Paul
Goble
Staunton, February 25 – When the USSR
disintegrated in 1991, the United States and other Western countries and with the
support of the leaderships of the former Soviet republics, including the
Russian Federation, insisted that the administrative borders of the union
republics should become without change the international borders of the new
states.
The West did so out of fear that any
border changes would open a Pandora’s box. And the leaders of the former Soviet
republics did so because in most cases, the border issue was far from the most
pressing one they faced and because, again in most cases, they recognized that
challenging the borders would land them in difficulties with other countries.
Many even came to believe that these
borders were both natural and had seldom been changed, neither of which was the
case. These borders had been changed more than 200 times during the Soviet
period, and they were in no way “natural” except when they abutted a river or a
sea.
This commitment to the stability of
borders in the post-Soviet region had both positive and negative consequences.
On the positive side, it prevented or at least put off an issue that could have
torn many of these countries apart. But on the negative, it meant that in discussions
of what came to be called “frozen conflicts,” border changes were off the
table.
That had the unintended result of
keeping many of these conflicts going far longer than might have been the case
if territorial adjustments had been made in the immediate wake of the
disintegration of the USSR when the situation was more fluid and exacerbating
tensions within these countries even if it helped to minimize them between the
new states.
But the idea of border stability
began to break down a decade ago, with Russia’s military actions against
Georgia leading to the partially recognized independence of Abkhazia and South
Osetia, with conflicts along borders in Central Asia, and with Vladimir Putin’s
drive for regional amalgamation within the Russian Federation, a push that
reopened the question.
Now with the Russian Anschluss of
Crimea and Moscow’s continuing intervention in southeastern Ukraine -- and
despite the Kremlin’s frequent assertions that it supports the territorial
integrity of that country – other countries and indeed parts of countries see
border changes as having been legitimated and are making their own proposals.
An example of one such proposal that
is in itself small but that may have enormous consequences down the road was
reported yesterday by a Kazakhstan outlet.
According to that news agency’s Marina Aimbetova, Russia’s Omsk Oblast
has proposed two variants of a border swap with Kazakhstan (time.kz/articles/zloba/2015/02/24/42385-i-nashim-i-vashim).
Ten days ago, Erik Sultanov, the
head of the Northern Kazakhstan Oblast, made a visit to Omsk, during which Omsk
Governor Viktor Nazarenko proposed a territorial swap of approximately 2400
hectares in each direction to simplify life for border residents who otherwise
must cross the international border several times a day.
He argued that this would not be
difficult as most of the territory involved has no population centers and is
owned by the two governments rather than by private persons. But the issue is
obviously very sensitive: Kazakhstan’s foreign ministry issued a statement
saying that it had heard nothing about this idea at an official level.
“Questions concerning the
demarcation of the state border between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the
Russian Federation are in the exclusive competence of the joint Kazakhstan-Russian
commission on issues of demarcation of the state border,” the ministry said,
adding that it would “carefully study” any proposals that the Russian side
might make.
There are few borders in the former
Soviet space where the borders are unproblematic, either because of the
intermixture of populations left over from Soviet times or because of national
claims. And now that Putin has opened
this Pandora’s box, it will be worth watching what comes out and, also as in
case of Pandora, what if anything will be left behind.
No comments:
Post a Comment