Double standards over Kosovo

The Wall Street Journal wrote in an editorial on 11 June 2007: "Mr. Bush's principled stand on behalf of a small European nation's right to self-determination and freedom is America at its best in Europe. Not least when in the process Washington pushes back against an authoritarian leader in the Kremlin with neo-imperial designs on the Continent's eastern half."

But when Russia's President Vladimir Putin spoke up in defense of the rights and freedoms of Abkhazia and Transdniestria, his position was described as destructive and neo-imperial.

According to an article entitled "Europe must now stand up to Russia over Kosovo" (Financial Times, May 25, 2007), "Independence (...) is the non-negotiable demand of the overwhelmingly ethnically Albanian population."

Why then is the independence of Abkhazia and Transdniestria negotiable, even though they demanded it at least seven years before Kosovo, while all the other circumstances are the same?

The Canadian Globe and Mail wrote on June 12, 2007:

"No matter how fervently Serbians might wish it were otherwise, Kosovo is no longer part of their country. Serbian troops departed eight years ago, forced out at the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's bombing campaign. Since then, the territory has been administered by the UN and its security has come from a NATO-led peacekeeping force. The Albanians of Kosovo are nearly unanimous in their determination never again to be under Belgrade's thumb. It does not matter that Serbia has embraced democratic reforms or that it might be open to granting significant autonomy over local affairs."

Now, let's replace some of the words in the above quotation, and here is what we get:

"No matter how fervently Moldovans might wish it were otherwise, Transdniestria is no longer part of their country. Moldovan troops departed nearly 15 years ago, forced out at the end of a campaign waged by Transdniestrians and Cossack volunteers who supported them. Since then, the territory's security has come from a Russian-led peacekeeping force and OSCE observers. Transdniestrians are nearly unanimous in their determination never again to be under Chisinau's thumb. It does not matter that Moldova has embraced democratic reforms or that it might be open to granting Transdniestria significant autonomy over local affairs."

See the difference? No? Not surprising, for there is none. Why is the Kosovo situation unique then? Because it is located in the Balkans? Transdniestria is located a bit more to the east, but this should not be important in terms of international law.

Like it or not, it is obvious that parallels can be drawn between the two areas.
A Russian-led peacekeeping operation, which began 15 years ago, stopped the war between Moldovans and Transdniestrians and prevented new ethnic clashes in the conflict zone. The Russian-speaking enclave of Transdniestria has since lived peacefully for more than fifteen years, thanks to a ceasefire which has held with the oversight of a multilateral team of peacekeepers, including - but not limited to - Russia.

Judge for yourself. But as always, in the very best of statecraft and diplomacy, make sure that your decision is based on fair play and honesty. Disregarding international law will create a time bomb that, sooner or later, will have to be dealt with. Both in Kosovo and in Transdniestria.

Also by John Moynihan:
» The Fourth World: Invisible countries
» Memo to State: Face up to reality
» Ending the Transdniester frozen conflict