FM: John Whitbeck
Two often cited principles, each with established roots in
international law, are frequently in conflict -- the
territorial integrity of states and the self-determination
of peoples. This recurring and inevitable conflict is
evident in Russia's diplomatic recognitions of the two
separatist Russian-majority republics of the Donbass.
No one should be surprised that the principle which any
government will proclaim to be absolute -- or at least to
take precedence and be controlling -- in any particular
instance is the principle which is consistent with the
result which it prefers in that instance.
Western states which are currently trumpeting the absolute
and universal applicability of the principle of the
territorial integrity of states had no problem with
supporting the self-determination of peoples in Eritrea,
East Timor, South Sudan and, with a heavy helping hand from
77 days of NATO bombing in blatant violation of
international law, Kosovo.
The barest majority of UN member states (97 out of 193)
currently extend diplomatic recognition to Kosovo. Decisions
in this regard are inevitably influenced by potential
precedents close to home. Of the five EU member states which
do not recognize Kosovo, two, Cyprus and Spain, have
concerns with separatist movements on their own territories,
while Greece non-recognizes out of solidarity with Greek
Cypriots.
It is also logical that China, notwithstanding its "stronger
than an alliance" relationship with Russia, has just
reaffirmed its profound attachment to the principle of the
territorial integrity of states. China is acutely concerned
with separatist sentiments in Hong Kong, Taiwan and
Xinjiang.
An outstanding example of extreme flexibility in applying
these two "principles" is provided by Kosovo itself. Having
relied on and exploited the principle of the
self-determination of peoples (and NATO bombs) to achieve
its effective independence, this heavily Albanian-majority
corner of Serbia (which, with echoes of "Kievan Rus", viewed
Kosovo as the beating heart of Serbian history and culture)
has ever since refused to contemplate the reintegration into
Serbia of the heavily Serbian-majority northern corner of
the country, whose people, understandably, want nothing to
do with Kosovo. In an apparent preemptive strike against a
rational resolution of this dispute, the Kosovo government
has even, uniquely, placed the map of its post-independence
territory on its flag.
Finally, as previously noted, the U.S. government's
first-in-the-world status in recognizing Israeli sovereignty
over occupied East Jerusalem and the occupied Syrian Golan
Heights and in recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over the
occupied Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara)
-- in all three cases, contrary to the wishes of the
occupied people -- makes clear that the only principle
consistently adhered to by the U.S. government in such
matters is the fundamental principle cited in my message
yesterday: It is not the nature of the act that matters but,
rather, who is doing it to whom.
Most governments, particularly powerful ones, choose their
"principles" from an à la carte menu in accordance with
their preferred flavor du jour.