International recognition of Kosovo has set precedent, whether the recognizing countries want it or not. They say Kosovo is a “sui generis” case, but it isn’t. Russia has used it to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia (while still not recognizing Kosovo), which has upped the precedent even more. This time not such much for the whole world, but in particular for the republics and regions within the Russian Federation who wish more autonomy — or even independence from the Empire.

It’s no secret that Chechnya, Tatarstan and similar Russian republics have wanted to become independent nations. Because of the sheer size of Russia, it holds many ethnic groups, and not all these groups want to be part of another ethnicity’s nation. It is the main reason Russia is a federation nowadays, with many republics within its borders holding many autonomies. Though some rights have been eliminated during the Putin years, they still hold some kind of self-governing power.

Russia is keen to keep many of these republics within its borders, because they usually have some importance to the Russian economy. Keeping them inside because of historic values is not really an issue — especially not when you consider that looking at historic value validates many of their cries for independence.

Tatarstan

It is the economic importance of Tatarstan that keeps it a member of the federation. Home to a rich oil industry, some automotive factories and major pipelines, Tatarstan would be a very missed part of the nation if they went independent.

Does it have to be though? Look up Tatarstan in an atlas and you’ll discover that it would be a landlocked nation when independent — landlocked in its entirety by Russia. That would automatically make Russia its largest trade partner. Air cargo to the outside world would have to go over Russia; transport over water, just like rail and road transport would have to go through Russia. So it is fair to say Russia will be losing the direct income from the Tatarstan economy, but indirectly there will still be enough to patch that hole up.

But why independence when you’re still dependent on Russia for almost everything? That’s a good question, but I think their cry for independence doesn’t really have a rational basis — nor is that necessary. Not being able to speak for them, I would say that it is the personal identity, the feeling of self-government, the official representation in the world and the sheer traditional value that is the foundation of the cry.

Economic importance isn’t the only thing keeping Tatarstan part of Russia. The Russians hold on to the 1552 victory of Ivan the Terrible, which absorbed Kazan into the Russian Empire, and on the other side of the issue it is the same. The Tatars hold on to the same year, sort of justifying their cry because of the fact that they were conquered, instead of voluntarily made part of an empire.

My question in the whole Tatar situation is if the Tatars really are crying for independence? These political figures (currently in the opposition, if I’m right) are saying they do, but would you commemorate the 1552 fall of Kazan if you really wanted to be independent of Russia? I would be disgusted by that certain year, outraged a celebration was being held in honor of it. The last thing I would be doing is commemorating it.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia

The display by the South Ossetians we have seen in the last month certainly show that they as a people, not just only as political figures, want to be independent from Georgia, and even to an extent that they would like to be part of Russia.

In similarity to Tatarstan, the personal identity, tradition and the feeling of self-government are also part of the cry of independence of regions like South Ossetia, but the individual need for independence is different. While Tatarstan could survive on its own, assuming they keep a good relationship with Russia and set up free trade treaties, it is different for more impoverished nations like South Ossetia, Ingushetia, Chechnya. Singling out South Ossetia here, there is no substantial natural resource in South Ossetia to power its economy, no real service industry (like tourism, though that could be initiated of course), and with many of its cities and villages in bad conditions, the future looks gloom for the South Ossetians.

Am I saying with all of this that South Ossetia is better off as part of Russia? Perhaps I am, yes. Of course, if the South Ossetians chose to be part of Russia, I wouldn’t be the one disallowing them to do so. But I don’t think it really is a choice. If they try to survive on their own, they’ll soon discover that keeping a nation healthy is difficult, and with almost all of the nations funding coming from Russia, the solution seems to be pretty obvious.

Abkhazia might have a bigger change of surviving on its own, with direct access to open water and with an industry to build upon. If they play it right they could even become independent from Russian resources and funding in the future. I have never been to Abkhazia so I can’t say how the natural glory of the country looks like, but (when peace has returned) I might see a tourism industry in its future, next to the heavy industry. That extra tourism income can then fund development of education, healthcare, technology. Those could become a foundation for less heavy industry and the development of science. (All plainly stated, of course it is also depended on the circumstances, the will to do so and their ability to do so.)

Hypocrisy of double standards

My thoughts and feelings about all of these situations are a bit all of the place, as this post has showed. On one hand I am for the self-government of ethnicities and I feel that their desires of independence are more important than the sovereignty of their “oppressor” — but on the other, there needs to be a foundation to build upon. With no real economy it is difficult to maintain a nation, especially when you’re dependent on your “opressor” to feed you.

Though it should be a case to case evaluation, people have to recognize that it just isn’t. Supporting Kosovo, but not recognizing Abkhazia isn’t going to be justified by just saying Kosovo is a “sui generis” situation. Playing the “sui generis” card has been a public confession of double standards by the European Union and the United States — the guilty plea of using people for your own benefit.

They aren’t the only ones pleading guilty here. As of today Russia still hasn’t recognized Kosovo, even though its original (real) objections don’t stand anymore. They didn’t recognize Kosovo for two reasons: to show support for “ally” Serbia, and to prevent precedent from being set. Well, Serbia turned on Russia by supporting Georgia in the South Ossetia/Abkhazia recognition case, and eventually Russia set precedent on its own. Seems to me they can turn out to be the most holy in this whole diplomatic mess, by just recognizing Kosovo and then subsequently calling the United States and the European Union out on their hypocrisy.

And hypocrisy it is. Mark my words, there will never be peace in the world as long as double standards in politics exist.