Официальная страница политика и общественного деятеля

Наталии Алексеевны Нарочницкой

Н. Нарочницкая член Комиссии, при Президенте Российской Федерации по противодействию попыткам фальсификации истории в ущерб интересам России.

Наталия Алексеевна Нарочницкая – известный ученый, общественно-политический деятель, православный идеолог, доктор исторических наук

Европейский институт демократии и сотрудничества (Париж) возглавляет Наталия Алексеевна Нарочницкая

Фонд исторической перспективы (ФИП) был создан в 2004 году Наталией Алексеевной Нарочницкой и группой ее соратников.

Информационно-аналитический портал, посвященный деятельности российского ученого, общественного деятеля Наталии Алексеевны Нарочницкой

Декабрь 2011
Пн Вт Ср Чт Пт Сб Вс
« Ноя    
  1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  




Having reviewed the borders and the sea boundaries of Russia, one may be reminded that in the Far East, Japan has already undergone one round (and it looks as if will not be the last) of an unprecedented onslaught with the purpose of revision of the territorial outcomes of the World War II in order to get back the Kuril Islands, which inevitably undermines the solidity of the post-war territorial outcomes in Europe. Russia is being squeezed inward by a ring of geopolitical interests which are plotting historical revenge; a change in positions in one matter gives legal basis for pressuring Russia in another matter creating a domino effect.

Something that is becoming a complex problem for Russian interests are the multilateral mechanisms which are slipping out from under control, and for the creation of which, at one time, immense political and material resources were spent. Large international structures, reflecting a post-war correlation of forces In international relations and regarded as their superstructure, immediately reacted to the denial of the perpetual line of foreign policy and of the subsequently Immediate weakening of Russia. The UN and CSCE allowed themselves to openly display a double standard in regard to events taking place on the territory of the USSR and later, in Yugoslavia.
Despite the propagandist rhetoric from both sides that surrounded the Conference on security and cooperation in Europe during its establishment, it, after many years of agreements on approaches, reflected definite mutual obligations. From the West, the USSR again received a sought for contemporary validation in regard to the Yalta-Potsdam system, an acknowledgment of the legality of territorial integrity in the post-war borders of European countries, first and foremost its own borders as well as the western border of Poland, i.e. the border along the Oder and Neisse rivers. This signified the acceptance by the West in the Helsinki Final Act of the restoration of historic Russia’s territories which were lost (not without the help of the West) during the revolution and civil war. Out of the Final Act of the CSCE emerged the fact that the Baltic region is recognized as a part of the USSR (the USA was the only one to have reservations about this). The West received a sought for agreement from the USSR on the reduction of armed forces and armaments in Europe that was realized later in a time frame determined by the CFE Treaty. It is obvious that out of all these mutual obligations, only ours were fulfilled.

In 1991-1992, the UN and the CSCE openly disregarded the principle of universality in the norms of international law. Thus, for the hasty acknowledgment of the dismemberment of the USSR and Yugoslavia, UN founding nations and participants in the Helsinki Act (although it was namely their territorial integrity and not the one of the subjects of their federations that was guaranteed in the Final Act by all of the 35 signatories that signed it), the mandate on the peaceful alteration of borders was applied without the indication that such an alteration is possible only in coordination with constitutional procedures that ensure the rights of people. But the territory of the seceding republics, Moldavia, Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Ukraine, were declared not to be subject to change, and the multitude of peoples who reside there, including those who were divided, were deprived of the right of free will in the matter of their own choice of government. Their borders, former internal and administrative inclusive, were immediately proclaimed as international and inviolable on the basis of the very same Helsinki act, only used here were the principles of the inviolability of borders.

There is a double standard present in the interpretation of the multilateral universal criteria and obligations that are placed on themselves by the members of world society and exploited in specific state and political goals as the notorious «human rights’’ under the banner of which sovereign governments are selectively blackmailed. The violation of Russians’ rights in the CIS during the past years has not aroused any international protest. The UN at once reflected new correlations of forces between the USA and Russia. Since it was in the interests of the USA to use the universal international organization, all new tendencies in the work of the Security Council proceeded in namely this direction. Discussion on the decision of the Russian Supreme Soviet apropos the Russian status of Sevastopol’ became alarming, although a little-observed precedent. Completely brushing aside the essence of the issue and the tight knot of an internal political struggle, one must note that the Security Council’s announcement (even in an indirect form, namely, in the statement of the chairman) regarding the fact that the decision of the highest legislative organ of a sovereign state has no legal power is an unprecedented endeavour, an event that exceeds any limitation of the UN Charter and the UN’s powers, and opens up a way to turning the UN into a global government which would be fraught with dangerous consequences for the whole of world society and future international relations under whoever’s aegis such a mechanism was formed.

Even more dangerous is the coalescence of the UN, as a supranational organ for adopting solutions and laying claims to universalism, with NATO, which occurred during the «peacemaking» operations in the Yugoslav drama

Читать далее:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

В архиве 22 декабря 2003

Добавить комментарий

Для отправки комментария вы должны авторизоваться.


У всех кавказских войн немусульманские режиссеры.

RSS Новости Фонда

  • Состоялась презентация книги "Дело партизана Кононова" 16.11.2011
  • «Россия и Испания: Очарование через расстояния» 31.10.2011
  • В Париже прошел вечер дебатов «Европе не избежать переустройства собственной архитектуры безопасности» 31.10.2011
  • Состоялась конференция «П.А.Столыпин и современная Россия» 30.10.2011
Rambler's Top100