The general political document which has been adopted by the 3rd Conference of Radical members from New Independent States of ex-USSR (Kiev, 12-13 December, 1992) includes paragraph which appeals to the Transnational Radical Congress "to assume intention to intensify with energy actions and active presence in the conflict situations like in Bosnia and on Balkans, also in the situations of conflicts on the territories of the New Independent States."
What does it mean concretely? As one of the authors of this addition to the text of document, I'll try to explain it by little bit more detailed way.
It is more or less clear for everybody, what kind of regime is Serbian regime and what kind of war is so called "civil" war in Bosnia. Radical activity during the last year to counteract Serbian aggression yesterday in Croatia (in particularly, Marco Pannella's non-violent direct action in Osijek) and today in Bosnia made face of this transnational organization - together with other RP's actions and steps, including voting in Italian parliament on the question about sending Italian military forces to the Gulf during the international police action against Saddam. Of course, war in Bosnia is still continuing, my country in spite of its own voting in UN Security Council still provides economic support - openly or secretly - to Belgrade and international society has not undertake even a half of what is really necessary. But nobody can affirm Radical Party that we keep silence or appealed "not to make wrong steps in a difficult situation of Balkans' inter-ethnical civil war".
We will see however completely another situation if we turn our view to the conflicts on the territory of former Soviet Union. I mean first of all to Moldova, where political decision of Transnistrian problem is still absent and war can start again with new energy, I mean war for ceasing the Western regions of Georgia, I mean war in Karabakh and other wars and armed conflicts which probably will fill-up the tomorrow's evening news.
What happens for example in Moldova today? So called "Moldovian Republic of Transnistria", which is in fact not Moldavian, but Russian separatist quasi-state like "Serbian Republic of Bosnia" governing not from Tiraspol but from Arbat square of Moscow, is supported by all the power of Red Army. Transnistrian guard is in fact united powerful military force together with Russian 14th army, which commander general Lebed governs practically together with Igor Smirnov, a Transnistrian Radovan Karadjic. After some months of war accompanied by the real "ethnic cleaning" of Eastern, "Russian speaking" rayons of Moldova, this part of country was in fact already ceased from Moldova being under "protection" of so called peacekeeping forces composed on the base of the same Russian army. Is it not a sort of absurd, when international society, UN, CSCE permit such kind of military aggression and occupation against the country which member it is of???
War in Karabakh, from point of view of international law is also aggression of one country (Armenia) against another one (Azerbaijan). Although CSCE conference on Karabakh is founded, "process is not going", as Gorbachev say, first of all because of Armenian position which parliament has take the decision which does not permit for Armenian representative to sign any document where Karabakh is mentioned as a part of Azerbaijan (in spite of the fact that so called Republic of Nagorny Karabakh is not recognized even by Armenia).
While endless debates does continue, bloody wars go on. Even worse, international society, Western democracies delivered "peaceful" functions in many cases - first of all in Moldova - to Russia, the most inobjective side in almost all these conflicts. They delivered "police function" to Russian army and washed their hands, and nobody has understand that it is just the same if "peaceful function" in ex-Yugoslavia will be delivered to the Serbian army instead of UN troops!
Who can defend Moldova? Who can defend Georgia? Who can defend every new independent state - member of UN and CSCE, if new-dressed Big Brother decides to protect by military force "Russian speaking population" in these countries from Romanian (Georgian, Estonian, Ukrainian, etc. like before and in another place Croatian, Muslim) "fascists"?
International law and international organizations have to be changed. But it has to be clear to everybody: they has to be changed in order to permit the fast and effective defence of international law as it was in the Gulf and as it must be in Bosnia. "To change" does not mean to find and create juridical possibilities of occupation and ceasing of part of a state, Karabakh or Transnistria for example.
The problem is however, that we as Radical Party have to realize: the question "If Not NATO, Who?", asked by Jane Sharp in her article (see Conference Globechatters, text 1452) is at least not less actual for the situation in former USSR than for Bosnia and Somalia. Right to live and life of Right (first of all in sense of International Law) are violated here not less. Bloody conflicts here need the same active Radical intervention which was already used in ex-Yugoslavia.
