| Other Photos |
 |
|
 |
Let's Vote on It
// The price of the question
A decade and a half after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new parade of sovereignty is beginning. They are talking about a referendum on independence in the unrecognized Transdniestrian Republic, and they are talking about the same thing in South Ossetia. In Abkhazia, were they had a referendum in 1999, they are warmly hailing their brothers in arms. This new stage should show that the previous stage of the collapse of the Soviet state was only a semi-collapse. The real collapse is only coming now.
The referenda in Transdniestria and South Ossetia can only be understood when seen in their international context. The mood in the breakaway republics has long been known. So why all of a sudden do they have to have referenda now? And why are their actions so coordinated, like synchronic divers?
The answer is the Kosovo “precedent” and its interpretation in Tiraspol, Tskhinvali and Moscow. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke openly about it at his recent meeting with Western Russia experts. He made a direct analogy between Kosovo and the unrecognized republics of the CIS and said that Moscow would begin to reconsider its policy in the CIS.
Everyone understands what that reconsideration means. Theoretically, it is the unrecognized republics achieving independence and gradually being taken under Moscow's wing and integrated one way or another into Russia. It was Kosovo, whose independence has been approved by the West and can already e considered beyond question that prodded Moscow to take decisive action in the CIS. So it is hardly surprising that supporters of independence in the unrecognized republic feel that they are under protection. The idea of independence was had little popularity for many years. And then Russia came along to move it along! Now they just have to jump on the bandwagon and off they go.
The paradox is that the referenda on independence in the CIS have no practical meaning, unlike the situation in Kosovo. In the long run, they mean that those micro-states will break away from Moldova and Georgia, but only of the world community showed a similar desire. But the world has reacted negatively to the idea of Transdniestrian, South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence. It turns out that no two referenda are alike, and no matter how often you say the word “independence,” you won't get any more independent.
So what's the use? For the unrecognized republics, it's to show Chisinau and Tbilisi once again what power they have behind them. For Moscow, it's a green light to apply more pressure on the leadership of Moldova and Georgia and to keep accusing the West of double standards. Thus, the referenda meet everyone's needs without any independence.
Sergey Strokan
All the Article in Russian as of Sep. 12, 2006
|
|
|
