IT’S BEEN an interesting week for international relations with world leaders making contradictory statements across the board following Russia’s unilateral recognition of Georgia’s breakaway territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
The US has been quick to play the “Russian aggression” card, making comments reminiscent of the Cold War era, where Georgia, a pro-Western country, has fallen victim to “Soviet-style aggression”.
Reporting on the crisis, most of the Western media has mirrored the comments of American officials and some of their European counterparts, which largely ignore the incident that sparked off the affair; Georgia’s failed attempt to take South Ossetia by force.
As the Russian Embassy spokesman in Nicosia said yesterday: “In the last three weeks, we’ve seen many such cases where white became black and vice-versa, and unfortunately, all this with an anti-Russian sentiment.”
The UK’s Gordon Brown has called for a “root and branch” review of EU relations with Russia, noting the need to lessen Europe’s high dependence on Russia’s oil and gas reserves.
Many European leaders have joined America in voicing their indignation against Russia’s violation of Georgian sovereignty and territorial integrity.
For its part, Russia says the West is not in a position to moralise, pointing to the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq, the NATO bombing of Belgrade in 1999 and the concerted effort to tear Kosovo from Serbia, encouraging its recent declaration of independence.
At the same time, the Russian Federation is not showing any signs of seeing in a more sympathetic light the long-standing Chechen struggle for independence, which has been brutally quashed over the years, with tacit acceptance by the same powers that promoted Kosovo’s independence. Nor will Russia compare the struggle for self-determination in the Caucasus with Turkish/Turkish Cypriot efforts for the international recognition of the illegal regime in the north.
International law is made up of treaties and conventions but also international practice. Like British common law, it’s not based on a written constitution but on past judgements and precedents.
The legal grey areas between the right to self-determination and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a state are wide enough for states to exploit according to their own power politic dictates.
As a result, the international system has seen a number of contradictory actions in the past few years. In the post-Cold war period alone, the international arena has been marked by inaction in Rwanda and Chechnya, pre-emptive action in Iraq and post-conflict independence in Kosovo.
One cannot blame the man on the street for failing to understand the nuances of international law. Is a unilateral intervention without UN backing legal? Is a multilateral attack legal if it’s based on humanitarian grounds? Is humanitarian intervention an obligation? There are many answers to these questions and few of them converge.
So, where does this leave Cyprus? On the one hand, Cyprus has been struggling to reverse the 1974 Turkish invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus. On the other, it’s relied heavily on its close economic and diplomatic ties with Russia to promote its national struggle through international fora.
When President Demetris Christofias attended the emergency EU summit in Brussels to discuss the Russia-Georgia crisis, he had two aims in mind: maintain respect for international law and avoid backing Russia into a corner.
During the extraordinary European Council meeting, Christofias intervened to underline the need for a peaceful settlement of international disputes through negotiations and on the basis of international law. He reminded his European counterparts that Cyprus’ position on Georgia was no different to its position on Kosovo. The principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity should be fully respected, without exception or double standards, he added.
The President went on to encourage the EU to undertake a serious and responsible role in the crisis. He highlighted the need for consistency and impartiality, noting that “only this way will it be able to undertake the role of an honourable mediator in this crisis”.
Christofias warned EU leaders against isolating Russia or aggravating an EU-Russia conflict as this would neither help the EU nor Russia to pacify the region.
According to one diplomatic source in the Foreign Ministry, Cyprus managed to walk the tightrope of international contradictions without too much difficulty.
“On the one hand, we support Georgia as a matter of principle, on the other, we had already warned the international community about Kosovo setting a dangerous precedent, so we simply repeated our position,” they said.
The Cypriot delegation tried to contain the more extreme reactions of EU leaders against Russia and stressed the need to maintain the EU’s impartiality.
“They realised eventually that we have to co-exist. We can’t be biased. We need to see things with a cool head. By maintaining objectivity, the EU can act as a facilitator in the crisis, and this is much more beneficial to everybody in the region.
“It’s a good lesson for all of us. We can’t accept unilateral actions in today’s climate.”
