Autumn of the Middle Ages

*"Putin's scream:" You cannot encourage separatism! " - this is a voice from the animal Middle Ages."

Vadim Belotserkovsky*

The idea of ​​the right of peoples to self -determination, which entered international law only in the middle of the last century, was born much earlier. The first nominated her rebellion against her legitimate Spanish king, the Netherlands separatists nominated. In 1576, the delegates of 17 provinces, which gathered in the general, justifying their right to refuse to obey Spain, proclaimed: "Not the people were created for the sovereign, but the sovereign for the people. If the sovereign enters with citizens as with slaves, he ceases to be a sovereign and becomes a tyrant."

Of course, in the 16th century there could be no question that such ideas form the basis of international law. The ruling elite of feudal Europe considered the peoples the property of sovereigns, which can be inherited, bequeathed, given, on occasion - to be taken from the weaker owner. The right-wing agricultural militants had to approve the right to self-determination, in whose illegal armed groups the famous Til Ulenspigel participated. The Spaniards were not helped by the stripping of the punishers of the Duke of Alba, nicknamed the Bloody. The Netherlands became independent. And the idea of ​​the right to self -determination continued to live. At the end of the 18th century, it was developed and strengthened in the US Independence Declaration.

Nevertheless, in the 19th century, in international relations in Europe, the principle of legitimism proclaimed by the Vienna Congress dominated, recognizing the priority of the "original" rights of sovereigns over the rights of peoples. The fear of undermining these norms of international law prevented Alexander I to defend the Greeks who were subjected to the most severe sweeping by the Turkish authorities. At the same time, literally all Russian society sympathized with the rebellious Hellas - from the extreme left to the extreme right. Of course, for various reasons: some - based on imperial interests, others - from the sympathy of the struggle for freedom.

The Greeks still freed from Turkish rule - with the support of not Russia, so England. The British in time realized that in the end, the Greeks were recruited by independence, and the one who will have time to help them benefit from this. True, the principle of legitimism was not canceled. He was simply ignored for the sake of political expediency. But Russia also learned something: it began to provide much more supporting support to the in an integral part of the Ottoman Empire by the Serbian and Bulgarian separatists.

The first attempt to fix the right to self -determination as an international norm was also unsuccessful. Although negotiations on peaceful settlement after the First World War were formally conducted on the basis of the proposals of the American president Woodro Wilson, who advocated the self -determination of the peoples, but in practice the leaders of the great powers cut new borders in Europe based on their pragmatic "geostrategic" interests. Yes, and the principle of self -determination was not included in the charter of the League of Nations, nor in the texts of peace treaties between winners and defeated agreements. This was one of the prerequisites for the Second World War.

The United Nations, it would seem, took into account the mistakes of its predecessor. The right to self -determination was recorded in the documents of the anti -Hitler coalition, on the basis of which the UN was created. This principle was developed in the Declaration adopted by the UN General Assembly on the provision of independence to colonial countries and peoples (1960) and Pact on civil and political rights (1966). However, as Vadim Belotserkovsky rightly writes, international legal documents still have not given a clear answer to the question of what principle and in what cases should it be dominated by: the right to self-determination or also enshrined in these documents the right of states to maintain its territorial integrity.

Such uncertainty was left consciously in order to be able to act in the same political expediency in order to remove the desired card from the sleeve at the right time. Moreover, the ruling circles of the great powers (each of which had a bunch of skeletons in their own closet) silently agreed as a general rule to consider the principle of territorial integrity to the "senior".

All this duality reflects the continuation of the historical struggle of the two principles. One beginning is feudal. It involves the belonging of peoples to the dominant elites represented by the state (even if this state has a modern parliamentary structure). Another beginning is civil, legal, suggesting that the people cannot have the owner, even if it is not the feudal prince, but another people. This beginning assumes that it is not peoples belong to the territories, but the territories belong to the peoples living on them.

There is no Europe (West) at all. There is Europe for the Duke of Alba, and there is Europe Tila Ulenspigel. There is Europe Metternich, and there is Europe Yaroslav Dombrovsky and Giuseppe Garibaldi (the right to self -determination is, by the way, not only the right to separate, but also the right to reunite, for which the Italian people fought against their feudal rulers). Yes, today the contradictions between these two European systems of values ​​are largely softened and are allowed, as a rule, not buckshot. But only because over the centuries of the struggle of the Ulenshpigeli and the Dombrovskiy taught their meternichs at least from the plate. Metternichs found their capable successors in the person of Putin's kleptocracy, still unlearned, and therefore especially arrogant. And not the West at all sold Chechnya at all, but the West of the Metternich. Although at least these young people have fun like the Western Metternichs can no longer.

The trouble of many of our liberals-westers is that they either do not notice the presence of these "two Europe", or they cannot decide which one they themselves are. Hence their attempts to simply get away from the dilemma: we either recognize the priority of the people’s right to self -determination in relation to the territorial integrity of the state, or we recognize the state’s right to restore the territory at all costs up to the last Albanian, Chechens, Kurdish, that is, we recognize the right to genocide. By the way, such inconsistency of most participants in the movement against the Chechen war is one of the main causes of his weakness. The position of those who shouted "rolling Chechnya on asphalt!" Looked more integral. They did not leave the dilemma.

When today the Western leaders mutter inadvertently: “Kosovo should not become a precedent,” this grinds the old, toothless Europe meternichs, who wants to retain the opportunity to act on the basis of political expediency, that is, apply a double standard. Russia Benkendorf-Dubub-Putin does not grumble. She not only screams from her feudal Middle Ages, but also tries to bite. But Russia is an integral part of Europe. Therefore, in addition to the Putin Foreign Ministry, there is another Russia - democratic. And this Russia should openly say: Kosovo should become a precedent. The beginning of the new stage of the revolution in the system of international law, which will end the feudal norms and eliminate the application of the double standard.

It should be clearly established as a general rule: the right to self -determination is higher than territorial integrity. After that, you can consider each specific case individually. Yes, the case of Abkhazia is far from unambiguous. The solution to the Abkhaz problem is impossible without solving the problem of refugees. But there are "pure" cases - South Ossetia, Karabakh. And Transnistria is a pure case. Or does anyone have doubts that if it were not for the intervention of General Lebed (by the way, unauthorized), then the young Moldavian nationalism, aggressive and intolerant, like almost all young nationalisms, would have made the same massacre that Russian colonialists in Chechnya later?

It is democratic Russia that should say: the Putin regime is unable to protect the rights of all these peoples by virtue of its feudal medium-bodied essence. Their rights for him are nothing more than a bargaining card in the "Big Game". Only democratic Russia will ensure the realization of the rights of these peoples. And finally let Chechnya let go.