Disputed Territories: Five realities, five degrees of independence

As of late, there has been a good deal of action on matter pertaining to post Communist bloc land disputes. Within the confines of the former Soviet Union, representatives of Nagorno Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Trans-Dniester regularly meet. On another front, former Yugoslavia is embroiled in an international dialogue on whether Kosovo should be allowed to separate from Serbia. Each of these regions have different degrees of legitimacy for independence.

Nagorno Karabakh's separatist drive has the least enthusiasm among Russian political elites. It's a landlocked area within Azerbaijan's Communist-drawn boundaries, thereby making its separation from Azerbaijan all the more difficult. The Russian city/region of Kaliningrad is an example of how a territory can exist outside of its affiliated country. However, unlike Nagorno Karabakh, Kaliningrad hasn't been involved in a violent dispute.

As the Soviet Union broke up, old hatreds between Orthodox Christian Armenians and Turkic Muslim Azeris re-ignited. At least 30,000 were killed over who would govern Nagorno Karabakh. Nagorno Karabakh Armenians defeated the Azeri government forces. For well over a decade, there has been a cold peace between Yerevan and Baku, Azerbaijan's capital.

Russia's position on that dispute is tempered by conflicting realities. Armenia has historically been more pro-Russian than Azerbaijan. Materialistically, fossil fuel rich Azerbaijan is of greater value. Current Azeri foreign policy appears motivated by playing the West and Russia off with each other. It's not out of the realm to hypothesize that a "deal" (official or otherwise) could be made where Russia could tacitly support an Azeri takeover of Nagorno Karabakh in exchange for Azerbaijan becoming geo-politically closer to Russia. Azerbaijan is using its energy revenue to enhance its military.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia share a border with Russia. These two regions were part of a pre-19th century independent Georgia. Between 1801 and the Soviet breakup, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Georgia proper were affiliated with Russia as parts of the Russian Empire and the USSR. South Ossetia's majority ethnic Ossetian population is related to the majority Ossetian population in the neighboring Russian republic of North Ossetia. The two Ossetias have the same flag and coat of arms.

When in office, the three post Soviet Georgian presidents have advocated closer ties to the West and a lessened dependency on Russia. South Ossetia and Abkhazia prefer the opposite. As is true with the Armenians and Azeris, there's animosity between Georgians and the Abkhaz and South Ossetian communities. These differences could be improved with an improvement of Russo-Georgian relations. This isn't impossible because many ordinary Georgians welcome closer ties with Russia.

As part of a March 1, 2006 Russia Blog feature on Moldova, my article "Moldova: The
Most Overlooked of the European Former Soviet Republics" noted Trans-Dniester 's excellent case for independence. It was never part of an independent Moldova. Trans-Dniester's capital Tiraspol, was founded in 1792 by Russian Field Marshall Alexander Suvorov, arguably Russia's greatest military commander. At the time, Tiraspol served as a fortress marking the border on the Dniester River between Imperial Russia and Ottoman Empire ruled Moldova. In a recent referendum, Trans-Dniester's peaceful, multi-ethnic and democratic society expressed the desire to continue its de facto independence and seek closer ties with Russia.

For a variety of reasons, Kosovo doesn't have a great case for independence. It has been a continuous part of Serbia since 1912. Prior to that, it had been under Ottoman occupation for a lengthy period. Centuries earlier, Kosovo was an integral part of Serbia. It was never an independent entity unto itself or a part of an independent Albania. For decades, Kosovo's non-Albanian population has lived under constant threat from Albanian nationalist extremists.

Since the end of the Bosnian Civil War, Republika Srpska has been at peace as a good number of Muslims and Croats have resettled in that republic. The 1995 Dayton Peace Accord governing Bosnia gave Republika Srpska the right to establish its own relations with other states.

In comparison, UN Resolution 1244 governing Kosovo states that the province remains as a part of Serbia. This resolution also calls for a return of Serb military and civilian administration to that province. Serbia is internationally recognized as the de facto successor state of the now defunct Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which had signed UN Resolution 1244. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia consisted of Serbia and Montenegro. At the time and to the present, Kosovo is recognized as a part of Serbia.

On the matter of hypocrisy, there's a November 17, 2006 New York Times editorial, which nonchalantly supports an independent Kosovo. "The paper of record" has yet to endorse Trans-Dniester's independence even though it has a much better case than Kosovo.

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. His commentary has appeared in the Action Ukraine Report, Eurasian Home, Intelligent.ru, Johnson's Russia List, Russia Blog, and The New York Times.