Commentary: South Sudan Vote Gives Hope to Karabagh

Of course, President al-Bashir gave just excuses for the West to declare his country a pariah state, namely because of his genocidal politics in Darfur. The international court issued an arrest warrant, with the backing of Washington, to contain Sudan’s homicidal actions. And in line with the US’s Libyan policy, the Khartoum government cut a deal with the US to hold a referendum in the South and honor the results.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, many territorial adjustments have been made in different parts of the world and many minorities have exerted their right for self-determination and achieved independence such as East Timor, Eritrea, Somaliland, Slovenia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Macedonia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. All these precedents leave no excuse forbidding Karabagh people to determine their own fate.

In all these cases, the only distinction was that some minorities broke away with the consent or tacit agreement of the majority rulers, and others were forced by major forces.

East Timor has a long history of conflict with the Jakarta regime, after Indonesia gained its independence from Holland. Finally Jakarta agreed to a referendum, which freed East Timor.

Eritrea benefited from Ethiopia’s internal turmoil to declare its independence.

But Kosovo’s independence was the outcome of an international power game between Russia and the West. The US, which had antagonized the Muslim world through its unconditional support of Israel, found an opportunity to provide a free gift to the Muslim world by supporting the independence of a Muslim minority in the heart of Europe, by dismantling the former Yugoslavia by force. Of course, Kosovo’s independence had further political and symbolic ramifications as well; as the European Union was mustering its forces and pooling its Christian values eventually to challenge US’s unipolar world domination, Kosovo would become a monkey wrench in those European aspirations, like Turkey could become one day with Washington’s blessing.

The symbolic significance of Kosovo’s independence was that Serbia’s backbone was broken and a line in the sand was drawn for Russian influence in Europe and particularly in the Balkans. As the West was pushing for Kosovo’s independence and recognition by other nations, Moscow vehemently opposed the move and warned that there could be a settling of scores in the international arena. And that opportunity was afforded to Russia by Georgia’s frivolous President Mikheil Saakashvili when he began saber- battling in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia took up the challenge, destroyed the Georgian army and recognized those enclaves as independent nations.

Some Latin American countries such as Nicaragua and Venezuela, to please Russia and spite the West, recognized the independence of those two entities.

What do all these case analyses bring to the issue of Karabagh? Unfortunately, Karabagh falls in the category of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where the ruling majority was coerced to relinquish a chunk of its territory to a struggling minority, the principle of territorial integrity notwithstanding.

Where is the major power to force Baku rulers to recognize the results of 1994 war and the referendum of 1991. On the contrary, it is in the interest of the major powers — including our “strategic ally” Russia — to keep the Karabagh conflict frozen to cajole or to threaten Azerbaijan to wrest economic and political concessions. Baku authorities maintain an active trade partnership with Taiwan, while they refuse to recognize Karabagh’s right to self-determination. Similarly Turkey keeps under its occupation Northern Cyprus, beating its breast forminority rights, while actively refusing to grant those same rights to the people of Karabagh.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama were so much in favor of Southern Sudan’s independence they can hardly think of granting the same treatment to Karabagh. Therefore, all these principles and lofty rhetoric on international law are just like shoes to fit the feet of politicians and statesmen.

If Kosovo and South Sudan can enjoy independence, the same political conditions and the same principles of self-determination entitle Karabagh people to have their own independence.

But when you pose the question to the leaders of the major powers, they will concoct and manufacture all kinds of laws and conditions that the Karabagh situation is “different.”

The only guarantee for Karabagh’s security and independence comes from Armenia. And Armenia’s shrinking population hangs a big question mark over the settlement of Karabagh. When dust settles in South Sudan, our pundits in Armenia will realize that their anticipation of a precedent for Karabagh was overrated.