I have to wonder what implications Kosovo independence has for Iraqi Kurdistan. What's keeping the Kurds in Iraq now?
Kurdistan independence will instigate fights in Turkey at least. May also into Iran, and Syria. As you know, the current borders in Mid East was drawn by British and French. I think the Foreign Policy or other publication published an article about it. It is not just Iraq can become three small countries, but every country in Mid East may disintegrated, like Bahrain and South Saudi Arabia will go Iran route, but a little part in Iran (forget the name) will be Arab land. Syria will lose out some but will go for Lebanon, then whole Jordan will disappear. Then Baluchistan will get out of both Iran and Pakistan, then a new Pashtunstan will come out, etc. Many Muslims suspect this is a Western agenda to break Muslim countries smaller for control.
The problem is that the concept of state sovereignity created situations in which people want their own country. This isn't better or worse than what we had before, as people used to go to war for other reasons instead. But as soon as the nation state became the norm, people wanting a nation state on their own was the logical result. It's not as if the reasons for ethnic conflicts suddenly went away after World War II. That we didn't have a World War since then is probably more the result of having the unique situation of two super powers with nuclear weappons and a bit of luck. It's not as if the US and the USSR didn't mess with other countries.
I just think that there's more of a chance of Kosovo sorting out its economy than of Serbia handing over its war criminals.
I just don't get why the Serbs get so upset about this. I wouldn't lose a night's sleep over the province of Friesland claiming independence, or about the southern provinces joining Belgium. Nationalism is so 20th century.
If you think the UN is responsible for preventing WWIII, you have a lot more faith in it than I do. And plenty of lives were lost in horrific internal wars over the past 60 years. There isn't a clearly designated, historically defined "Kurdistan", for one thing. Also, much of what probably SHOULD be Kurdistan is in Turkey, Syria, and Iran. Not that this means the Kurds don't deserve independence, just that there are more complications, and they don't have an established geopolitical entity to their name. Well, outside of a vocal nationalist minority and a political class that simply does not know how to move past the failed politics of the past two decades, I'm not so sure they do: Serbs Say They Are Tired of Kosovo From a week ago, just before independence. I've seen other articles and interviews with ordinary Serbs; the fact of the matter is, most of them want to live in a normal country, and have more tangible issues to deal with. Glorious martyrdom and quasi-religious myths about a sacred holy land loses its appeal after awhile.
I really wish California would join Mexico. This way, we get rid of annoying Galaxy supporters and whinning supporters of the Earthquakes in one swoop. And all those Hollywood stars who threatened to leave the US when a Republican is elected president can finally do so, without actually having to move.
Minority? The Serbian Radical Party is the strongest in the country, it's just that they can't find a partner to form a coalition with. Still, that doesn't change the fact that they have the support of near half of the voters (Tomislav Nikolić also had the majority of votes in the first round of the president elections). The president of SRS is Vojislav Šešelj, now in Haague, a complete psycho who openly told the Court to go f..k themselves and wrote a bestseller book full of historical and political nonsense and is still dreaming about Greater Serbia. Nikolić is in charge of SRS and did not even blink when he threatened Croatia the other day that if "Croatia recognizes Kosovo Serbs will try to establish their own state within Croatia again".
I'm aware of that, and I don't discount that many Serbs still believe that Kosovo is part of Serbia. The longer the Kosovo/a issue dragged out, the more it played into the ultra-nationalist's hands. Still, while the Radicals still get a lot of support, I don't know how determined and passionate a lot of anti-independence sentiment really is. Most Serbs, in the articles and interviews I've read, were more resigned than passionate about the issue. Now that it's a done deal, I think a lot of them will find out that they're actually relieved to be free of that burden. Also, not all of the Radical's appeal is due to their (admittedly loathsome) agenda. They have been less tainted with corruption in recent years, and of course they don't have the stigma of "capitulating to the West". You don't have to tell me about Seselj...this is the guy who publicly told the Serbs of Bosnia to "gouge out their eyes with rusty spoons" in regards to their Muslim neighbors. And don't forget he led paramilitary death squads responsible for some of the worst excesses of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. The man is a hateful psychopath and a waste of oxygen. His most prominent American defender? Noam Chomsky, of course, who actually accepts monetary compensation from the Radical Party in exchange for making public appearances in Belgrade in support of this neo-fascist mass-murderer.
Russia should step in and invade Kosovo. Breaking up sovereign nations into ethnic enclaves is absolutely unacceptable, and against international laws and norms. What's so special about Kosovo and the Albanians? If the Albanians can declare independence on their own, why can't the Serbs in Bosnia, the Kurds in Turkey, or the Mexicans in California do the same thing? Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself. The level of hypocrisy here is beyond comprehension.
Agreed on that front. Here's a great photo of US peacekeepers in action onthe border between Serbia and Kosovo:
I don't know who's being hypocritical, but whatever. I hope no blood is spilled over this. Too many wars and too many people have died throughout the course of history over issues such as these. Why would I want to kill somebody to force them to be a part of my country? It makes no sense to me. If you want to leave then go. But that's my personal opinion, what do I know .
Two things: 1) The larger demonstration from which these rioters came was planned by the government. 2) From the article: "Some protesters jumped up and down on the embassy balcony, holding up a Serbian flag as the crowd below of about 1,000 people cheered them on, shouting "Serbia, Serbia" " A few hundred protestors, whom government security forces (and Serbia's police know a thing or two about cracking down) mysteriously couldn't stop from storming the US Embassy. Hmmm.... That's just maybe the worst idea I've read on this forum. Even if it were a good idea--and it's a terrible one--how on earth would Russia do that? So is apartheid, ethnic cleansing, systematic state violence against civilians, and the annexation of territory by force. Kosovo was invaded by Serbia in 1908, and the Albanian majority--who never asked to be part of the Serbian state--have suffered from discrimination, displacement, and much worse ever since then, with a respite during the Tito years. For the same reason that Kosovo shouldn't be partitioned along ethnic lines. Bosnia, like Kosovo, is a historically viable geopolitical entity. That--not a neo-fascist regression to tribal loyaltie--is the best basis for state-building in the civilized world. The Kurds absolutely got screwed after WWI. I'm not sure what the answer is. I wish it had been possible for Kosovo to remain in Serbia--hell, I wish allof Yugoslavia could have stayed together--but the Serbian government never showed any interest in respecting the rights of the 95% or more of the population which is non-Serb, nor had Belgrade ever shown any inclination to do anything to develop the infracstructure or the economy in Kosovo. They wanted to own the land without ruling it well or wisely. More than 2 million people were being held hostage to some mytho-romantic notion that the land was some gigantic cultural momento. How many Mexicans are actively working to do that? How many really feel oppressed and disempowered by the current state of affairs? You're right. So Serbia will no longer be oppressing a non-Serb minority by claiming that their distant cultural heritage trumps the present-day economic, political, and civil rights of 2 million human beings. I couldn't agree more myself.
Good question. And New Coke, that was a bad idea too. Then again, the Balkans are an adventure tourism mecca for bad ideas. That is easy for us (Americans) to say. We are a nation not based on ethnic or tribal loyalties but rather are a nation based on affirmative conent. My Campanian born grandparents were Americans because at some point they each decided to say "I am an American." Outside of Canada, Australia, a few others (such as Argentina) the world does not generally work that way. Too many borders have been drawn in Europe that are based on tax farming schemes of some long gone empire. But I gladly admit I do not know what the answer is and will thereofre give way to those who think they do. Very true. Partly it was because the Turks rallied to Attaturk and were able to prevent their country's dismemberment. Partly it was because Gertrude Bell thought that the Arabs and Kurds of Mesopotamia needed each other economically. There are some silly college students who talk about Aztlan (a myth even sillier than the Kosovo myth). But even if it was true, if you tried so hard to get OUT of Mexico, why put your ? On the other hand, it would get California out of the union and allow those silly celebrities who keep threatening to leave the US if a Republican gets elected to leave without having to move.
I also get the impression that there's a good portion of nationalists around still in Serbia. That must be a scary thought for Croatians.
Not real good for the Muslims, either--except that nationalist sentiment in and of itself isn't necessarily a threat. It needs the be harnessed by the state and/or other prominent organizations. Here's a recent interview with a Serb historian, Latinka Perovic, on the historical roots of the Radical Party: Serbia must not become a Balkan Belorussia One of the biggest misconceptions about the Balkan wars--particularly the Bosnian war--of the 1990s is that they were "ethnic" conflicts. While they were usually framed that way--especially by the nationalist instigators themselves--what was really going on was a war between two conflicting political ideologies re: what Yugoslavia was and how it should be constructed. To paraphrase Cambridge Southeastern European historian Marko Attila Hoare, the 'national question' WAS important in the Yugoslav wars, but it is crucial to remember that national identity issues not only concern questions about and conflicts between different nations but also WITHIN each nation. The above article touches on the long conflict within the Serbian polity between two opposing conceptions of Serbian society, the state, and it's relation to its neighbors. You absolutely cannot understand Yugoslav history--including its violent demise in the last decade--without understanding how deeply rooted the "Greater Serbia" ideology really is. If you don't know this stuff, the conflicts in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo don't make much sense, and can seem like so much irrational tribal violence.
Every nation who recognises Kosovo, won´t have an excuse to not recognise a Basque nation, Catalunia, Corse, Kurdistan, Tibet(funny how some can be "liberated" for the good of democracy and human rights and a nation like Tibet can be assimilated..) and many others arround the world, if they wish to declare independence from their former "owners"...
Christopher Hitchens has put down the scotch long enough to write an article on Kosovo that maybe addresses the issues raised here. According to Hitchens, Kosovo was never really part of "Serbia" when Serbia was a fully sovereign state. Rather, he argues that Serbia conquered the region in a war that later melted into WWI. When the peace treaties were finally signed, Kosovo was given to Yugoslavia, not to Serbia. Hitchens argues that Yugoslavia no longer exists, and that Serbia is not really the successor state. You can argue whether or not this is good law or history, but I do think that Kosovo is somewhat sui generis. Though frankly, I am ambivalent to the whole thing and believe that the EU horse is pulling the American cart on this. And remember, I want the US to have nothing more to do with the Balkan Question.
This is exactly why it is a bad precedent. You basically send the signal to certain areas to encourage them to start a bloody independence movement. (By the way, majority of Tibetans don't want separation--yes, including Dalai Lama himself. Most of separation promoters are actually foreigners.)
Hitchens isn't making this up--Noel Malcolm covered this in his excellent history of Kosovo. It may be a technicality, but it's true. As is the, IMHO, much more relevant fact that Kosovo was invaded and annexed by Serbia, initially in 1908, and then more permanently during the Balkan War of 1913.
So by this logic, isn't our nation being hypicritical by recognizing an independent Kosovo but not recognizing an independent Kurdistan? After all, the Kurdish territory has been divided since WWI bit historically has been it's own entity? How do we justify supporting one and not the other?
That is called hypocrisy and double standard. One of the major reason why America doesn't have much credibility in the world today.