There are two sacred principles of international relations: self-determination of nations and inviolability of borders. The two are incompatible. Either peoples can decide, by themselves, whom they want to rule them or existing governments can always veto them. It can only be both when you have both. A number of countries have broken up lately and, in the case of Czechoslovakia and the USSR the "world community" agreed that it was mutual - mutual, that is, if you ignore the plebiscite in the USSR on 17 March 1991. Which everyone did. But general agreement - or pseudo-agreement - does not exist in other cases. In the former USSR, five entities have indicated their desire to go their own way. They are Chechnya in Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, Karabakh in Azerbaijan and Transdnestr in Moldova. Other cases, like Crimea in Ukraine or Gagauzia in Moldova, have been settled by wise autonomy agreements by the central authority. But in the case of the other five, the central authority has not agreed and no one recognizes their independence.

In this respect, the leaders of Transdnestr have quoted the Montenegro referendum as a precedent; the leaders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia have said that it is not relevant because each has already held a referendum. But, under the pretences that inform international practice, the Montenegro referendum was pre-accepted by Serbia and it therefore officially conforms to both of the sacred principles. The real precedent will be if Kosovo becomes independent against Belgrade's wishes. Then we will see the two principles collide.

There is a real dilemma here - the inhabitants of Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transdnestr genuinely fear for their prospects subject to the capitals of the countries that the "international community" recognise them as part of. And they have good and legitimate reasons to do so.

Generally speaking, they are only there because Stalin put them there. He could have chosen differently. But these people are trapped in Stalin's cartography.

In 1940 Lithuania had different borders. Had the USSR broken up then, we would all recognise them. In 1940 Transdnestr was part of the Ukrainian SSR. Had the USSR broken up then, we would all recognise that. In 1936, there was a Transcaucasian Republic. Had the USSR had broken up then, we would all recognise it. Abkhazia was distinct from Georgia in 1921. Had the USSR broken up then, we would all recognise it. The second sacred principle of international borders is, in fact, one very much connected to the decisions of the Great Cartographer.

So the Montenegro precedent has some relevance, but the Kosovo one will have more. But, since the "international community" seems to agree that that Moscow is the string-puller in these areas, we can be sure that the desires of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transdnestr and Karabakh will continue to be ignored.

Eventually the issues will probably be settled by war.
Which, come to think of it, is how most of today's borders came to be.

Alsace and Lorraine are part of France today because a lot of French (and British and Canadians and Australians and Americans and Indians) died making it so.
Just as a lot of Germans and French had died making it German in 1870.

About the author: Dr. Patrick Armstrong is an analyst for the Canadian government and has formed part of a parliamentary committee on conflict resolution on the post-Soviet space. This text was first published for "Untimely Thoughts" following last year's declaration of independence by Montenegro.