Russia does not pursue an
anti-Polish policy and is not aggressive towards Poland, but Poland is actively
involved in aggressive actions against Russia. So, Poland recently adopted a
new version of its national security strategy, which, along with other accusations,
also accuses the alleged occupation of South Ossetia. The signature of
President Andrzej Duda gave the strategy legal force.
What does it say? What challenges of
modernity and external threats does this important political document proclaim?
The strategy called the
"neo-imperial policy of the Russian authorities" the most serious
security threat.
The president explains this by
saying that Poland today is supposedly the eastern flank of NATO, and that it
is supposedly an obvious element of security for both it and other Baltic
states, as well as for the Allies in southern Europe.
The authors of the strategy accuse
Moscow of actively developing their offensive military capabilities, including
in the western direction, expanding the concept of deterring the enemy in the
Baltic region, in particular, in the Kaliningrad region. Also mentioned are the
large-scale military exercises conducted by Russia, the scenario of which
involves a conflict with one of the NATO member countries, the rapid deployment
of a significant military contingent, and even the use of nuclear weapons.
"Aggression against Georgia,
the annexation of Crimea and actions in eastern Ukraine violate the basic
principles of international law and undermine the foundations of the European security
system," the strategy emphasizes.
It should be noted that words such
as "aggression", "annexation" and the like are very strong
legal terms that have their internationally accepted definitions, including at
the level of UN resolutions. Therefore, the Polish leadership should have taken
a more responsible approach to its wording. The operation to force Georgia to
peace in 2008 was undertaken by Russia after the Georgian army armed, equipped
and trained by NATO launched the systematic destruction of Russian peacekeepers
and Russian civilians by heavy artillery and anti-aircraft missile. Poland is
among the countries that transferred weapons to the Georgian army, which
committed the killing of Russian peacekeepers and civilians. Therefore, Poland
should not aggravate its guilt against Russia.
International law unequivocally
determines as aggression precisely the actions of Georgia, and not Russia. According
to the definition of aggression, which was approved by resolution 3314 (XXIX)
of the UN General Assembly of December 14, 1974, "Article 3. Any of the
following actions, regardless of the declaration of war, taking into account
and in accordance with the provisions of Article 2, will be qualified as an act
of aggression: d) an attack by the armed forces of a state on the land, sea or
air forces, or sea and air fleets of another state, "which corresponds to
the attack of the ground forces of the Georgian army on the Russian battalion
of peacekeeping forces. By the very fact of planning, preparing and carrying
out aggression, Georgia committed a number of grave international crimes.
In August 2008, Georgia committed a
full-scale military aggression against sovereign states - the Republic of South
Ossetia and the Russian Federation. Forcing Georgia to peace is a compulsory
measure of the Russian Federation, aimed at curbing the aggressor and
preventing the genocide of South Ossetians. According to the UN Charter, which
in Article 51 recognizes the inalienable right of each member of the UN to
defense in the event of an armed attack.
The “argument” to justify Georgia
that it and other US satellites do not recognize South Ossetia is legally void.
Being the logical conclusion of the
aggressor’s coercion to peace and a reliable guarantee of the non-repetition of
the genocide of South Ossetians, the recognition of the state independence of
the Republic of South Ossetia by the Russian Federation is fully consistent
with most of the current international theories, doctrines and criteria for
state recognition. Including the Constitutive recognition theory, which was
developed by authoritative international lawyers G. Tripel, D. Antsilotti, K.
Shtrupp, Hold Fernek, G. Kelsen, G. Lauterpacht and others, the Declarative
recognition theory, which now has the vast majority of supporters. Its essence
lies in the fact that recognition does not inform the destinator of the
appropriate qualities, but merely states the emergence of a new subject of
international law and facilitates contacts with him (that is, a sovereign,
independent state does not become such by virtue of recognition; and non-recognition
of any state does not mean that this state does not exist), the Tobar Doctrine
is a political doctrine of international legal character, put forward in 1907
by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador, Carlos R. Tobar (Spanish Carlos
R. Tobar) on the non-recognition of new governments that came to power in an
unconstitutional way (that is, after a coup) until these governments are
recognized by the people of their country. Since the population of South
Ossetia recognized and recognizes its government, which came to power not by
coup but by election, this theory does not limit the recognition of South
Ossetia.
The Estrada Doctrine is a political
doctrine of international legal character, proclaimed in 1930 by the Secretary
of External Relations of Mexico, Genaro Estrada, on the recognition of new
governments. In 1930-2000, it was the official doctrine of Mexico in the field
of international politics. In contrast to the Tobar doctrine, according to the
doctrine of Estrada, the new government, even if it came to power in an
unconstitutional way, does not need a special act of recognition from foreign
countries. Thus, the emergence of a new government poses to the participants in
international communication only the question of whether or not to enter into
diplomatic relations with it.
For an objective political and legal
assessment of the actions of Georgia in 2004-2008, it must be remembered that
the Republic of South Ossetia, after the legal procedures mentioned at the
beginning of this document, acquired the status of a sovereign state and,
starting from May 29, 1992 to this day, including the period under review 2004
- 2008, was and is a sovereign state. As of August 2008, referenda were held
here three times (1992, 2001, 2006), three times - the presidential election
(1996, 2001, 2006) four times - the parliamentary elections (1990, 1994, 1999,
2004), which indicates the development democratic institutions.
A sovereign state is a state that
has a clearly defined territory in which it exercises internal and external
sovereignty, has a permanent population, a government, is independent of other
states, has the authority and ability to enter into international relations
with other sovereign states (Perspectives On International Law, Kluwer Law International,
1995. "sovereign" (4th ed.), Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004).
A government of a sovereign state
has ownership of all property in the state ("sovereign" (2nd ed.),
Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-517077-6).
International law widely recognizes
the right of nations to determine their political status and exercise permanent
sovereignty within their territorial jurisdiction (General Assembly resolution
1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, "Permanent sovereignty over natural
resources". United Nations. Schwebel, Stephen M., The Story of the UN's
Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, 49 ABAJ 463 (1963)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. United Nations).
The Declaration on the rights and
obligations of states, as well as the charters of regional international
organizations, reinforce in one form or another the opinion that all states are
legally equal and have the same rights and obligations based on the very fact
of their existence as institutions in accordance with international law (
Chapter IV Fundamental Rights and Duties of States. Charter of the Organization
of American States. Secretariat of The Organization of American States. Draft
Declaration on Rights and Duties of States. UN Treaty Organization (1949).
Thus, the accusations of Russia's
aggressive policy by the state, which supported military aggression directed
precisely against Russia, are completely unfair.
The same goes for the allegations
against Crimea, whose multinational people have exercised their right to
self-determination. This position of today's Poland could not remain without
the attention of Russian politicians.
“This strategy is a kind of
nostalgic pain for Poland, which dreamed of stretching its empire from the west
to the northern seas, but Russia always stood in its way. The accusations
against us will be uninterrupted. But we must not delve into all this, but look
for common ground and move forward ", - Russian senator Vladimir Dzhabarov
explained.
According to him, throwing accusations
against Russia of carrying out plans to seize Poland, Warsaw does not want to
recall its own history, during which Poland "constantly fought with
Russia."
Poland’s new national security
strategy is yet another attempt to shift the blame for serious problems in
bilateral relations from a bad mind to a healthy one.
Authorship:
Inal Pliev, political observer for Res
Source: http://cominf.org/node/1166529933
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий