Kosovo: Hoping for Peace

Another quick and relevant, (I think) story:

The German unit I spent some time with in Afghanistan was comprised of all but one West Germans. The guy was nice, intelligent, a good soldier and conversed with me a lot. He actually was one of the best English speakers of the group. However, because he was from East Germany, he was ignored or belittled by the other soldiers. There seemed to be a lingering mistrust there from the days prior to the wall coming down.

I don't know if this is an issue in Germany as a whole, but it was certainly sad to see. My point here is that there are potential costs to the war that aren't immediately evident to those who do not live there.
 
LooseCannon said:
Why does Kosovo *not* deserve independence?  What makes their people deserve to live in a nation where their particular culture is outweighed and outvoted?  Why should they not have a voice all their own?

Somebody, please?  Anyone answer this?
 
Deano, it's less of an issue with younger people. But as a whole, the "walls in the heads" aren't gone.

Not to mention that East Germany is in many areas economically underdeveloped. It's a long story, and I might make a long post about it some day. But yeah, the East Germans are mostly still suffering from the partition, and more and more want the GDR back.

Loosey,

...

They're not Serb.
 
Somebody, please?  Anyone answer this?

I'm fine with their independence. Quebec too.  ;)

Not to mention that East Germany is in many areas economically underdeveloped. It's a long story, and I might make a long post about it some day. But yeah, the East Germans are mostly still suffering from the partition, and more and more want the GDR back.

I would be interested to hear your take on this. My point just being that there are many other underlying issues that come from dividing a country. We still feel the bite of the American Civil War here 150 years later.
 
Perun said:
Loosey,

...

They're not Serb.

Yes, I know.  This isn't really a reason, is it.


Deano said:
I'm fine with their independence. Quebec too.  ;)

Yeah, yeah.  Well, let's have Quebec vote in favour of it before we decide to let them split off!  Besides, Quebec was never really proposing independence...more of autonomy, where they retain Canadian currency, passports, military protection, and even some government transfer payments.
 
Of course, I know. They need to be careful what they wish for. Canada is becoming more and more a paradise on Earth lately.

OK, that was off topic; here is TOTALLY off topic: You say you have Sirius and I DID see you call shenanigans on somebody earlier. You must be a Bubba the Love Sponge listener...... ???
 
I don't have Sirius; SMX has Sirius.  And my reference to "shenanigans" is more from the movie Super Troopers.
 
y said:
I would like to hear your reasoning though

Perun took the time to do that. I would have mentioned the same things but couldn't have done it better.
Next to the terrible losses in WWII (striking photographs) and in the period after that, I especially find this sentence very important:

Perun said:
Moreover, West Germany expressed a genuine desire to become a democracy, and that's why it, step by step, was readmitted in the international community. Serbia hasn't, but most countries still try to keep it in the international community.

It's not only about guilt, but also about attitude, looking at the present and future.
 
LooseCannon said:
Ban Ki-Moon is South Korean.  But it is not the Secretary-General's job to comment on the legality of certain things; instead, it is the job of the Secretary-General to create policy decisions.  As a South Korean, his delegation has nothing to say in the Security Council.  That power is held by the five veto-emboldened members.
UN Resolution 1244 guarantees that Kosovo would remain part of Serbia until a Kosovo Status Process could be convened.  Though that Status Process was not fulfilled, one can argue that events have made the Status Process pointless.  It can also be said that the Serbian-control clause was nullified as the FRY finished collapsing; though I believe that UNSCR 1244 would be nullified simply because it is a RESOLUTION, not a law.

Yes UN resolutions might not have the status of law, but why would it be nullified because of that, or because the FRY is not existing anymore, when Serbia is its legal heir? What events have made the status negotiations pointless? The unilateral act of secession? If so, I must agree. The unilateral, ethnic motivated act of secession made the status negotiations pointless.

International law consists of treaties all participant nations agree to hold as the highest laws of the land, say, the Geneva Conventions.  A UN Security Council Resolution is not binding.  Plus, it seems like the original resolution was flawed, as it gives no right to Kosovars to choose their own independence.

Of course it left no room for the Albanians in Kosovo to declare secession, because it would have been (as it is now) in conflict with the principle of territorial integrity which is a bit older than the right I'll address now. - You could say what about the right to self determination?, but Serbia is not a colonial power, and Kosovo is not one of its colonies. The right to self determination has been used in regards to 20th century decolonization processes, so that the peoples under centuries of rule by the great empires could become independent, not with regards to small countries like Serbia. Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia's territory, not its colony.

That is the essence of it. That the right to self determination is being used today as a tool for flagrant breach of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of countries with internationally recognized borders.

The Declaration of Human Rights, I think it's clause 26?  My copy's not in front of me currently.  It was a similar argument used to allow the breakup of Yugoslavia into all those states...Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Slovenia, and now Kosovo and Serbia.  Each with their own cultures and traditions.  And the Falkland Islands did not make a movement towards independence or altering allegiance; they were conquered by a separate political entity.

Those were constituent republics that gained independence you are talking about, and they were allowed to do it by the 1974 communist constitution. Kosovo never had that status in former Yugoslavia in the first place.

This is utter nonsense.  "Ethnic structure"?  What the hell is that?  Yes.  People can come into the culture, overwhelm it, and create their own unique nation out of it.  Why?  Because of precedent.  The United States, Canada, Israel...all are examples of that sort of behaviour.  However, the existence of Kosovo goes back, yes, centuries, something like 800 years since it was wholly Serbian.  Maybe we should go back further and give it all to Italy, since Rome ruled that beforehand.

What can I do when you don't know what ethnic structure is. I'll put it more directly so as to prevent any misunderstanding. The Albanians significantly increased the number of Albanians and decreased the number of non-Albanians through planned action during the period of over more than 130 years (let us not go even further in the past).

They have achieved this through ethnic cleansing, terrorism, destruction of objects representing Serbian culture and presence like monasteries and graveyards. The last one of these pogroms took place in 2004 when the Albanians expelled thousands of Serbs (a minority there), destroyed dozens of centuries old, medieval monasteries, hundreds of Serb homes... all this under the administration and presence of NATO 'peacekeeping' troops..

As for going back and back in history, tell me how did Rome made an empire? Certainly not by colonizing a province and then declaring independence waiting for international recognition. How did the US came into being? They fought for it, that's how.  And here, have they beaten Serbia in war? NO, they haven't. That is the main difference. They have NATO backing them now, but that's another story altogether. Kosovo is a NATO state.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the United States is not exactly everyone's favourite country nowadays.  Most Western nations do what they think is right.  Canada, France, Germany, Italy...we didn't follow the US into Iraq, did we?  Assuming we do what the US tells us is a serious fallacy.

True, you resisted them regarding Iraq, but you have also bombed us as a part of NATO.

The current US administration doesn't have a great track record with human rights, no.  But again, who says the Unite
The United States has never desired a war with the PRC.  They fought the PRC in Korea, but originally that was about the Soviet sphere; same with Vietnam (a nation perpetually fearful of their larger, northern neighbours).  Right now it would be very difficult for the US to do much; but see the Tibet thread for more on my opinions there.

Well, isn't that the point - the US does not desire a war with China, but why not set up a puppet regime somewhere close by to keep an eye on it just in case? Defensive aggression perhaps, as in the case of many other US led wars like that in Iraq?

Let me ask you a question:

Why does Kosovo *not* deserve independence?  What makes their people deserve to live in a nation where their particular culture is outweighed and outvoted?  Why should they not have a voice all their own?

I have already answered to you explaining why it is not legal. I don't know what makes Albanians live in a nation they do not wish to live with. Is somebody forcing them to? Have they been forced to  move to Kosovo? They have a voice, they have been offered the greatest amount of autonomy within Serbia's borders one could have, but they insisted on secession.

albanianterroristsgreectr0.gif


http://sheikyermami.com/2007/05/01/alba ... e-is-next/

And here is why it declared independence. Whether it deserves it or not, I have already elaborated upon. Why are these terrorists holding those flags of the EU and the US?

Here, to post that video once more-  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXNECxVF9X0
 
Urizen said:
I have already answered to you explaining why it is not legal. I don't know what makes Albanians live in a nation they do not wish to live with. Is somebody forcing them to? Have they been forced to  move to Kosovo? They have a voice, they have been offered the greatest amount of autonomy within Serbia's borders one could have, but they insisted on secession.

I will respond to the rest of it later (at work currently), but you didn't answer my question.

Why do they not deserve their own country?  Most Kosovars were born in Kosovo.  Their fathers were.  Their grandfathers were.  So why don't they deserve to choose for themselves?  Exclude legality as an argument, and let's discuss philosophy on this issue - what makes them not able to have a nation?

Please understand, I am not excluding or forgiving the action of the many terrorist groups that have operated in Kosovo, though I do believe Kosovars have a right to self determination, that still makes the acts undertaken wrong, specifically the many purges and assault on person and culture undertaken.  However, Kosovars are there.  They've been there for over a hundred years, and up until 1990, it's not like they could have just got up and moved to Albania.

If there wasn't so much violence, the solution would be much simpler...
 
(Meanwhile):

Serbia proposes dividing Kosovo along ethnic lines
By Dan Bilefsky Published: March 24, 2008 / BRUSSELS:

The proposal, which UN officials said they were reviewing, was submitted to coincide with the ninth anniversary of the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia. According to The Associated Press, the document acknowledges UN jurisdiction over Kosovo, but calls for the Serbian majority to take charge of the border customs, judiciary and police services in the north of Kosovo, which accounts for 15 percent of Kosovo's overall territory.

Belgrade's aim of asserting its control over the northern part of Kosovo has contributed to violent confrontations in recent weeks, including a clash on March 17 in which a UN police officer was killed and dozens of others were wounded when peacekeepers seized a courthouse in the northern city of Mitrovica that was being occupied by Serbian protesters.

Serbs have burned customs and border posts and taken over rail lines. Belgrade also has sought to strengthen parallel institutional structures governing education and health care in the north of Kosovo while dozens of Serbian officers have abandoned Kosovo's multiethnic police force and pledged allegiance to Serbia.

Many Western analysts and leaders believe that Serbia lost its moral and legal right to govern Kosovo after Milosevic's ethnic-cleansing campaign against the territory's ethnic Albanians. But in Belgrade, Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica said the NATO bombing had been part of an attempt by the alliance to take control of Kosovo.

"Now it is more than clear that the merciless destruction of Serbia in the NATO bombing had only one goal, and that is to turn Kosovo into the first NATO state in the world," Kostunica said in a statement.

Kostunica, who helped lead the revolution that overthrew Milosevic in 2000, is determined not to go down in history as the Serbian leader who lost Kosovo. In recent weeks, he has adopted Milosevic's nationalist rhetoric.

He also has clashed with the Serbian president, Boris Tadic, a pro-Western moderate, who opposes Kosovo's independence but argues that Serbia should nevertheless strengthen ties with the European Union, even though a majority of its members have backed the new state.

----------------

Missouri Guard on the way to Kosovo
Monday, March 24, 2008, 12:25 PM / By Jon Allison

Family and loved ones crowded the Hearnes Center in Columbia this weekend to say goodbye to one thousand Missouri National Guard soldiers from across the state heading to join a NATO peacekeeping operation in the now seceded Kosovo.  The group, the largest single deployment of Missouri Guard men and women since World War One, is known as Kosovo Force Ten.

soldier%203.jpg


Originally thought to be the least dangerous deployment by far, the Missouri National Guard's year-long deployment in Kosovo no longer looks like a walk in the park.  Backed by Russia, the Serbs have violently rejected the secession, initially rioting in the streets of Belgrade a month ago when they attempted to burn down the US embassy.   

The guardsman had originally expressed relief that they were going to a far less dangerous situation in Kosovo, but the recent violence has put a new sense of urgency on their training.  Kosovo saw its worst violence since the secession last Monday.  U.N. and NATO forces were involved in fire-fights with the Serbs, who were armed with grenades, guns, and molotav cocktails.  The clashes, which left at least 63 U.N. and NATO forces wounded, as well as 70 protestors, were ignited by an attempt by the U.N. to remove Serb protestors from a courthouse the protestors had occupied for three days in the divided northern town of Kosovska Mitrovica.  Following the skirmishes North Kosovo was placed under NATO military law in an attempt to put a stopper on the growing influence of some unofficial Serb security structures in north Mitrovica. 

The troops are now on their way to Camp Atterbury, Indiana, for mobilization training.  The National Guard says the training will put the guardsmen in an environment closer to the reality in Kosovo.  After Camp Atterbury, the guardsmen will train further in Hohenfels, Germany, before beginning their actual deployment in Kosovo.  They are expected to return in late March 2009.
 
Perun said:
lpde1945.gif


Germany 1945: Orange territory now Polish, dark pink territory now Russian, yellow territory Communist until 1989.

y, you have completely disqualified yourself with your post. Serbia has lost a few territories that do not even have a Serbian majority. Germany was completely destroyed after the war, lost a third of its territory and was divided- although most Germans indeed did not believe this would last forever, that is no argument. The East Germans lived in a Stalinist dictatorship for FORTY YEARS after the war ended. People got shot when they tried to escape. West Germany was reconstructed, it's true, but it was completely destroyed before. Serbia was not after the Balkan War. Moreover, West Germany expressed a genuine desire to become a democracy, and that's why it, step by step, was readmitted in the international community. Serbia hasn't, but most countries still try to keep it in the international community.

Shit, I didn't know that Germany lost terretories to Poland and Russia
The last (bolded) sentence is very intresting and maybe is the key to what happened then and what's happening now
 
Genghis Khan said:
That video suitably summarizes everything that is wrong with Serbian leadership today.

How could this be when that which is expressed in that video is not what the Serbian leadership today goes by? Not to mention you haven't refuted  what the video talks about.
 
LooseCannon said:
I will respond to the rest of it later (at work currently), but you didn't answer my question.

Why do they not deserve their own country?  Most Kosovars were born in Kosovo.  Their fathers were.  Their grandfathers were.  So why don't they deserve to choose for themselves?  Exclude legality as an argument, and let's discuss philosophy on this issue - what makes them not able to have a nation?

First of all I don't see how we could have two nations created out of one Albanian nation? Second, they can't just choose for themselves because it is not solely their concern. Serbs live there also, and if you say that the majority of vote has ruled and said yes to secession, I call that the tyranny of the majority. Third, the Albanians are an ethnic minority in Serbia, and are we to allow to every ethnic minority in the world the right of taking a part of the country it lives in on the basis of sheer numbers and the fact it represents the majority in the particular region in question? Someone could say yes, why not, if the people there think it would be better off on their own, who are we to stop them?

MY first objection to that sort of reasoning is first the one about who's concern it is, that I mentioned earlier. The simple fact that the majority in a region wishes secession does not makes them deserving of it in any way. If an ethnic minority does not wishes to live in a country it moved in, they can not, in my mind, be entitled with taking a part of that country and making it their own property. Say I come into the US and say 'Hey, you know what? I don't like how you run this country and so I'd like to have my own country just for me so I could run that part of it which I live in as I please.' What are the Americans to say to that? 'Oh well, certainly here you go you can take Texas. A number of Americans live there, and they don't like you the least to be honest, but you are in the majority here so who asks them anything, right?'

I mean, can I make a country out of the street I live in? No, I can get some degree of autonomy in my street, but the street itself is not my property. Nor can it become so unless the owner gives it to me, or I take it by force. That is the problem. - How can you give someone a part of your territory just because they are in the majority in that particular part? Common sense dictates that if someone does not wishes to live in a country in the way it is right now, he is to negotiate for certain rights and autonomy perhaps, or, leave the country and move elsewhere. Not to simply declare itself the ruler of a part of your territory, that he just happens to live in, and on top of that expects you to acknowledge that!

And I am fed up with the hypocrisy of NATO. Turkey, for instance, negates the Kurds the right to live it seems, let alone thinking about giving them a piece of land. And unlike Albanians, the Kurds do not already have a piece of land of their own on this world.
 
Urizen said:
First of all I don't see how we could have two nations created out of one Albanian nation? Second, they can't just choose for themselves because it is not solely their concern. Serbs live there also, and if you say that the majority of vote has ruled and said yes to secession, I call that the tyranny of the majority. Third, the Albanians are an ethnic minority in Serbia, and are we to allow to every ethnic minority in the world the right of taking a part of the country it lives in on the basis of sheer numbers and the fact it represents the majority in the particular region in question? Someone could say yes, why not, if the people there think it would be better off on their own, who are we to stop them?

MY first objection to that sort of reasoning is first the one about who's concern it is, that I mentioned earlier. The simple fact that the majority in a region wishes secession does not makes them deserving of it in any way. If an ethnic minority does not wishes to live in a country it moved in, they can not, in my mind, be entitled with taking a part of that country and making it their own property. Say I come into the US and say 'Hey, you know what? I don't like how you run this country and so I'd like to have my own country just for me so I could run that part of it which I live in as I please.' What are the Americans to say to that? 'Oh well, certainly here you go you can take Texas. A number of Americans live there, and they don't like you the least to be honest, but you are in the majority here so who asks them anything, right?'

I mean, can I make a country out of the street I live in? No, I can get some degree of autonomy in my street, but the street itself is not my property. Nor can it become so unless the owner gives it to me, or I take it by force. That is the problem. - How can you give someone a part of your territory just because they are in the majority in that particular part? Common sense dictates that if someone does not wishes to live in a country in the way it is right now, he is to negotiate for certain rights and autonomy perhaps, or, leave the country and move elsewhere. Not to simply declare itself the ruler of a part of your territory, that he just happens to live in, and on top of that expects you to acknowledge that!

And I am fed up with the hypocrisy of NATO. Turkey, for instance, negates the Kurds the right to live it seems, let alone thinking about giving them a piece of land. And unlike Albanians, the Kurds do not already have a piece of land of their own on this world.

International politics are, of course, far more complex than either of us have made it out to be.  You're right - Albanians make up an ethnic group.  But there are differences between Kosovar Albanians and Albanian Albanians. Are they major differences?  I sure don't know.  For all I know, tomorrow Kosovo and Albania will join in union.  That's unlikely, but possible.  The question is thus: do Kosovars identify as different to Albanians (not ethnic Albanian - there is a difference in the term).

Under that assumption, why is Canada and the United States different countries?  We are both primarily English descended former colonies.  The difference is not really of culture or ethnicity, but instead of loyalties; Canadians didn't generally rebel against the Crown back in 1776.  Yet we share the same language, generally, the same television, same icons...and have for a long time.  No, a nation is made by more than just their ethnicity.  It's made by a unique history; in this case, Kosovo's culture was forged by the situation it has been in, a situation different to Albania's.

Your next argument involves the "slippery slope" logical fallacy.  Kosovo becoming independent has nothing to do with someone moving to my street and declaring it an independent nation.  Each of these situations has to be analyzed independently to another.  There is a difference between Quebec's independence claims and Kosovo's.  A difference between Tibet and the Kurds.  And so on.  Certainly, one person cannot declare independence.  Unless they're Peter Griffin.  It takes a body of interested people, a large body, within the majority, who share a cultural and national link, to do so.

It is foreseeable that 100 years down the road, if the culture of an area like Texas has altered enough, that independence might be considered by that state.  But that is a change that takes quite a long time for a self-identifying nation to take hold and grow strong and become a movement.  Kosovo becoming independent will not lead to individual street-nations springing up world wide, and it is incorrect to assume so.

Perhaps your point of the tyranny of the majority is accurate.  However, I think that areas controlled primarily by Serbs should revert to Serbia.  And then, that's a double-edged sword.  Before NATO entered the country, wasn't Kosovo controlled by the tyranny of the majority Serbs?  In fact, the entire flawed principle of Yugoslavia as a country was to take Bosnians, Croats, Slovenians, Kosovars, and whoever else and place Serb rule over them in the form of a King.  It should be no surprise that these national groups wish independence, and Serbia has been reverted to a smaller state with its own nationally linked border.

Some Serbs in a small area are outweighed by the majority of Kosovars.  It's not perfect; ideally, the two countries would establish open borders and allow for free movement of people back and forth.  But there's too much bad blood here to have that.  Simply put, it is not unreasonable to assume that a national group wants its own destiny.  Serbia may have granted Kosovo autonomy, but autonomy is not independence.  Autonomy means it can decide what happens inside the border, but it doesn't choose its foreign policy.  It is tied to the wills of Serbia and the wills of Sarajevo's politics.  If Kosovo is a nation, does it not deserve to chose its own?  Does Kosovo not deserve its own voice outside of Kosovo?

Territory is public.  That means it belongs to the people.  If a concentrated percentage of the people decide that the territory in question represents a generic block of people that wish independence through regulated electoral process, then they do have a right for that public territory.  Kosovars were (are?) citizens of Serbia, so that gives them an equal claim of the territory.  They are not lesser citizens for being Kosovar.

And I agree with you on the Kurdish point.  Turkey fucking sucks and the Kurds deserve their own homeland.  But again, each case must be analyzed separately, and sometimes it takes a long time for international action to occur.  In this case, there was certainly an ability for the USA to create a "yes man" state in North Iraq by creating a Kurdistan, but they haven't.  So you can't say they will take every opportunity to create additional favorable states.  Just some opportunities.
 
I agree that Turkey also have oppressed the Kurds.

But why ignore the following post (this is the Kosovo-topic, remember)?

Perun said:

These are the facts, these are the causes, this is the most logical explanation for all that has happened.
Believe if or don't believe it: At least, deal with it. It can't be ignored in this discussion. As long as someone ignores these important matters, he or she is not very believable.
 
Back
Top