Kosovo precedent for Transdniestria confirmed, but US says no

http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/702 ^

[kronos77]

From Washington, Moscow and London, leading policy analysts are confirming the existence of a Kovoso precedent for Pridnestrovie (Transdniestria). A cornerstone of international law, fairness requires equal treatment for everyone. This contrasts with demands by the United States that special rules should apply only to Kosovo. By Jason Cooper, 30/Mar/2007

Tiraspol, the capital of Transdniestria: Independence for Kosovo will make it impossible to not recognize Transdniestria as well

BRUSSELS (Tiraspol Times) - With an influential group of US State Department insiders bent on forcing Kosovo to independence this year, talking points have been issued to deny that Kosovo will create a precedent. At issue is territorial integrity, one of the principles of international law governing the creation of new states.

In Kosovo, the United States is willing to "break the law" and forget about the territorial integrity principle. But this lawbreaking will take place only once, say the American proponents of Kosovo's independence - promising that after Kosovo, territorial integrity will again be upheld and the door will close for new and emerging countries seeking statehood in similar situations.

International law specialists don't see it this way, expla

[kronos77]

[kronos77]

Ping!

[marron]

" - I don't think that anyone would even suggest that Kosovo is a precedent that would have an impact on Georgia, Moldova or another country in Europe," he said, apparently categorizing the President of Russia as a non-person.

I don't think the State Department's wave of the hand is going to work here. Obviously, if you accept the re-drawing of borders here, you have to accept at least in principle that borders can be re-drawn in other cases. Which actually, considering that borders were often imposed rather illogically, there are any number of cases where the borders might be re-considered. I can also see why some countries might fear having their borders re-considered, but facts on the ground always get a vote, in my view.

So if Kosovo's independence is fait acompli, which it is, and we are going to recognize it, any Serb majority cantons in Kosovo might reasonably opt to be independent of Albanian Kosovo, and by what logic would you deny them that right, since we are re-drawing borders anyway?

The situation in Transneister may change as Romania accedes to the EU, union with Romania may suddenly look differently to Moldova if doing so brings them into the EU. That by itself may change the question for Transneister. But the resolution which ever way it goes, should always be voluntary for the people who live there.

Once you accept that borders should reflect the will of the people who live there, suddenly a lot of other situations become tractable. That is a knife that cuts one way in some cases, and the opposite way in others. If you are China, sitting atop Tibet and breathing down Taiwan's neck, you can see why you might oppose that principle.

But I can't figure out why the US, founded upon that very idea, would oppose it.

[Cacique]

btt

[FormerLib]

I wonder what the response from these State Department wonks will be when the illegal Mexican immigrants claim Aztlan as their own? It is exactly the same pattern of the crime being committed by the theft of Kosovo.

[Lukasz]

Looks like US, Russia and the EU all try some different variants of “divide and conquer” tactics in places where they consider this to be good for them. I don’t expected much from the leftist lunatics of the EU or KGBists from Russia but US Republicans were supposed to be conservative. I think that I finally figured out what neo-conservatism is all about...