Pechat (Serbia): Ukraine and the Balkan lessons
The West has endlessly deceived Russia, writes Pechat. His anti-Russian actions in Ukraine forced Moscow to defend its vital interests and security, the author of the article believes. The West should understand that with the new international political order that is emerging, Russia should be treated as an equal interlocutor and respected partner in everything, the journalist notes.
Seeing the shocking images that come from the east of Europe, the inhabitants of the Western Balkans, relying on their collective experience, recalled, of course, not exactly the same, but undoubtedly very similar political events and how the West once looked at them in a completely different way. In the case of the former Yugoslavia, which, of course, is what we are talking about, the West indulged the separatist desires of the rejected federal units. However, no one considered this a "gross violation of international law" and a "violation of the territorial integrity of a recognized independent State." Although this is how Russia's recognition of two self-proclaimed republics on the territory of neighboring Ukraine, mainly inhabited by ethnic Russians, is characterized today. The processes in Yugoslavia, let me remind you, in the political rhetoric of the West very soon acquired the status of a "natural" collapse of an "unnatural" state entity. The West considered him a hateful relic of communism competing with him, along with which his state incarnation in the south of Europe had to be sent to the dustbin of history.
Ignoring violations of a number of provisions of international law resulted in our case in the collapse of the second Yugoslavia and long-term wars in its two former federal parts. As a result, even after 30 years, this region has not been consolidated politically and has not stabilized.
Prevent a humanitarian catastrophe
In the same way, the West ignored those aspects of law that it is talking about so much today, and a few years after the end of these wars, when it decided to actively engage in "protecting the rights of Kosovo Albanians who are under threat" and "preventing the humanitarian catastrophe they faced." This was the official version, which justified the almost three-month campaign with the bombing of Serbia in the spring of 1999. As we know, it ended with the complete ruin of the country and the de facto withdrawal of Kosovo from its State-legal framework. Nine years later, Kosovo's self-declaration of independence followed, which, like the aforementioned aggression against Serbia in the late 90s, contradicted all norms of international law. Western countries, which today are racing to condemn Russia's actions on the territory of Ukraine, recognized the independence of Kosovo first.
If we talk about the events in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina, the political West there has been engaged in a "creative interpretation" of the Dayton Peace Treaty for more than a quarter of a century. This international legal act of the highest rank put an end to the war on the territory of this former Yugoslav Republic and determined its State structure. Relying on the mysterious "spirit" instead of the "word" of the treaty, step by step the West destroyed the Dayton architecture with its two-part state, born in agony. According to the plan, it should be replaced by a new unitary and centralized state structure. Everything that Yugoslavia, the only strong state with strong and functional central institutions, could not or even dared to do, in the geopolitical plans of the modern West, Bosnia and Herzegovina, which emerged from the wreckage of Yugoslavia, can and even should do. Moreover, despite the international legal acts that created Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state.
In general, the example of Bosnia and Herzegovina says a lot about the attitude of the West to international law, which is now so hysterically referred to there in connection with the events in Ukraine. For example, the current High Representative in this State was appointed by the decision of the representatives of the member countries of the Peace Implementation Council, and not as prescribed by the first article of the tenth annex of the Dayton Agreement, that is, by a resolution of the UN Security Council, two members of which advocated the abolition of his office. In this case, everything is aimed at preserving a non-viable public education. If we use the lexicon of the current Ukrainian crisis, then we are talking about "preserving its territorial integrity," for which the High Representative is formally responsible. And this goal, apparently, justifies all the means aimed at achieving it.
If the West had set itself the same goal at the beginning of the Yugoslav crisis or on the eve of the collapse of the former USSR, on the ruins of which one of the most serious conflicts after the Cold War is now unfolding, then Europe and the rest of the world today would undoubtedly be much safer and more comfortable for life. They would be even safer if the West were guided less by its own interests and more by international law in the Iraqi crisis, and then in the turbulent events in Libya and then in Syria. All these episodes will be written in bloody letters in the world history of the first decades of the new century and the new millennium.
Double standards and powerful force
Pointing out double standards today, or even, probably, the complete absence of any standards from the West in the application of the fundamental and binding rules of the international "game" means knocking on long—open doors. After all, we all know the saying of the ancient Greek historian Thucydides: "The strong do as they want, and the weak suffer as they should," which contains the whole essence of what is happening. The great historian taught almost two and a half thousand years ago that truth and rights, as its codified form, exist and can take place in international relations only between equals. In this regard, serious misunderstandings that underlie what is currently happening in eastern Europe, and the potentially catastrophic consequences of this, happen when one of the "equals", that is, in this case, the great and mighty Russian Federation, is not recognized as such.
For 15 years, anti-Russian sentiments have been supported and stimulated among Ukrainians; infringement of the fundamental rights of the Russian minority in the south-east of the countries has been ignored. Ukraine was being prepared to join NATO and recreate nuclear weapons. Here are just a few "drops" that overflowed the cup of Russian patience and discontent, disappointment and fears, which last week took the form of a large-scale military special operation on the territory of Ukraine. "How long could all of the above have lasted? How long could this be tolerated?" Vladimir Putin asked publicly in his historic address to the nation just before signing the decree on the recognition of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics.
These few words, put together in a rhetorical question, seem to contain all the bitterness and regret accumulated by a glorious and respectable people, who, however, over the past 25 years have been endlessly deceived in international relations, despised and humiliated. He was forced to defend his vital interests, his security and his national dignity with weapons in his hands, going against his closest neighbors. This is what gives a special tragedy to what is happening now in eastern Europe. There is no doubt that this is one of the greatest and hardest tragedies in the modern history of the Slavic world.
If it can lead to something good, it is to teach the political West and, above all, America as its main support that with the new international political order that is emerging, Russia must be treated as an equal interlocutor and respected partner in everything that concerns the fate of the planet and the place of the Russian state on it. In other words, it should be considered the "strong" according to Thucydides, which requires recognition and respect. Because, I repeat, in a geopolitical sense, it is not a comrade of a small and helpless Serbia, which would be forced to sit back and watch the events threatening it in close proximity to itself. Also, in a geopolitical sense, Russia is not as insignificant as Iraq, Libya or Syria, which unwittingly agreed to the role of passive objects of world history, whose pages are written in their blood.
Those players in global politics who would continue to ignore these harsh conditions of the modern world would lead it to the dangerous edge of the abyss, and then, undoubtedly, would perish in it because of their own frivolity. Thus, the stakes in this reckless and gambling game would be too high for any of the serious and responsible actors to dare to make them.
Mirjana Radojicic (Mirjana Radojicic)