect - could have consequences very far away.

If few outside of Eastern Europe, Russia and Caucuses have noticed, that's hardly a surprise.  But, recently the last dictator in Europe, President Lukashenko of Belarus has been at odds, to say the least, with Moscow. In a series of escalating moves, he has made an alliance of convenience with Georgia and its President, Sakaasvili to the extent that Sakaasvili was allowed to castigate Russia on a popular TV station in Minsk. To say that this has annoyed Moscow is an understatement.  I give it a month.

On the other side of the planet, Hugo the Great has severed ties with Columbia in a hissy fit claiming that Uribe was capable of and indeed, plans provoking a war with Venezuala and impeding regional integration. Chavez seems to be feeling left out of everything lately - haveing been so successful in destroyng the economy and unable of realizing it is Brazil calling the shots.

There has never been privately owned media in Turkmenistan - until now. The President, Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, has ordered it so.

In case it appears that the burqa ban is only an issue in Europe - Damascus has now made the move.

Finally, this is really discriminatory!  And from the Dutch, no less.

Independent Investigation Launched - Turkish Gaza Flotilla

About time.  Although it will come as a surprise to no one that Israel will refuse to cooperate with the UN on this investgation.

and, speaking of Russia....and the ICJ

The recent advisory opinion by the ICJ regarding Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia will pose a problem for Moscow.  It's statements to the court may come back to haunt it.

Moscow stated that:

General international law prevents Kosovo from declaring independence, bearing in mind that the people of Kosovo do not enjoy a right to self-determination.

Russia rejects claims coming from those countries who support the unilateral declaration that international law "does not regulate independence declarations", and reminds that the UN Security Council declared Northern Cyprus and Rhodesia's independence to be illegal, since secession is forbidden outside the colonial context.

Violations of human rights of Albanians during the 1990s cannot be the justification for a unilateral declaration of independence in 2008.

Russia supported, to the extent of encouraging and sending troops to assist, breakaway regions of Georgia - Abkhasia and S. Ossetia.  At the time of Kosovo's declaration, Russia declared that acceptance would have consequences.  Many commentators pointed to the invasion of Georgia, ostensibly to protect the populations of Abkhasia and S. Ossetia from Georgian ethnic cleansing and prevent Georgia from reasserting central authority, as pay-back for Kosovo.

Yet the position that Russia's ambassador presented to the court does not reflect its positions regarding Georgian sovereignty and spells trouble for Chechnya and other non-Russian regions of the Federation.

It's first statement, that general international law does not allow Kosovar independence because the people have no right of self determination is not, in fact and law, true.  The court had previously decided in the case of East Timor that the right of self-determination exists in all circumstances under the fundamental principle of jus cogens - a principle of international law which is accepted by the international community as a norm from which no derogation is ever permitted.  Russia needs to consider the impact of this position on Chechnya.

The second point refers to a legal position that such unilateral declarations of independence can only be asserted within a colonial context.  This argument has been raised before, but has no general support in international law.  In any case, the advisory opinion distinguishes the Kosovo declaration as not an issue between nation states, but an internal matter which was triggered by the stripping of all of Kosovo's rights under the Yugoslav constitution under the Milosevic regime.  If Russia wants to pursue this position of independence only within a colonial context, how far back should we look?  Chechnya could, arguably, be considered a colonial possession, conquered and re-conquered several times in the  19th century by imperial Russia.  On the other hand, the Russian argument fails if applied to Abkhasia and S. Ossetia since they could not be considered colonies, ever, of Georgia.

Citing Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus in support of the illegality of the unilateral declaration of independence, Russia ignored the unique circumstances of each of those actions one of which involved the attempt to continue an oppressive colonial regime and the other which is political in nature. The political component is ignored by those, like Russia, who tend not to differentiate between the court's ruling which recognized the legality of the declaration as opposed to political recognition.  This is crucial for Cyprus, where the Greeks are opposing opening of any new chapters in EU accession talks for Turkey despite the commitment of the EU to do so based on the 2004 vote by Turkish Cypriots to reunite the island, while the Greeks voted it down. Only Turkey recognizes Northern Cyprus - a very similar situation to that faced by Russia in Abkhasia and S. Ossetia which have been recognized by Venezuela, Nicaragua and some insignificant island in the Pacific. Politically, it is unlikely that Northern Cyprus will be recognized as independent by anyone other than Turkey even if an argument can be made for legal recognition.

Kosovo is recognized, so far, by 69 countries, including the US, Germany and Turkey. Politics matters.  Citing Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus is an unwise legal position since both can be used to show the illegality of Abkhazia's and S. Ossetia's unilateral declarations.

Violation of human rights in the 1990s cannot be used as a reason for Independence in 2004 - the next argument put forward by Russia.  However, the court did not rely on the violation of human rights as the basis of its decision. Rather, it pointed to the stripping of constitutional rights granted to other regions of Yugoslavia - a position successfully put forward by Croatia.  Conversely, violation of human rights is precisely the argument used by Russia to inject troops in support of the Abkhazian and S. Ossetian independence movements. 

Despite the frequent admonitions that Kosovo is a unique situation and not precedent - admonitions made by Russia, Turkey (with it's eye on the Kurds in northern Iraq), the UK, US and Germany (in recent statements in Cyprus), it will be used as precedent.  But it will be politics, not international law that will govern the outcome.

New Russian PR Web Site

I''ve done my share of Russia bashing, but this new PR site by the Russian Federation - called Modern Russian - is pretty cool.  It actually provides some interesting information which would not normally be found in the news - except perhaps in Russia, and perhaps not even then.  Check it out.

International Court of Justice - Kosovo can say what it wants

I have not read the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice today regarding the legality of the Kosovar declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008, but will.  However, from the bits that I have read, it seems that the old saying "be careful what you ask for" really applies to this opinion.

Distilled, it seems the court opined that the declaration of independence by Kosovo was not illegal under international law.  This is a punt, it seems to me. Anyone can declare independence with impunity. It is not quite the same as shouting "fire" in a packed theater, but the court essentially affirmed the right to say whatever you want, to a point.  From what can be gleaned from the BBC reports, the opinion never stated that the secession was legal.  For what it is worth, I think that it is, but we can get into that at another time.

The ultimate result will be how this opinion will be interpreted by, say, South Ossetia, Abkhasia, the Basque region of France and Spain, Chechnya, Russia, France, Spain and Georgia - to name a few.  After I have had the chance to actually read the opinion, there will be additional analysis.  For the time being, I can positively guaranty that Prishtina will be celebrating and Belgrade will pout.

Update on Investigation for the Kyrgyz Republic

OK.  So, the OSCE refused my advice. Again. I'm astonished.

Here comes the investigation to determine why people killed each other in Osh.  Write your own conclusions.  It'll be as good as theirs.

International Investigation in Kyrgyzstan?

Image by dwrawlinson via Flickr

The bloody inter-ethnic fighting in southern Kyrgyzstan, centred for the most part in the city of Osh, remains the subject of conspiracy theorists and confusion. However, I don’t find these arguments that have been put forward for an international investigation compelling.


Was the violence due to third party instigation? Probably, considering that the Kyrgyz Republic has suffered little from ethnic violence since independence. Osh is a predominantly Uzbek city, but there is little to indicate that the majority of Kyrgyz bore any sort of animosity toward the majority. Only in 1990 has the area seen this type of violence which has more to do with culture than ethnicity. The third party may indeed be the Bakiyev family whose removal from power cost their clan a great deal – both in power and money. Bakiyev’s son, who ran a particularly venal and corrupt operation, lost control of his cash generating vehicles of water and hydro-power, not to mention his percentage interest in the casino at the Hyatt in Bishkek. Attempting to destabilize the interim government by provoking attacks against Uzbek’s in southern Kyrgyzstan would be one, albeit short-sighted and ineffective ways of reversing the results of the revolution. Ineffective because, should the violence had continued it almost surely would have provoked a Russian military intervention and Moscow was decidedly in favour of the interim government. Furthermore, Tashkent might have intervened as well, although Russian troops would have likely prevented that from ever taking place.


Would Russia have been so cynical as to incite civil war for the sole purpose of sending troops to assure control over Bishkek? This does not seem plausible for two reasons. The first is that they supported the ouster of Bakiyev in the first place. Not the least because he reneged on the deal to toss out the NATA (read US) airbase in Manas, but also because he was completely unreliable – for anyone. The second reason is that Russia would need an invitation to rescue the interim government, which never came. The last thing Russia needs is another Georgia either politically or militarily.


Finally, it is difficult to follow the reasoning behind the claim of Islamic extremists. There is no evidence of any type of Islamic militancy being behind the events. It is in the interests of Tashkent – who threw the militants out of the Ferghana valley – and Bishkek to share any information regarding Islamic militant activity. The fact that the Uzbek military made no move to intervene makes this scenario exceedingly unlikely.


Which brings me back to the original point. Why convene an international investigation? The threat to stability in the region is certainly a concern – but not to the UN which would take forever to come to a conclusion while simultaneously irritating everyone in Bishkek, Tashkent and Moscow and accomplish, as usual, nothing.

An investigation by the OSCE, currently chaired by Kazakhstan, might be of some use, but to what end? To assign blame? That would be an enormous waste of time and might raise the temperature rather than the opposite. A regional discussion would be useful, behind the scenes and one not aimed at identifying a culprit. In Central Asia issues such as this are not discussed publically. They are addressed in private and in Astana, Bishkek or Tashkent. Keep in mind that the Kazaks treat the Kyrgyz as their little brothers, with more than a little condescension. The Uzbeks are the largest and most powerful country in the region, a fact that causes concern in the Kremlin, and not inclined to be tolerant of bad publicity. The Kyrgyz are fiercely proud and already feel put upon by the US, Russia, China and the rest of their neighbours, except the Tajiks, who are in worse shape.