News flash. ALL governments hide their actions behind Morality and Righteousness when all they are concerned about is their own self-interests. The US government just happens to be the big kid in the schoolyard at the moment.
Aside from your error in supposing that there had ever been a defined Kurdish state (no) or a well-defined Kurdistan, (not with the degree of exactness as Kosovo, which has lasted for centuries as a distinct geopolitical entity) let me say two things: 1) I absolutely agree that the Kurds should have been given the state they were promised after WWI. It was a great injustice that they were not. As it stands, Kurdistan is partitioned among several different countries. Iraqi Kurdistan may or may not be better off as an independent country; I suspect that once things in Iraq finally get under control, the Kurdish leadership will decide that a land-locked Kurdistan, surrounded by larger, more powerful states which don't which to see it exist, might not be in their best interests; they may opt for a federated Iraq. 2) The perfect is the enemy of the good. Just because the USA has done bad things in some places doesn't mean it can't do good things in other places. Just because we can't help everybody doesn't mean we shouldn't help anybody.
Is this also why Denmark, Luxembourg, Estonia, Peru, Costa Rica, and other countries who have recognized Kosovo lack credibility in the world?
Do Denmark, Luxembourg, Estonia, Peru, Costa Rica and other countries bombed around the world? Those are little potatoes who already take orders.
I could've used France, Germany, Turkey, and the UK, which have also recognized Kosovo. I simply disagree with saying that recognition shows the US as hypocritical when countries (some presumed to be beyond reproach) also recognized it.
France, Germany, Turkey and UK are not any good or even worse than America. For Turkey, do you remember how they react when anyone mentions Armenia? If they are so eager to recognize Kosovo, let the world do a Turkish Kurdistan, then let's what they think. France, Germany and UK just want to push any remaining Russia influence out of Europe.
So Kosovo is none of our business, but somehow Russia should have a say in the fate of a small Balkan nation which has been ruled unfairly by Serbia for a century? Why is this any of Russia's business?
Well Russia wouldn't want the Tatars or any other of the minority groups within the Federation getting any bright ideas would they.
I think it is a little more than just worrying about separtists in the Russian Federation. 30 years ago, there were people in every country on earth willing for ideological reasons to die to advance Russian interests. Granted, it was dressed up as dying for the interests of humankind and the glorious communist tomorrow, but it was a pretty cool gig for the Russians. Now that communism has been reduced to shilling for Kim Jong Il and third world dictators, the Russians are going back to an earlier ideology -- Pan Slavism. This was the reason Russia got involved in defending Serbia after their terrorists killed the Archduke. If Russia can no longer inspire people in Outer West Thirdworldia to further Russian interests, then can get Serbians to. In some ways, this is simply back to the future.
I'm sorry but with all due respect, I think it's more than a little weird that you're trying to rationalise what's gone on in the balkans over the past 20 years - or have I misunderstood your post? Neighbours were trying to kill each other off - that's irrational violence, no matter if said violence was tribal or inspired by ideology.
By the way, the Dutch haven't recognised Kosovo yet - our government is waiting for them to establish a parliament with a constitution, and also wants guarantees about the treatment of the Serbian minority.
It's not just my post you've misunderstood. Most people understand that however widespread and insidious anti-Semtism was in 20th Century Europe, there was more to the Holocaust than "irrational hatred." Yet in so many other examples of genocide in recent years, far too many people take bizarre comfort in the notion that little more than irrational hatred and spontaneous outbursts of racial/ethnic/religious violence are sufficient to explain thoroughgoing campaigns of genocidal violence over a large area. While most people understand that the Germans, for all their latent anti-Semitism, needed a particular set of social and political circumstances and a state committed to a certain ideology in order to devote manpower and resources to the daunting prospect of killing off an entire population of people, when it comes to non-Western places like the Balkans or Rwanda or Sudan or Iraq, it's politically acceptable to assume that 'those people' are simply savages who, without the restraint of an oppressive state, will automatically revert to a de facto "kill my neighbors" mode. Well, the Dutch government has been nothing if not deferential to Serb nationalist sentitment.
Sorry, haven't read the whole thread yet, but i was interested to know if anyone had further details in connection with the disputed legality of the Kosovan declaration of independence. I keep reading that the Russians and Serbs are denouncing the declaration as illegal under international law, but haven't come across the relevant provisions which they are presumably using as the basis for their stance. Can anyone help?
From legal perspective, Kosovo is Serbian business. Kosovo is under UN trustee, and UN DIDN'T grant Kosovo independence. According UN charters, self-determination only applied for former colonies, and Kosovo is not a colony of Serbia no matter how you cut it. If you want a legal declaration, you need UN's consent and Serb's consent. Otherwise, Serbia can send troops to protect their soverignty rights.
You misunderstood if you think I was implying that Serbians are savages. If there's one thing that 20th century Europe has taught us, it's that normal people can do terrible things to each other in specific circumstances. You probably know more about this than I do, and you may call me simplistic, but I think that what the people of the Balkans did to each other was wrong, and above all, avoidable. It's as simple as that. And if Kosovan independence is what the majority of the people of Kosovo want, then I'm all for it. Just like I would happily give the people of the Dutch province of Friesland, who also have their own history, cultural identity and language, their independence if they wanted it. I would not lose a night's sleep over it. I consider the Balkans as European, or western, as I would Belgium or whatever other European country by the way. End of the day we're all Europeans, whether we like it or not, it's being united in the EU that gives us all the best chance of continued prosperity and peace in the region. If the Serbs really do want to join the EU, they'll have to give up their ideals about a greater Serbia and instead embrace the European ideal. If that's not what they want, then fair enough, completely up to them, but that means no EU membership. As for the Dutch government, I'm not sure what you meant by that comment, but I for one am glad that they are one of few EU members to demand that the Serbs cooperate with the ICC, just like I'm glad that they won't acknowledge Kosovo before they have a constitution in place and before they are willing to officially guarantee that the Serb minority is protected.
If ever there is a day I grow into a full blown isolationist, I think that, looking back, I would mark 1:00 PM, CST, on March 1, 2008 as the day it really happened. The photo below is not very sharp (it is from my camera phone, taken from a distance). These are Serbians protesting Kosovo independence in the middle of Chicago. My two sons were with me. My older son is four and he asked me what was going on. As walked past a bunch of well feed teenagers with tee shirts reading "Kosovo is Serbia" (or at least I thought they said that, they were written in Serbian), I realized I could not give a good answer to that question. When I think about what is going on, I think that the Kosovars probably have the equities on their side. But I cannot really get excited or roused either way. After only one martini last night I found myself arguing with some (presumably) liberal neighbors about why I think the US needs to pull our remaining troops from Europe. Maybe it is temporary fatigue, maybe I have finally been worn down. But frankly, I have stopped caring. Granted, I am still voting for McCain and want him to be president. Hillary Clinton's latest ad clearly convinced me that McCain is the best candidate for the job. And Obama includes among his foreign policy advisors the self described "genocide chick" Samantha Power, who calls for an interventionist foreign policy, and the elder and younger Brezinskis, who are very anti-Russian. I think we should be cutting our involvment in Europe, now that the Soviet Union is finished, not looking to further antagonize their rump sucessor state. So Serbia, Kosovo, who cares? Can someone seriously explain to me why the US has to get involved in this mess?
It is called superpower politics. At 1990s after successfully overthrew Soviet Union, US strategists decided to redesign its geopolitics plan. This plan is to take two potential enemies Russia and China at once. It consists two grand planning--NATO expands eastward, and US-Japan alliance expands southward to build an Asian mini-NATO. For it to success, you need to squeeze out the strategic spaces out of both China and Russia. But you can expect China and Russia would try to build a back-to-back alliance to counter US and Co. strategic squeeze. To prevent this, you need to find a way to cut those two guys apart, and 911 gives such a perfect chance. If you look on this chessboard, you can find the actual weak point of US is the control of Indian Ocean. If US can build a mini-NATO in Asia that includes South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Indonesia (and Co.) plus India, then linking the Arab friends and NATO, you can push into Central Asia to keep both China and Russia inside their own doors. I would see US is very successful at least in Russian front--taking away Russian front yards, supports separation movements and pro-Western "democratic" factions who would sell Russian national interests out. If Chechen and Dagestan join Georgia, then the whole Russian belly of Central Asia is gone. In the China front, things going OK but not as expect. The first move southward to include Taiwan inside US-Japan defense pack prompts China to declare a potential nuclear war in possible Taiwan conflict. US loses the battle for heart and mind in Southeast Asia, and India is not really buying the plan. The squeeze on North Korea and Burma didn't turn out successful ,and support for Tibetan and Uighur indepedence didn't really matter, and pro-Western "democratic" factions in China were totally marginalized. This plan needs a LOT of commitment not just in US parts but also for EU and Japan. It also needs great competence to do it. Not an easy job. But at least this Kosovo move really hit Russia hard. Just hope in the future, Kosovans don't turn out like Majihadian.
No-one forced your government to acknowledge Kosovo as a country. It's a bit weird that the US were one of the first to do so if you ask me.
Why is it so strange? Because if we did not do or say anything, we would be accused of ignoring the rest of the world. Further, or elites, especially our foriegn policy elites, are tied tightly with Europe. They went to school there and vacation there and have friends there. So it is normal they are more concerned with Europe and hence our foereign policy over emphasizes Europe. I think there are a few things going on here. First is that Kosovo is Moslem and so the West wants to be seen as protecting Moslems. Second, and this is the main thing I think is going on here, is that the US is trying to cozy up to France and Germany (for example, why did Airbus get the Air Force tanker contract last week and not Boeing or Northup-Grumman?) Those two countries run the EU, and they see this as being good for the EU. So we jumped in. Look -- I just think that Europe is less important to us now that the Soviet Union is gone and frankly think it is time to wind up NATO and our close involvement in Europe. So frankly, I really cannot see anything happening in Europe that would require our input.
Re the US perhaps recognizing Kosovo to cozy up to the big EU countries: everything I have read indicates that the US was the leader on this, and encouraged Europe to come along, rather than the other way around.
One problem is that current Department of State is dominated by Russian hands. Even though Russia was/is no longer a rival of USA and has no capability to overrun EU, US is still doing dirty work for EU. Tearing Serbia apart to kill any Russian influence is in EU's interest, but not US. US should play a netrual role in this conflict that didn't threat US interest. Look back, when US works hard on its own interest, only Canada is doing the tough job. I would think US should pay more attention on Northern America (with Canada and Mexico) and East Asia (make sure sharing the economic growth there).
It's weird because there's disagreement about this issue even within the EU itself - not all EU members have acknowledged Kosovo and, more importantly, there's been no pressure from the EU itself on said member states in this regard. Not from France and Germany either. Who by the way do not run the EU - all members have an equal political vote, that's one of the EU's basic principles. Serbia for example would have been much further along in the EU membership acceptance process by now if it weren't for a couple of smaller EU members being opposed to it. So if even EU member states feel comfortable just waiting and seeing for now, why have the US been so quick to acknowledge Kosovo? I think you're contradicting yourself in your post. First you claim the US was right to acknowledge Kosovo as it's important to cozy up to France and Germany, then next you say Europe isn't important to the US and the region doesn't require US input. Which is it?
To make it clear, I am saying what I think is going on, NOT what I think is correct American policy. Personally, I would be happy to wind up NATO, close our remaining bases in Europe and remove the last 40,000 or so troopps we maintain in Europe (I am not sure of the exact number -- about a year ago the AEI did a spread sheet showing annual US troop strength around the world but I cannot find it -- this Stars and Stripes article suggests it is around 40,000). I think that the US military presence in Europe was a correct response to WWII and the Cold War. Those conditions no longer exist. What happens in the Balkans has little effect on the United States. All our security guarantee does is prevent Europe from taking its own security seriously, while allowing its politicians to play the Anti-American card when they are behind in the polls. As for the EU, yes every nation has a say, but it was created as a way for France to maintain a large footprint in world affairs and to allow Germany a way to influence world affairs without raising the specter of Prussian arms. Yes there is disagreement within the EU. Spain worries about the Basque country and the Slavic nations worry about their own Nationality Questions and Muslim revanchism. But if Germany and France are behind it, eventually the entire Eu will be too.
What strange, cynical ideas some people have about the EU. The countries who have benefited the most from EU membership so far are not Germany and France, but Spain and Ireland - the latter in particular. Ireland was one of the poorest countries in Europe pre-EU, now it is one of the richest, thanks to EU subsidies and support. What the EU was established for and has succeeded in overall is bring prosperity, economic stability and peace to the entire region - even the most cynical Europhobes will have to concede that these targets have been met. But are there political blocks of power in the EU? Power struggles? Of course there are. France and Germany are typically united on one side of the spectrum, the small member states and the UK on the other. But unlike in the pre-EU days, these factions are all sat talking to each other at the same table. Big countries like Germany will always be a factor in world affairs, just like the US, China, etc will. When you're the world's third largest economy, you hardly need the EU umbrella to have a say in world affairs. I also find your Prussian arms reference pretty weird. Europe has moved on from seeing Germany as a military threat, but you obviously haven't. Strange that.