Independence for Kosovo...

[Winner]

Well, it's been known to happen. But this is no Iraq: The US and France agree this should be done. I repeat, the United States and France agree. If two bitter global rivals who have been spitting in each other's faces for the last 5 years both think it's a good idea, doesn't that lend a certain credibility?

Actually, not. France is like the US in many aspects, although the Americans don't like to hear that. France loves big power games, it doesn't hesitate to sacrifice people for its interests and it doesn't care about the parts ofthe world it has no stakes at.

The US, France, Britain and other W-E countries don't understand the region. They have not many interests there, from their point of view, it's a dump and they want to get out of there as soon as possible. That's why they listen to the radical Albanians, who're basically saying "give us independence or we start another insurgency - that's what you want?"

Serbia is broken, defeated, they're not as dangerous, so they can take from them, they won't fight back anymore. In other words, Serbia is now punished not for being belligerent, it's being punished for being too peaceful.

It's kinda revealing, that countries who actually have some understanding of the region, like the ones in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Greece and South-East Europe, are much more sceptical about the independence. They care, they have interests there. This time you should make an exception and listen to Russians, because even they understand the Balkans better than Americans and some Western Europeans. Don't be so arrogant to think you can deal with any situation in any region without having to know what's really going on.

They can ask. Heck, they already ask. That doesn't mean they'll get it. If they want it, they'll have to do what Kosovo has managed to do: convince the major powers that it's a good idea. We're not setting some kind of global precedent here...convincing the major powers to recognize you has always and will always be the path to international legitimacy.

Another "coalition of the willing"? That's the way international politics look like acoording to America?

This coalition is based on ignorance. The powers who are ready to recognize Kosovo don't understand, what kind of mess are they going to start. What will you do, for example, when the Kurds in Iraq say "we will declare formal independence next month. Nobody is going to stop us. We were oppressed by the previous government and we don't want to share one country with Arabs."?

It's the exactly same situation. What will the US do? Grant them independence and make Turkey really angry, or force them to wait and face the possible alienation of the only remaining ally in Iraq?

As for Serbia not having a say - I think Serbia DID have a say: back in '99. (Remember the Rambouillet Accords?) What they had to say didn't go over very well. Now they have less of say. That happens when you engage in ethnic cleansing.

Oh please. Few points:

1) the 1998/1999 crisis was started by Albanian terrorists, who started attacking Serbs
2) Serbs slightly over-reacted, but that's the Balkan way of solving problems. If it happened after 9/11, the US would probably support their action.
3) NATO over-reacted and killed thousands of innocent Serbs, who had nothing to do with Kosovo.
4) NATO watched how the returning Albanians burn Serbian churches, monasteries and villages and how they're doing the same kind of ethnic cleansing as the Serbs.

So, both parties have blood on their hands, why is Serbia the only one being punished? Especially when it now has a pro-Western, fairly democratic government. How long will we treat them like crap? Decade? Century? Even the Germans were treated with more respect few years after the WW2 ended.

Now it's true that Kosovo will be a very poor country, at least at the beginning, and it will rely heavily on international aid for some time. (but then, it already does) It's also true that it will require the help of a neighbor with access to the sea. If Serbia wants to blockade Kosovo out of spite, they're welcome to, but all that will do is force Kosovo closer to Albania. If Serbia is serious about wanting Kosovo back in the fold, then cooperating is a much better strategy, as it would keep the door open for ultimate reunification. That's a choice the Serbs will have to make, though.

How do you cooperate with people who want you dead? How do you cooperate with people who would like to kick the remaining Serbs out of Kosovo?

Seriously, this is why I say that Americans don't have the kind of understanding they need in the case of Balkans. Balkans doesn't work like this.

 

[warpus]

So, both parties have blood on their hands, why is Serbia the only one being punished? Especially when it now has a pro-Western, fairly democratic government. How long will we treat them like crap? Decade? Century? Even the Germans were treated with more respect few years after the WW2 ended.

I disagree with a lot in your post, but I have to agree with this.

Both sides are to blame here. Granting Kosovo independence doesn't make any sense whatsoever here. It's unprecedented in many ways...

 

[RedRalph]

So, both parties have blood on their hands, why is Serbia the only one being punished? Especially when it now has a pro-Western, fairly democratic government. How long will we treat them like crap? Decade? Century? Even the Germans were treated with more respect few years after the WW2 ended.

Not for long once the UK and Us recognises Kosovo. I think this will make up Serbias mind to throw their lot in with Russia, unless EU membership becomes a prospect very soon

 

[Winner]

Not for long once the UK and Us recognises Kosovo. I think this will make up Serbias mind to throw their lot in with Russia, unless EU membership becomes a prospect very soon

If Kosovo really gains independence and EU recognizes it, it will be a really bad start for any membership talks. How can you join a club which forced you to abandon a very important part of your country?

 

[Lambert Simnel]

For what it's worth, I agree with Winner's and Rambuchan's viewpoints here. Quite honestly, I don't think many Americans (including the posters here) understand the nature of this situation, and approach it with an idealistic and simplistic view based on the democratic imperative which works so well in their own country.

Most Western Europeans aren't much better either, especially in those countries where the borders have been stable for a long period of time, and where national boundaries are reasonably well aligned with the national identities of its residents. We in the UK tend to be particularly ill-informed about this region after the almost incomprehensibly patronising and one-sided news coverage of the Yugoslavian wars by our broadcasters (and my strong impression is that the US broadcasters captured even fewer of the complexities of the situation).

I really haven't seen a meaningful answer to the question of what do we expect to gain out of this; what benefit we see coming out of independence from Kosovo. I can see a lot of potential downside. But other than allowing the West to say "job done" and withdraw their troops for redeployment elsewhere, I don't see any form of "win" - and the big risk is that win for the West would be accompanied by forcible expulsion of the remaining Serbs from Kosovo.

 

[RedRalph]

If Kosovo really gains independence and EU recognizes it, it will be a really bad start for any membership talks. How can you join a club which forced you to abandon a very important part of your country?

Well, thats what I'm saying. I dont think Serbia will get into the EU, and if thyey dont, I think they will try to become a solid ally of Russia. EU would be their first choice, but if conditions are unfavorable (and lets face it, not many countries being dismantled by Eauropean nations want to join the EU), Russia will be their next best bet. They dont wont to have no "big brother".

I think the world is beginning to polarise again somewhat, you have countries that have little if anything in common other than their opposition to US supremacy (Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, Belarus, Bolivia, etc) becoming very chummy on one side, then on the other the US, UK, Saudi, Israel, etc on the other. this didnt really seem apparent in the 90s, it appears to be creeping back in now. Any thoughts?

 

[Little Raven]

The US, France, Britain and other W-E countries don't understand the region.

So you keep insisting. So educate me. How is the situation improved by forcing Kosovo to remain part of Serbia? How can a government which has lost the confidence of the people (every reference I've seen says that the people of Kosovo overwhelmingly demand independence) govern with the will of the governed? How can we ask the people of Kosovo to trust them, given their admitted 'overreactions?'

Another "coalition of the willing"? That's the way international politics look like acoording to America?

It's the way international politics have always worked, and probably will always work. We're not exactly breaking new ground, here. How did Taiwan gain it's de-facto independence, despite the fact that China has never recognized it? Answer - it convinced a sufficiently large bloc of countries to treat it as an independent nation. Kosovo is no different.

The powers who are ready to recognize Kosovo don't understand, what kind of mess are they going to start. What will you do, for example, when the Kurds in Iraq say "we will declare formal independence next month. Nobody is going to stop us. We were oppressed by the previous government and we don't want to share one country with Arabs."?

That will indeed be a sticky question, but granting or denying Kosovo independence won't affect that situation one bit. It's not like the Turks will be any happier about an independent Kurdistan if there's an independent Kosovo, or the Kurds will be any happier about staying in Iraq just because we forced Kosovo to accept a government in Belgrade.

In fact, all this nonsense about 'setting a dangerous precedent' is just that...nonsense. Kosovo is merely the latest example of the way things have always worked. Want recognition as an independent country? Convince enough of the big boys to back you, and it's yours. Kosovo has managed that, but that doesn't mean the Kurds, or the Basques, or anyone else will. Every situation is unique, and will be evaluated independent of other cases.

So, both parties have blood on their hands, why is Serbia the only one being punished?

Because that's the only way to resolve the situation? The people of Kosovo have made it pretty clear that they don't want to be part of Serbia any more. Serbians have made it pretty clear that they can't be trusted to govern the region in a responsible manner. Why try to force them back together? So Serbia doesn't feel 'punished?'

Screw that. Pride heals. Death doesn't.

 

[innonimatu]

oh really constructive

care to bother to tell why?

SINCE YOU CLEARLY HAVE NOTHING TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM!

This is off-topic, but I think it deserves an answer, especially as you are using Wikipedia as if it was a reliable source. It isn't, any fool can write there.

Portugal was never part of Spain. In fact Spain didn't exist as of 1640: it was still the union of the crowns of Aragon and Castille, with their own independent laws. It was not known as "Spain", that term was coined later. A strict separation was enforced even on the colonies and dependant territories of each of the kingdoms - each were, in effect, independent kingdoms. They shared a king, and when the portuguese kicked that king out because of his incompetence and his disrespect for the terms on which the throne had been granted to his grandfather, he started a war using the resouces of his other kingdoms in an attempt to reconquer the portuguese throne. It was not a rebellion, it was a war between independent states. The only rebellion that happened was a swift palace coup that replaced and incompetent and absent king in a matter of days, without any opposition within the kingdom.

As you seem to like wikipedia as a source, I can at least provide you with an article on the subject where some anonymous author got things right:

Portuguese Restoration War (Portuguese: Guerra da Restauração) was the name given after the 19th century by romantic historians to the war between Portugal and Castile after the revolution of 1640, that ended the sixty years period of the Dual Monarchy between Portugal and Castile under the House of Habsburg. As the other spanish kingdoms were still separate, and only castilian money, power and soldiers fighted against Portugal, it is not accurate to define it as a war between Portugal and Spain. A spanish state and a spanish king will officialy start to exist effectively just after the french inspired Borbonic reforms on the 18th century.

Never look at history simply from the perspective of a 20th century person. Keep in mind that a lot of those things that we accept as natural (the nation-state, representative democracy) are recent inventions, or existed before the modern age in very different terms. And we could extend that logic to our own age: be wary of those things we are persuaded to accept as natural (including the two I mentioned above), they may not even now be the better options - history has no end so long as humans exist.

 

[philippe]

This is off-topic, but I think it deserves an answer, especially as you are using Wikipedia as if it was a reliable source. It isn't, any fool can write there.

Portugal was never part of Spain. In fact Spain didn't exist as of 1640: it was still the union of the crowns of Aragon and Castille, with their own independent laws. It was not known as "Spain", that term was coined later. A strict separation was enforced even on the colonies and dependant territories of each of the kingdoms - each were, in effect, independent kingdoms. They shared a king, and when the portuguese kicked that king out because of his incompetence and his disrespect for the terms on which the throne had been granted to his grandfather, he started a war using the resouces of his other kingdoms in an attempt to reconquer the portuguese throne. It was not a rebellion, it was a war between independent states. The only rebellion that happened was a swift palace coup that replaced and incompetent and absent king in a matter of days, without any opposition within the kingdom.

As you seem to like wikipedia as a source, I can at least provide you with an article on the subject where some anonymous author got things right:



Never look at history simply from the perspective of a 20th century person. Keep in mind that a lot of those things that we accept as natural (the nation-state, representative democracy) are recent inventions, or existed before the modern age in very different terms. And we could extend that logic to our own age: be wary of those things we are persuaded to accept as natural (including the two I mentioned above), they may not even now be the better options - history has no end so long as humans exist.

Ok I agree that I shouldn't used the term "Spain" in my example but one can draw correlation with other "kingdoms" that has such a wars with different results.

As for example Scotland and England.

If the portuguese would have lost the battles they wouldn't be independent, would they now?
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-23761/Portugal

Henry II duly invaded Portugal, and, by the Peace of Alcoutim (1371), Ferdinand was forced to renounce his claim and to promise to marry Henry's daughter; however, he instead took a Portuguese wife, Leonor Teles, despite the fact that she was already married and against the wishes of the commoners of Lisbon. In 1372 Ferdinand made an alliance with the English through John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, who had married the elder daughter of Peter and claimed the Castilian throne. In 1372 Ferdinand provoked Henry II, who invaded Portugal and besieged Lisbon. Unable to resist, Ferdinand was forced to repudiate his alliance with John of Gaunt and to act as an ally of Castile, surrendering various castles and persons as hostages. It was only on the death of Henry in 1379 that Ferdinand dared to openly challenge Castile again. In 1380 the English connection was resumed, and in the following year John of Gaunt's brother Edmund of Langley, earl of Cambridge (afterward Edmund of Langley, 1st duke of York), took a force to Portugal for the invasion of Castile and betrothed his son Edward to Ferdinand's only legitimate child, Beatriz. In mid-campaign Ferdinand came to terms with the enemy (August 1382), agreeing to marry Beatriz to a Castilian prince. She did, in effect, become the wife of John I of Castile, and, when Ferdinand died prematurely decrepit, Leonor became regent and Castile claimed the Portuguese crown

and BTW

:On the death of his lawful brother Fernando I in October 1383, without a male heir, strenuous efforts were made to secure the succession for princess Beatrice, his only daughter. As heiress-apparent Beatrice had been married to king Juan I of Castile, but the popular voice declared against an arrangement by which Portugal would virtually have become united with Castile.

BTW Names given to certain wars by romantic historians can be rather...misleading.

BTW2: your latest post IS something that backs up your claim is worthy of more respect then just posting "bad example"

I have reason and I like a good well found post like your latest, and sorry for the CAPS-LOCK, I'm a bit tired of the boring one-liners without any arguments that mean something

 

[innonimatu]

I was just in a mood for short comments yesterday, it happens sometimes

And I agree with you that the vast majority of independent states had to fight for independence. Or had some others doing the fight for them. That may be the case with Kosovo also.

Perhaps Africa, the Balkans and some other places are only catching up with what had happened centuries ago in other parts of the world. But I would like to see the kind of virulent nationalism that demands a nation for no better reason than "we are different" disappear. In Kosovo I can easily believe that the serbs were as much to blame as the albanians, they probably discriminated against the immigrants. But after seeing the same "albanian leadership" trying to pull a "second Kosovo" in Macedonia I most definitely wouldn't trust them with a sovereign state to rule - they are too greedy and too dumb. My guess is that it will remain an organized crime hub.

 

[Winner]

So you keep insisting. So educate me. How is the situation improved by forcing Kosovo to remain part of Serbia? How can a government which has lost the confidence of the people (every reference I've seen says that the people of Kosovo overwhelmingly demand independence) govern with the will of the governed? How can we ask the people of Kosovo to trust them, given their admitted 'overreactions?'

It's a matter of choice between two evils. Independent Kosovo will be a failed state, full of corruption, crime, terrorism, clan skirmishes etc. It doesn't matter what the Albanians think, they've been told that independence will solve every problem they have. Soon, they'll realize that it was a lie and start venting their anger on the government.

Westerners think that giving them independence will satisfy them. That's simply wrong.

Serbia proposed a very good compromise - they'll remain formally part of Serbia, but Belgrade won't interfere with their internal issues. It was not the Serbs who was pigheaded and unwilling to compromise. Albanians came to the talks with one word: independence, nothing else.

It's the way international politics have always worked, and probably will always work. We're not exactly breaking new ground, here. How did Taiwan gain it's de-facto independence, despite the fact that China has never recognized it? Answer - it convinced a sufficiently large bloc of countries to treat it as an independent nation.

But Taiwan is not formally independent and it is more likely it will become part of China, sooner or later.

Kosovo is no different.

It is, it wants a formal independence.

That will indeed be a sticky question, but granting or denying Kosovo independence won't affect that situation one bit. It's not like the Turks will be any happier about an independent Kurdistan if there's an independent Kosovo, or the Kurds will be any happier about staying in Iraq just because we forced Kosovo to accept a government in Belgrade.

I will be a precedent, a dangerous one.

In fact, all this nonsense about 'setting a dangerous precedent' is just that...nonsense. Kosovo is merely the latest example of the way things have always worked.

Not at all. NATO intervened in the name of international law, but the very intervention and this independence nonsense goes against everything. More, it will be another sing of the Western hypocrisy the rest of the world would point at every point in the future when we deny independence to someone else.

Want recognition as an independent country? Convince enough of the big boys to back you, and it's yours. Kosovo has managed that, but that doesn't mean the Kurds, or the Basques, or anyone else will. Every situation is unique, and will be evaluated independent of other cases.

Funny, when the CSA made it clear they don't want to be a part of the US, the US waged a war against them, burned their cities and farms to the ground and forced them into surrender. Compared to that, Serbs were very gentle.

Seriously, not wanting to be a part of some country doesn't give you any right to secede from it. The only acceptable solution are negotiations. If both parties agree, then a new nation can be formed.

Because that's the only way to resolve the situation? The people of Kosovo have made it pretty clear that they don't want to be part of Serbia any more. Serbians have made it pretty clear that they can't be trusted to govern the region in a responsible manner. Why try to force them back together? So Serbia doesn't feel 'punished?'

It's not the only way, that's why I say that Americans and Western Europeans are wrong. Albanians are so stubborn only because they feel they have the US and WE support. If they didn't have it, they'd settle for broad autonomy.

Independent Kosovo will solve nothing, it will just make the problem worse.

 

[RedRalph]

FAO Winner in particular: Looks like we may have been wrong.

From Ireland.com:

EU to offer Serbia fast track to candidacy

European Union leaders are set to offer Serbia a fast track to candidacy for membership of the union and pledge to step up preparations for a police mission to stabilise Kosovo.

According to a draft statement for today's EU summit, negotiations on the breakaway Serbian province have been exhausted, the status quo is untenable and a settlement of Kosovo's future status is essential for Balkan stability.

On Serbia, the EU was set to say that once Belgrade meets the conditions to sign a first-level agreement on closer ties: "It reiterated its confidence that progress on the road towards the EU, including candidate status, can be accelerated."

The statement, drafted by the EU's Portuguese presidency after foreign ministers debated Kosovo on Monday, may still be amended during the summit. It did not spell out support for Kosovo's independence in the light of differences among EU member states, with Cyprus, Greece, Slovakia and Romania all resisting recognition of a declaration of independence without a UN resolution.

However, the draft said: "The European Council agreed with the UN Secretary-General that the status quo in Kosovo is unsustainable and thus stressed the need to move forward towards a Kosovo settlement which is essential for regional stability."

Kosovo, which has been under UN administration since 1999 when a NATO air war drove out Serbian forces to end ethnic cleansing, was a unique case and did not create a precedent, it said.

Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said yesterday he expected Kosovo's status would only be resolved after a Serbian presidential election set for next year, and other EU sources said a settlement would be delayed to avoid fuelling a possible nationalist backlash in the Serbian vote.

 

[RedRalph]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,,2227618,00.html or not....

 

[Little Raven]

It's a matter of choice between two evils. Independent Kosovo will be a failed state, full of corruption, crime, terrorism, clan skirmishes etc.

And remaining part of Serbia will solve that problem? Where are you getting that from? Serbia managed Kosovo for decades and never managed to improve the situation any.

Serbia proposed a very good compromise - they'll remain formally part of Serbia, but Belgrade won't interfere with their internal issues.

Serbia has said that before - it didn't exactly take. Can you really blame Kosovo (and the rest of the Western powers) for being skeptical?

But Taiwan is not formally independent and it is more likely it will become part of China, sooner or later.

I take it you don't consider a nation to be formally independent unless it's a part of the UN?

Because Taiwan's legislature has approved a resolution seeking a 'separate identity from China,' it holds diplomatic relations with other nations independent of China, and maintains it's own military and defense forces, and enjoys absolute sovereignty.

I imagine Kosovo will be happy with that. If we don't let them into the UN, will you be happy?

More, it will be another sing of the Western hypocrisy the rest of the world would point at every point in the future when we deny independence to someone else.

So what? We'll be called hypocrites by somebody no matter what we do. Sometimes, independence is the best option. Sometimes it isn't. There's no global yardstick to measure by - it's a judgment call every time. (which you seemed to acknowledge here) I realize you think that in this particular case, it's a bad idea, and that's fine, but don't try to argue against it on the idea that it's some kind of universal wrong to grant a repressed minority independence or that we're setting some kind of precedent for every case in the future by granting it to Kosovo. It isn't and we aren't. Sometimes, independence really is the right option, and that decision has to be made on the basis of the situation at hand, not what was done with some other minority on the other side of the world 15 years ago.

Seriously, not wanting to be a part of some country doesn't give you any right to secede from it.

Our Founding Fathers disagreed.

Independent Kosovo will solve nothing, it will just make the problem worse.

Which 'problem' are you talking about? Cause I'm pretty sure NATO thinks it's problem will be much improved.

 

[Ansar]

Why doesn't Kosovo just join Albania?

 

[Bill3000]

Why doesn't Kosovo just join Albania?

For the same reason why the part of Transylvania that is mostly hungarian doesn't join Hungary.

 

[Mirc]

For the same reason why the part of Transylvania that is mostly hungarian doesn't join Hungary.

No, there are huge differences between the two situations.

- The Szekely (Hungarian) minority in Romania is not near the border, it's isolated right in the middle of the country. Joining Hungary would create a situation unique in Europe, and very stupid in the EU, as a country would be formed of 2 unconnected territories both inside Europe.
- The Szekely (Hungarians) aren't terrorists, they are productive, unlike most of Kosovo, and the region itself is not anything like Kosovo.
- There is no place in Romania where Hungarians are so much of a majority as the Albanians in Kosovo. The Hungarians make up about 60-70% at most in the areas where they are a majority, while in Transylvania, in total, they make up about 19%.
- It's pointless since both countries are in the EU. While neither Serbia nor Albania or Kosovo are in the EU.

 

[Winner]

FAO Winner in particular: Looks like we may have been wrong.

From Ireland.com:

Why? Serbia said it won't trade territory for EU membership.

Anyway, if the EU does the mistake and recognizes the indepence, the least it can do is to take Serbia in ASAP and give it a hell lot of money.

At the same time, I'd make it clear to Albanians they're not going to be a part of the EU in the next 1000 years.

 

[Winner]

Why doesn't Kosovo just join Albania?

The UN, NATO and the EU would never allow that. If Kosovo joined Albania, the international community would in fact justify a violent expansion of another country. Greater Albania would destabilise Balkans like nothing else.

 

[Pannonius]

Why doesn't Kosovo just join Albania?

And create a Greater Terroristan? Sadly, it will happen.