1

Why do the post-Soviet states not recognize Kosovo?

Mikita Cherkasau*

October 2013

* Mikita Cherkasau was an intern at GAP Institute in 2012 after he finished his

internship at the Kosovo Law Center in Prishtina. Being originally from Minsk, Belarus, he holds a Bachelor degree in International and European Law from the European Humanities University in Vilnius, Lithuania, Belarusian University in exile, and is currently finishing two Master degrees in International Relations from Lazarski University in Warsaw, Poland, and the University of Wales in Cardiff, Wales. He worked as a lawyer, researcher and journalist in his home country as well as abroad. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of GAP Institute.

2

Table of Contents 1. Introduction..................................................................................................... 4 2. Armenia ........................................................................................................... 4 3. Azerbaijan ........................................................................................................ 6 4. Georgia ............................................................................................................. 7 5. Kazakhstan ...................................................................................................... 9 6. Ukraine........................................................................................................... 10 7. Moldova ......................................................................................................... 11 8. Belarus ............................................................................................................ 13 9. Uzbekistan ..................................................................................................... 14 10. Kyrgyzstan .................................................................................................... 15 11. Recognition practice by Baltic States ......................................................... 15 12. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 17 13. Bibliography .................................................................................................. 19

3

Abstract The main aim of this paper is to examine why the post-Soviet states don’t recognize Kosovo’s independence. This paper is meant to serve as information to the public in Kosovo with regard to this issue. For this purpose, through the revision of scholarly literature (books and periodicals), online publications, conference reports and official statements, it analyzes the present stance of these states towards Kosovo’s declaration of independence and attempts to explain the major tendency towards non-recognition. The paper stresses strong regional political and economic ties and the existence of local territorial disputes (separatist movements) by the post-Soviet states as the central impediments to Kosovo’s recognition. KEY WORDS: Kosovo’s declaration of independence, secession, recognition of Kosovo, post-Soviet states.

4

1. Introduction

As there seems to be a shift, though relatively slow, within the international community from non-recognition towards recognition of Kosovo’s independence, a significant part of non-recognizing states, namely those from the post-Soviet space (apart from the Baltic states), are not likely to join this tendency in the near future. Despite the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991, the former Soviet states have formed a rather specific group of sovereign entities that have officially acquired independence, but failed to conduct democratic transition due to a strong Soviet political, social and cultural heritage, the Baltics excluded. This makes them considerably dependent on Russia, the most powerful of the successor states. It also did not give them an impetus to respect the right of self-determination. In this context, the case of Kosovo appears to be a distinctive instance in the post-Cold War world, which obviously illustrates the aversion of the post-Soviet states to secessionism, and thus the pivotal aim of this paper is to reveal actual reasons for their reluctance to acknowledge Kosovo’s declaration of independence.

2. Armenia

Today’s political reality in Armenia convincingly demonstrates that Kosovo’s independence will not be recognized until Armenia accepts Nagorno-Karabakh1 as a sovereign state. The official stance was comprehensively expressed by Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan in 2008:

Today one is wondering from time to time why Armenia is not recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The answer is simple: for the same reason that it did not recognize Kosovo's independence. Having the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Armenia cannot recognize another entity in the same situation as long as it has not recognized the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.2

Thus, one may rightly ask whether there are any possible solutions for the “Karabakh problem”. Unfortunately, no satisfactory answer might be found

1 A region in the South Caucasus that is predominantly administered by the Nagorno-

Karabakh Republic, an independent but unrecognized state. Its territory is internationally considered to be part of Azerbaijan. However, since the end of the war in 1994, the region has been mostly inhabited by Armenians. The armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh broke out in 1988, being heated by nationalist sentiments from both sides. Despite the fact that ethnic Armenians took over the region, the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh’s recognition by Armenia remains to be a matter of Armenia’s position regarding the regional politics. 2 Radio Azatutyun. Armenia Rules Out Abkhazia, South Ossetia Recognition, 4 September 2008,

viewed 28 August 2013, <http://bit.ly/19MEkf3>.

5

at the moment. Due to existing circumstances, the “frozen conflict” between Armenia and Azerbaijan is likely to preserve the status quo. The situation emerged around Nagorno-Karabakh certainly illustrates how the networks of interconnection affect contemporary world politics. Indeed, the South Caucasus has turned out to be a region where the clash of cultures is occurring. Undoubtedly, Armenia’s attitude towards the current status of Nagorno-Karabakh is shaped not merely by domestic political will but also by the chain of highly interdependent rational preferences of other powerful global and regional actors, such as the United States, Russia, the European Union, Turkey, Georgia and Iran. Ironically, some of them are apt to support both of the opposing sides, as it is, for example, with the case of the U.S., where the policy on Nagorno-Karabakh is enforced by both tremendous Armenian lobby and American energy interests in Azerbaijan.3 This kind of balance does probably contribute to current peaceful coexistence in the region, but obviously hardly affects a further peace process. However, the American approach to the issue might be considered as the most consistent one.4 It might seem illogical at first glance that Yerevan5 is reluctant to recognize the newborn state, especially since Nagorno-Karabakh itself is predominantly inhabited by Armenians. However, one can observe certain possible reasons behind it. Firstly, Armenia’s recognition of Karabakh may possibly be considered by Baku6 as an excuse to quit the peace negotiations and escalate the conflict. Secondly, Armenia does not want to be excluded from the dialogue, which is likely to happen if it acknowledges the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as an independent entity. Thirdly, Armenians do not want the conflict to acquire merely an “Erevan-Baku” format7 and constantly insist the roundtable should involve three sides (i.e., Karabakh, as well). Even though the “Karabakh problem” undoubtedly appears to be one of the crucial issues in Armenia’s current foreign policy, it has recently been losing its topicality in the frames of domestic political agenda. No shift in the local political balance may considerably affect the general policy towards Karabakh, due to the fact that there is a strong consensus between the political elites, both the pro-state as well as the opposition. As the Armenian political scientist Sergey Minasyan posits, it might be related to the

3 Deriglazova L. and Minasyan S. in their Nagorny Karabakh: Paradoksy sily i slabosti v assymetrichnom konflikte (p.79) emphasize that despite America’s growing interest in Azerbaijani energy resources and geographical position, Armenia appears to be the main, after Israel, receiver of direct U.S. financial aid, which in recent 20 years has amounted to approximately 2 billion dollars. Such an explicit pro-Armenian approach of Washington in the South Caucasus is explained mostly by the activity of an influential Armenian lobby in the U.S. The main resource of its power grounds on a large and well-organized Armenian diaspora, which, being active in the elections and socio-political life, shapes American policy in the South Caucasus. 4 Ibid, p. 81. 5 The capital of Armenia. 6 The capital of Azerbaijan. 7 Meaning between only Armenia and Azerbaijan.

6

genesis of contemporary statesmen who predominantly emerged during the Nagorno-Karabakh war.8 Moreover, during the joint press conference with the former President of Slovenia Danilo Türk, President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan made a reference to both Kosovo and Karabakh and emphasized that self-determination inevitably supposes sui generis character of each case individually:

I am absolutely sure that each case of self-determination is different and “one size fits all” formula doesn’t apply. However, legal rulings must emanate from the same principles. The Kosovo precedent is important for us from the standpoint of the UN International Court’s unequivocal answer to one particular question: whether the unilateral declaration of independence breaches international law or not. The answer was “no”, it does not. Now, what has happened in case of Karabakh… [A]t the first opportune moment they exercised their right of self-determination, i.e. unilaterally declared their independence through the referendum. As you know, it took place when the Soviet Union was disintegrating. It means that the people of Nagorno Karabakh acted in compliance with international law. Azerbaijan unleashed war on Karabakh – a brutal and exhausting war, violating all military laws. But Nagorno Karabakh, of course with the assistance of Armenia and the Armenian people, was able to organize self-defense. That’s what makes it different: the people of NK were able to defend themselves without NATO assistance, survive and today declare out loud – yes, we stand by our independence, we didn’t violate any international law, and today we wait patiently when the international community recognizes our right to unilaterally secede from Azerbaijan. However, I believe that the notion that all cases are different is indisputable.9

3. Azerbaijan

As for Azerbaijan, it perceives Kosovo’s declaration of independence to be closely related to its own separatist issues, which supposes that Kosovo appears to be a theoretically dangerous signal for the settlement of Azerbaijan’s clash with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. However, Kosovo and Karabakh arguably seem to possess different statuses. Despite the fact that Kosovo was regarded as an autonomous province under the 1946 constitution of Yugoslavia, its status was considerably advanced in further constitutions of 1963 and 1974. Kosovo’s autonomy

8 Minasyan, S., 2012. ‘Karabakhskiy Konflikt: Vnutripoliticheskoe Izmerenie’. Politcom.ru, 26

September 2012, viewed 15 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/14WP728>. 9 Press Release, Presidents Serzh Sargsyan And Danilo Turk Held Joint Press Conference in

the Framework of the Official Visit of the President of Slovenia to Armenia, 11 October 2010, viewed 19 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/1dOGLQV>.

7

was enhanced, endowing it with authority likewise the founding six federative republics enjoyed. Similarly, in its Article 72 the Soviet constitution declared that each republic preserves the right to secede from the USSR without restrictions but stated nothing about autonomous regions.10 The right of secession, however, was not applied in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the region, predominantly inhabited with Armenians, was not granted a similar right as other 15 nominal units. If it is basically implied that the implementation of the right to self-determination should not break domestic law of a prior state unless an obvious genocide or apartheid occurs, then Kosovo’s separation produced no breach of Yugoslavia’s constitution, which, on the contrary, was the case with the other federative units. Nevertheless, the Soviet constitution deprived Nagorno-Karabakh of the right to pursue independence. Nevertheless, while Karabakh and Kosovo appear to constitute different cases, Azerbaijan and Serbia seem to apply rather similar approaches towards secession: non-recognition of the newly created states is indisputable.

4. Georgia

One can scarcely cast doubt on the fact that Georgia’s non-recognition of Kosovo’s independence is largely explained by its own separatist case in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia had “no intention to recognize the declaration of Kosovo’s independence”, President Mikheil Saakashvili stated on 9 May 2008:

We are saying loud and clear that we have never planned to recognize Kosovo. Nor do we plan to do so in the future. The way out of the situation that has been chosen is not the best one. The Serbs should have been given more time for negotiations. The solution for Kosovo was a hasty one.11

Both cases can be seen not only as simply related but rather as interdependent to a considerable extent. As Ronald Asmus implies in his “A Little War that Shook the World”, the case of Kosovo, or, to be precise, the fact that the United States alongside with its European allies supported Kosovo’s declaration of independence, had a strong effect on Georgia’s situation. He argues: “Apart from simply reassuring Georgia that Kosovo would not set a precedent for frozen conflicts elsewhere, there was no attempt to handle these two sets of issues as an integrated whole. The West simply underestimated

10 Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 1977, viewed

19 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/oiOfmj>. 11 B92.net. Georgia will not recognize Kosovo, 9 May 2008, viewed 28 August 2013,

<http://bit.ly/X7T2sj>.

8

Moscow’s deep-seated and long-standing anger on Kosovo and its willingness to retaliate against Western policy moves.”12 Asmus puts forward the assumption that the West, having acknowledged Kosovo’s independence, was not prudent enough and did not trouble itself with apprehending Russia’s explicit threats of retaliation:

The problem was not that the West did not develop any kind of Plan B for managing the consequences of that policy for Georgia – either on the ground or diplomatically with Moscow. This step increased instability and tension in Abkhazia and South Ossetia at a time when tensions were already high. Diplomatically the West’s argument about the uniqueness of Kosovo was a double-edged sword that Moscow now used to pursue its own interests. Its message was clear: uniqueness in the Balkans will beget uniqueness elsewhere. If the West could act with impunity against Moscow’s wishes in the Balkans, the Kremlin would show that it could act with impunity in the Southern Caucasus. All of this enhanced Georgia’s vulnerability by handing Moscow a pretext to move against Tbilisi and helped trigger the Russian political and military escalation that culminated in war on August 7, 2008.13

As Asmus posits, “the two cases became interrelated due to “international law, changing Western diplomatic priorities, and the dynamics of a resurgent Russia seeking to challenge the United States and Europe.”14 At the first glance, both conflicts seem to present rather similar instances of separatist ethnic movements that pursue independence from central authorities. In other words, it was the common self-determination vs. territorial integrity clash. However, the resemblance between the encounters is less considerable than the dissimilarity. In this relation, Asmus points out certain implications, which are of particular consideration. First of all, it is a question of demography. In Kosovo, ethnic Albanians constituted the majority – namely, approximately 90% - of the population, whereas in Abkhazia, the Abkhaz were the minority and it was the Georgian population who was subject to ethnic cleansing. Moreover, the essence of the conflicts is different, Asmus notices. He arguably claims that Kosovar Albanians had never enjoyed considerable autonomy, neither prior to the Communist era nor within the former Yugoslavia. On the other hand, Asmus reckons, the Abkhaz, as the ethnic group, enjoyed a rather advanced status under the Soviet regime.15 Secondly, Kosovar and Abkhaz statesmen appeared to have radically different perception of self-government. If the former, under the international pressure, managed to develop an extensive framework for

12 Asmus, R., 2010. A Little War that Shook the World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 88. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid, p. 90. 15 Ibid, p. 97.

9

respecting minority rights of Serbs, the latter were reluctant to introduce non-discriminative approach towards Georgian regions, since it could undermine the legitimacy of their power. Thirdly, the moral basis of the cases is different. Serbian authorities committed grave human rights violations and started an ethnic cleansing campaign which led to the deaths of thousands of people and the displacement of more than one million people. Arguably, this gave impetus to NATO to intervene and stop the atrocities. On the other hand, Georgia had not committed similar crimes towards South Ossetia and Abkhazia; contrarily, it was the Georgians who were subject to ethnic cleansing on the part of the Abkhaz backed by Russians.16 Finally, the most significant difference between the two encounters is the actual reaction of the international community and its involvement. NATO initiated humanitarian intervention in the Balkans, while the United Nations established the interim administration. The OSCE conducted an extensive mission on institution and democracy-building alongside with the promotion of human rights and the rule of law. The European Union provided financial support for economic development and the integration of the Balkans. The process of final settlement of Kosovo’s status was authorized by the United Nations, and, consequently, had full international support. By contrast, Georgia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia were obviously deprived of that. None of the aforementioned international bodies demonstrated substantial interest in the region, or, at least, the endeavor to prevent the conflict.17

5. Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan’s official stance toward the Kosovo’s recognition of independence was comprehensively expressed by former Prime Minister of Kazakhstan, Karim Masimov in December 2008: “We have an official position: Kazakhstan has not recognized Kosovo and does not tend to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We consider that borders are defined and Kazakhstan will not recognize any new states.”18 Generally, when it came to secessionism, Kazakhstan had repeatedly expressed such attitude. Undoubtedly, as regarding the issues of foreign policy, Russia and Kazakhstan seem to exercise similar behavior. The policies of Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev are also of

16 See Georgia/Abkhazia: Violations of the Laws of War and Russia’s Role in the Conflict (Human Rights Watch report, March 1995, vol. 7, no. 7). 17 Asmus R., 2010. A Little War that Shook the World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.99. 18 Polit.ru. Rukovodstvo Kazakstana ne budet priznavat’ nezavisimost’ Abkhazii i Juzhnoi Ossetii, 12

December 2008, viewed 28 August 2013, http://polit.ru/news/2008/12/12/independence/

10

particular consideration. Whatever conflict Kazakhstan reacted to, it had always explicitly expounded the politics of anti-separatism. Kazakhstan had continuously been apprehensive about separatism, as it had its own potential troubles in the ‘90s, when the northern part of the state could have seceded and enclosed to Russia. And, though this issue does not apply today, the government is inclined to underline that it is still against any form of secessionism. In February 2008, Yerzhan Akshibayev, a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, stated:

The position of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the situation in Kosovo is based on the United Nations fundamental principles of preservation of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states within their internationally recognized borders, on the search for exclusively peaceful ways of disputes resolution on the basis of provisions contained in the documents on the crisis settlement, particularly UN Security Council resolution on the Kosovo peace plan.19

6. Ukraine

When Kosovo’s independence was declared, Ukraine attempted to keep up with the neutral status towards the issue.20 This neutrality was accompanied by a considerable amount of uncertainty, which was convincingly demonstrated in Yulia Tymoshenko’s statement during a joint briefing with PACE21 President Lluís Maria de Puig in Strasbourg in the framework of the visit to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. As she claimed, “it is important to know whether Kosovo is already a norm, a common practice or a unique event the world should react on.”22 Simultaneously, at the 16th Meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council, Volodymyr Ogryzko, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, expressed a more strict position: “Non-use of force as a means of settling disputes, respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of internationally recognized borders have always been at the heart of my country’s foreign policy. This is why Ukraine will never compromise on the question of territorial integrity of

19 Izvestia-Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan ne priznaet nezavisimosti Kosovo, 19 February 2008, viewed

28 August 2013, <http://bit.ly/15wrnVD>. 20 Unian. Ukraine’s stance on Kosovo dictated by its desire to keep neutral status, 22 October 2008,

viewed 22 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/17lKRv2>. 21 The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe brings together 318

parliamentarians from the Council of Europe’s 47 member states, in order to uphold the shared values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law that are the "common heritage" of the peoples of Europe. 22 Office of Mass Media Relations of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Secretariat. Yulia Tymoshenko: Ukraine will determine its stance concerning Kosovo independence after respective evaluation of international institutions, 16 April 2008, viewed 22 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/Z39Htq>.

11

Georgia.”23 It basically implied that any state’s territorial integrity would not be compromised. However, when the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on Kosovo’s declaration of independence acknowledged its compliance with international law, Ukraine’s attitude did not appear to change. As Press Secretary of the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine, Oleksandr Dikusarov said at a briefing in Kyiv on July 27 2010, “Ukraine's position not to recognize the independence of Kosovo remains unchanged: relying on basic international legal documents… Ukraine is committed to the principle of absolute respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states with recognized international borders.”24 It is obvious that Ukraine practices similar approaches towards any case of secession – be it Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia or Nagorno Karabakh. However, what drives its aversion to secessionism is a debatable question. It might supposedly stem from Ukraine’s own fears of domestic separatism - as it can be the case of Crimea or Western Ukraine - but at the moment there seems to be no indicators of any particularly considerable and active separatist movements within the country. It might also be assumed that Ukraine would fall under Russia’s influence in relation to the issues of separatism.

7. Moldova

Moldova does not tend to recognise Kosovo’s independence because it does not want to create a precedent for the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (hereinafter – Transnistria), a state with limited recognition emerged two decades ago, which was also followed by a military conflict with the intervention of Russian forces. Today, it is considered to be one of the post-Soviet ‘frozen conflicts.’25 It is worth elaborating on the causes of the conflict as well as on the implications on its settlement, since it generally presents a relevant subject to the case of Kosovo. Though the main initial sources of the conflict seem to have ceased to exist, the confrontation has given birth to legitimate preferences that played a substantial role in safeguarding the ‘frozen’ status-quo. Additionally, influential foreign powers, though declaring the endeavour to reach the agreement over the problem, de-facto exercised approaches that contributed to its delay.

23 Ogryzko, V., 2008. Statement at the 16th Meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council, 4

December, viewed 28 August 2013, <http://www.osce.org/mc/35365>. 24 KyivPost. Ukraine Not to Change Position on Kosovo in Wake of United Nations Court Judgment,

27 July 2010, viewed 15 February 2013, <http://bit.ly/Zw3AxW>. 25 See, for instance, J. Peet’s ‘Frozen Conflicts’ in The Economist (2008).

12

The original causes of the conflict go back to the decline of the Soviet Union, when the political scene of the Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic put on agenda two basic issues: the essence of interactions between Moldova and Russia and the status of the Russian and Moldovan (Romanian) languages. Since the political powers that were striving to secede from the Soviet Union and simultaneously to increase the state of Romanian language acquired support in Chisinau,26 the elements of Soviet bureaucracy (particularly industrial entrepreneurs) that opted to keep the Soviet Union, backed by authoritative politicians in Moscow, established a separate political force in Tiraspol.27 In September 1990, they announced the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (within the USSR). Driven by the willingness to revive the status of the Russian language and the aversion to re-emergence of Moldova with Romania, the leaders of the newly created Transnistria, being supported by the Soviet military and applying violence, enclosed additional lands.28 Throughout the decades, international community has infrequently tried to contribute to a resolution,29however, its commitment was driven by its own restricted preferences, which was supported by the absence of obvious violence and West’s indifference to Moldova. The deficiency of different resolution suggestions since the break-out of the conflict and the deadlock in frames of the multilateral negotiating process formed in 2002 by the OSCE has given birth to profound uncertainty regarding the possibilities for a sound settlement of the conflict.30 It should be underlined that a settlement cannot be enacted only by foreign powers, but simultaneously it is explicit that regional players are not capable of settling the issue independently.31 A lawful outcome can be attained exclusively on the basis of the frameworks that have been contemplated throughout the last decades within the OSCE and the Council of Europe, considering that all state players are committed to their responsibilities as participants in these bodies. However, as long as its status remains ‘frozen,’ Moldavia will not change its approach towards recognition of Kosovo’s independence.

26 The capital of Moldova. 27 The second largest city in Moldova and the capital and administrative centre of the unrecognized Transnistria. 28 On historical background and the main issues, see also Transdniestrian conflict: origins and

issues issued by the OSCE Conflict Prevention Centre. 29 Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union. The Transnistrian Issue: Moving

Beyond the Status-quo, October 2012, p. 41. 30 See OSCE Mission to Moldova webpage available at http://bit.ly/GQ1PuC. 31 On what might also be contributing to the status quo, see Moldova: Regional Tensions over

Transdniestria by the International Crisis Group (2004; pp. 17-22).

13

8. Belarus

Public statements made by Belarusian politicians convincingly demonstrate the official stance of Belarus towards the issue of Kosovo. After the declaration of Kosovo’s independence, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko sent a message to the former Serbian President Boris Tadic saying that “Belarus expresses its solidarity with the Serb intention to defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity.”32 This was also supported by the Belarusian National Assembly, which in its statement condemned the decision of the Kosovo authorities and appealed to ‘parliaments of the world to announce the declaration on independence as invalid.’ The statement read that “the events in Kosovo destabilize the situation in the Balkans and have a direct influence on the international stability. Kosovo sets a precedent for similar crisis situations in other countries.”33 Moreover, the Foreign Ministry of Belarus held that:

“The settlement of the Kosovo and Metochia status should progress under international law, based on UN Security Council resolution 1244 (of 1999) which is a fundamental document for the Kosovo settlement certifying the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia, and based on the key provisions of the UN Charter and Helsinki Final Act, with the essential role of the UN Security Council bearing a predominant responsibility for safeguarding international peace and security.”34

At a public sitting at the International Court of Justice on the 3rd of December 2009 on the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence by the provisional institutions of self-government of Kosovo, Belarusian delegation argued: ‘If one analyses the situation with Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence beyond the traditional decolonization context of external self-determination, we will come to the conclusion that there are no convincing legal arguments in favor of Kosovo’s secession from the Republic of Serbia.’35 Consequently, it inferred that:

“Self-determination in no case seems to be absolutely synonymous with independence. For attainment of this right which the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights defines as “to freely determine their political

32 BelTA. Belarus Supports Serbians’ pursuit of territorial integrity, 28 February 2008, viewed 28

August 2013, <http://bit.ly/1fiUjSu>. 33 BelTA. Belarus’ Parliament issues statement in connection with Kosovo self-declaration of

independence, 21 February 2008, viewed 28 August 2013, <http://bit.ly/13Z9Ya0>. 34 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus. Statement by the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Belarus relating to the unilateral proclamation of independence by the Kosovo temporary authorities of self-government, viewed 28 August 2013, <http://bit.ly/10ocTCs>. 35 ICJ Kosovo case: Public hearing transcripts, CR 2009/27, 3 December 2009, pp. 30-31,

viewed 22 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/1dAVPRb>.

14

status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development”36 freedom is more important than independence. Adequate constitutional arrangements within a single State can satisfy the rights of ethnic minorities, including the right to development. The principles of international law being interpreted in good faith and in a harmonious and systematic manner allow us to arrive at the conclusion that the external self-determination is an extraordinary event, which may take place only under extreme conditions. Historically, only colonial oppression is universally accepted as such an extreme condition constituting a special case for external self-determination. The Republic of Belarus does not perceive such conditions in the Kosovo case.”37

It is obvious that Belarus does not experience any territorial problems and it has never faced separatist movements. Therefore, its reluctance to recognize Kosovo is based merely on its current political reality, which is, first of all, highly dependent on such powerful regional player as Russia. Additionally, China’s opposition to Kosovo’s secession might also be of consideration, since Belarus, finding itself in a very isolated position, strives not to irritate its few allies. Moreover, as the Belarusian ambassador to Serbia Uladzimir Chushaw said in an interview to a Serbian newspaper, ‘In the past five years trade between our countries tripled and reached a record high of $145 million last year,’38 which underlines the stable economic ties between Belgrade and Minsk.39 Thus, as long as Belarus remains rather a weak and subdued political actor, hardly able to produce its own policies towards global issues, including such as Kosovo’s declaration of independence and secessionism in general, it will not recognize Kosovo as a sovereign state.

9. Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan generally seems to be rather distant from the Kosovo problem, as well as that, for example, of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. However, though not willing to announce it publicly, Uzbekistan worries about its Karakalpakstan, an autonomous republic where the population, even in the conditions of an extremely totalitarian regime, contemplates self-determination, which means, in other words, secession and autonomy or attachment to Kazakhstan. Separatist endeavor is still rather active there,

36 Art.1 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, viewed 22

September 2013, <http://bit.ly/110fsO0>. 37 ICJ Kosovo case: Public hearing transcripts, CR 2009/27, 3 December 2009, p. 32, viewed

22 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/1dAVPRb>. 38 Naviny.by. Belarus will never recognize Kosovo’s independence, says ambassador to Serbia,

viewed 15 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/192A6hN>. 39 The capital of Belarus.

15

which definitely makes Tashkent40 feel apprehensive about secessionism in general.41 Moreover, Uzbekistan is a highly heterogeneous country, as is the case with Georgia, for instance. Therefore, besides Karakalpakstan, there is a considerable number of Tajik people in Uzbekistan (more than a million) – predominantly in Samarkand and Bukhara - who would also desire to secede in favor of Tajikistan.42 Thus, for Uzbeks, the question of recognition of any newly emerged states appears to be rather a sensitive one, which is also backed by the fact that Tashkent tends to keep balance in its relations with Washington and Moscow.

10. Kyrgyzstan

The Kyrgyz Republic officially refuses to recognize Kosovo’s independence. As a Central Asian state, domestic separatist problems might be a reason, though it is indeed difficult to determine whether separatism in Kyrgyzstan is a political fiction or reality, especially in the light of the events in June 2010, when ethnic clashes between Kyrgyz and Uzbek occurred in the southern part of the country, mostly in the cities of Osh and Jalal-Abad.43 It is, nevertheless, hard to say what the original causes of the conflict were, but what can be argued undoubtedly is that Kyrgyzstan experiences tremendous problems when it comes to the interaction between ethnic groups in this region.44 Generally, the tension is largely illustrated as separatism because for the central authorities in Bishkek45 it is far more convenient to do so, in order to justify the crisis. Moreover, i is a mere problem of minorities’ representation since Uzbek people have never enjoyed proper representation in the government.46

11. Recognition practice by Baltic States

When Kosovo’s independence was declared in February 2008, all three Baltic States reacted supportively towards the Balkan country’s willingness to form a sovereign state. Baltic consideration in favour of Kosovo was generally expected because of the shared repressive past under the rule of

40 Tashkent is the capital of Uzbekistan. 41 Goble, P., 2010. ‘Karakalpak Separatism Again on the Rise, Analyst Says’. Georgian Daily, viewed 7 October 2013, <http://bit.ly/15gNMXo>. 42 Liu, M., 1997. ‘The Perils of Nationalism in Independent Uzbekistan’. The Journal of the International Institute, vol. 4, no. 2, viewed 7 October2013, <http://bit.ly/19uX27K>. 43 Schwirtz, M., 2010. ‘New Violence in Kyrgyzstan Leads to Troop Deployment’. The New

York Times, viewed 7 October 2013, <http://nyti.ms/GI1Sri>. 44 International Crisis Group report. Kyrgyzstan: Widening Ethnic Divisions in the South, 29

March 2012, viewed 7 October 2013, <http://bit.ly/H3Ibn7>. 45 The capital of Kyrgyzstan. 46 Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry Into the Events in Southern

Kyrgyzstan in June 2010, par. 2 of the Executive Summary.

16

an authoritarian, more extensive state (USSR), which forced them to struggle for sovereign states in the late 1980s. Formal statements emphasizing the Baltics willingness to support Kosovo appeared instantaneously after the main conference of the EU’s foreign ministers on 18 February in Brussels. However, many statesmen openly expressed their position on Kosovo’s declaration of independence right following its adoption on 17 February. “Lithuania, as member of the European Union and NATO, has always underlined the importance of security and stability,” former Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus stated. “I am convinced that security in Europe is impossible without a stable Kosovo… It is greatly important for the European Union to find more and broader cooperation opportunities with Serbia and once again confirm that all Western Balkan countries have a European perspective,” he added.47 Unsurprisingly, Kosovo’s declaration of independence gave birth to a diverse reaction among the citizens of the Baltics. For instance, many ethnic Russians, constituting a considerable part of the Baltic population, seemed to refuse to acknowledge it.48 Considering the fact that European political circles also appeared to be divided in their attitude towards Kosovo’s independence, as, for example, Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Slovakia and Romania had not recognized the independence, Baltic statesmen emphasized the significance of European coherence on the debatable case. With regards to other Baltic States stances “Latvia stands for harmonized European Union action on the issue of Kosovo. Latvia considers a solution for the issue of the status of Kosovo as crucial for the political and economic stability of the Western Balkan states, as well as for their future development,” claimed Latvia’s Foreign Ministry in its official statement on 17 February 2008.49 As the majority of European countries did, the Baltic States also stressed the sui generis character of the situation and underlined that the case should not create a precedent for other parts of the world. “The uniqueness lies in the fact that the Serbian authorities have not had any real administrative functions in Kosovo for a long period of time – many duties were performed by the international community,” Latvian Foreign Minister Maris Riekstins commented.50

47 Press Service of the President of the Republic of Lithuania. President Adamkus Welcomes

Kosovo Independence, 18 February 2008, viewed 15 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/15ugR1P>. 48 Estonian Public Broadcasting. Paet: Estonia gotova priznat’ nezavisimost’ Kosovo, 17 February

2008, viewed 22 September2013, <http://bit.ly/1aWCJnv>. 49 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia. Foreign Ministry announcement on

situation in Kosovo, 17 February 2008, viewed 15 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/10rEaTc>. 50 Archdeacon, S. T., 2008. ‘Baltics Support Kosovo Independence’. The Baltic Times, 20

February 2008, viewed 15 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/1eQP0MP>.

17

12. Conclusion

Firstly, though secession as a whole is a debatable topic, which, indeed, it requires dozens of academic papers to shed light on its essence, it should be noticed that the theoretical basis here has an extremely limited and partial value. The right to secede should not be constitutionally constrained. On the other hand, constitution regularly happens to be a means of political manipulation, rhetoric or demagogy, thus its efficiency may be severely undermined in a democratically unstable society. Besides, no secessionist case from the past has appeared as an arena for a fair legal debate, rather it has always sprung from the highly politicized clash of nationalist sentiments. As for the Kosovo case particularly, secession should be supported, considering the fact that, ethnic Albanians endured discriminative oppression on the part of the federal government in Belgrade. Apart from that, doubt should be casted on the original motivation of the involvement of international community, which was initiated in the form of humanitarian intervention and subsequently emerged in frames of the interim administration. This is, nevertheless, a completely distinct question, which goes far beyond the scope of the given report. The main inference reached as a result of the current research expounds rather stable tendencies among the modern states towards secession, the right of self-determination, territorial integrity and recognition of the newly created states. The majority of the post-Soviet states are not inclined to recognize Kosovo’s independence in the nearest future. Neither are they likely to acknowledge that of any other seceded entity. Two basic implications drive these countries’ aversion to secessionism. First, it is firm regional ties. Despite the fact that all of the formerly Soviet republics legally gained independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, they failed (except from the Baltics) to conduct democratic transition and sustain political and economic autonomy, which forced them to fall into strong dependency from such powerful regional actor as Russia. The latter has its own, domestic apprehensions towards separatism, as it is, for example, with the case of Chechnya, thus it does not generally support secessionist movements. Surprisingly, it did once – in Abkhazia and South Ossetia – but that probably was a very subtle political step, to demonstrate that Russia is an “independent and autonomous” player. Obviously, in the given situation, under the pressure of an aggressive local dominator such as Russia, the rest of the post-Soviet community is reluctant to decide independently on such a sensitive question as secession, even if some would be inclined to do so, which is highly unlikely today. And the second reason to oppose separatism is that most of the post-Soviet countries simply cannot afford recognition of the newly formed states, as they have their own territorial problems and secessionist movements. It is especially much with the Caucasian states. This is, commonly, true not only

18

of the former Soviet republics but also, for instance, of some European states, such as Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Slovakia and Romania, who also experience domestic separatist endeavors. There might also be other reasons for non-recognition. Suppose a certain state has strong economic or political relations with a parent state (one that endures separation), thus it will probably have no incentive to support secession, in order not to damage the beneficial relationship with its close partner. Considering high interconnectedness and deep regionalization in the contemporary world, states attempt to avoid undermining the present networks.

19

13. Bibliography

1. Archdeacon, S. T., 2008. ‘Baltics Support Kosovo Independence’. The

Baltic Times, 20 February 2008, viewed 15 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/1eQP0MP>.

2. Asmus, R., 2010. A Little War that Shook the World. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

3. B92.net. Georgia will not recognize Kosovo, 9 May 2008, viewed 28 August 2013, <http://bit.ly/X7T2sj>.

4. BelTA. Belarus Supports Serbians’ pursuit of territorial integrity, 28 February 2008, viewed 28 August 2013, <http://bit.ly/1fiUjSu>.

5. BelTA. Belarus’ Parliament issues statement in connection with Kosovo

self-declaration of independence, 21 February 2008, viewed 28 August 2013, <http://bit.ly/13Z9Ya0>.

6. Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics 1977, viewed 19 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/oiOfmj>.

7. Deriglazova, L., and Minasyan, S., 2011. ‘Nagorny Karabakh: Paradoksy sily i slabosti v assymetrichnom konflikte’. Analiticheskie doklady Instituta Kavkaza, vol. 3, p. 79.

8. Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union. The Transnistrian Issue: Moving Beyond the Status-quo, October 2012, viewed 11 October 2013, <http://bit.ly/163Arit>.

9. Estonian Public Broadcasting. Paet: Estonia gotova priznat’

nezavisimost’ Kosovo, 17 February 2008, viewed 22 September2013, <http://bit.ly/1aWCJnv>.

10. Goble, P., 2010. ‘Karakalpak Separatism Again on the Rise, Analyst Says’. Georgian Daily, viewed 7 October 2013, <http://bit.ly/15gNMXo>.

11. Human Rights Watch project. Georgia/Abkhazia: Violations of the Laws of War and Russia’s Role in the Conflict, March 1995, vol. 7, no. 7, viewed 6 October 2013, <http://bit.ly/GFR11u>.

12. ICJ Kosovo case: Public hearing transcripts, CR 2009/27, 3

December 2009, viewed 22 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/1dAVPRb>.

13. International Crisis Group report. Kyrgyzstan: Widening Ethnic Divisions in the South, 29 March 2012, viewed 7 October 2013, <http://bit.ly/H3Ibn7>.

20

14. International Crisis Group report. Moldova: Regional Tensions over

Transdniestria, 17 June 2004, pp. 17-22, viewed 10 October 2013, <http://bit.ly/GQUv0C>.

15. Izvestia-Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan ne priznaet nezavisimosti Kosovo, 19

February 2008, viewed 28 August 2013, <http://bit.ly/15wrnVD>.

16. KyivPost. Ukraine Not to Change Position on Kosovo in Wake of United Nations Court Judgment, 27 July 2010, viewed 15 February 2013, <http://bit.ly/Zw3AxW>.

17. Liu, M., 1997. ‘The Perils of Nationalism in Independent Uzbekistan’. The Journal of the International Institute, vol. 4, no. 2, viewed 7 October2013, <http://bit.ly/19uX27K>.

18. Minasyan, S., 2012. ‘Karabakhskiy Konflikt: Vnutripoliticheskoe

Izmerenie’. Politcom.ru, 26 September 2012, viewed 15 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/14WP728>.

19. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus. Statement by

the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of Belarus relating to the unilateral proclamation of independence by the Kosovo temporary authorities of self-government, viewed 28 August 2013, <http://bit.ly/10ocTCs>.

20. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia. Foreign

Ministry announcement on situation in Kosovo, 17 February 2008, viewed 15 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/10rEaTc>.

21. Naviny.by. Belarus will never recognize Kosovo’s independence, says

ambassador to Serbia, viewed 15 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/192A6hN>.

22. Ogryzko, V., 2008. Statement at the 16th Meeting of the OSCE

Ministerial Council, 4 December, viewed 28 August 2013, <http://www.osce.org/mc/35365>.

23. Office of Mass Media Relations of the Cabinet of Ministers of

Ukraine Secretariat. Yulia Tymoshenko: Ukraine will determine its stance concerning Kosovo independence after respective evaluation of international institutions, 16 April 2008, viewed 22 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/Z39Htq>.

24. OSCE Conflict Prevention Centre. Transdniestrian conflict: origins and issues, viewed 10 October 2013, <http://bit.ly/NymiVH>.

25. Peet, J., 2008. ‘Frozen Conflicts’. The Economist, viewed 6 October 2013, <http://econ.st/rpzBJz>.

21

26. Polit.ru. Rukovodstvo Kazakstana ne budet priznavat’ nezavisimost’ Abkhazii i Juzhnoi Ossetii, 12 December 2008, viewed 28 August 2013, <http://bit.ly/1aPrRtU>.

27. Press Release, Presidents Serzh Sargsyan And Danilo Turk Held Joint Press Conference in the Framework of the Official Visit of the President of Slovenia to Armenia, 11 October 2010, viewed 19 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/1dOGLQV>.

28. Press Service of the President of the Republic of Lithuania. President

Adamkus Welcomes Kosovo Independence, 18 February 2008, viewed 15 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/15ugR1P>.

29. Radio Azatutyun. Armenia Rules Out Abkhazia, South Ossetia

Recognition, 4 September 2008, viewed 28 August 2013, <http://bit.ly/19MEkf3>.

30. Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry Into the Events in Southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010, par. 2 of the Executive Summary, viewed 7 October 2013, < http://bit.ly/15RbNGZ>.

31. Schwirtz, M., 2010. ‘New Violence in Kyrgyzstan Leads to Troop Deployment’. The New York Times, viewed 7 October 2013, <http://nyti.ms/GI1Sri>.

32. Unian. Ukraine’s stance on Kosovo dictated by its desire to keep neutral

status, 22 October 2008, viewed 22 September 2013, <http://bit.ly/17lKRv2>.

22

GAP Institute is a local think-tank founded in October 2007 in Kosovo. GAP’s main purpose is to attract professionals by creating a professional research and development environment commonly found in similar institutions in Western countries. This will include providing Kosovars with an opportunity to research, develop, and implement projects that would strengthen Kosovo society. A priority of the Institute is to mobilize professionals to address the country’s pressing economic, political and social challenges. GAP’s main objectives are to bridge the gap between government and people, and to bridge the gap between problems and solutions.