Printable View
So we now have a new country in Europe - Kosovo.
I'm somewhat taken back at the opposition to the move from some quarters, to my mind I'd always thought that if the citizens of a particular province or region choose to govern themselves then it's not for anyone to stand in their way. This applies as much in Kosovo as well as the likes of Scotland etc.
Don't blame you for thinking like that. You don't know the balkanic space and its ethnic problems.
A state is generally found on more basis than what the muscles of some citizens want. If these things were happening in other part than the middle of the Europe I should have a big laugh. At least at the thought that from now on they'll probably speak kosovarian.
I seriously hope that the Serbs never have to be united with another country again, because I would daresay their stance on independance for all would change pretty hastily in such a scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Seeking independence has always been a tough fight. All through history, countries seeking independence have had to fight and sacrifice for it. I don't think this will ever change. For those countries than manage to do it and prosper, good luck to them, they have most likely earned it.
Is the independence already approved by UN? Thought there were power struggle among Security Council between US, UK, esp France who support the independence and Russia, probably China too, on the other hand.
While permanent members of security council determine important role for the final decision, we shouldn't put aside resolution scheme made by the non permanent members.
In fact we are witnesess of two crucial events: the birth of a state and the death of UN.Quote:
Originally Posted by leopardsleeping
From now on the whole system of international jurisdiction and the system of prevention and reglementation of conflicts represented by UN and Security Council are abolished.
The birth of the new state occured outside a Security Council decision and UN proved its incapacity to come to a negociated solution. More than that the organization was ignored in a crucial moment.
Who'll take advantage of this?
The impotence of UN may show us we should take measures. "Maybe" new actors should come to solve global security. Or "maybe" we needn't anymore the decisions of Security Council to interfere in situations defined as " iminent humanitarian catastrophies "
"Maybe" from now on it will be enough to have only the approval of a few powerful states to get to independence....
Sorry guys, don't want to spoil anybody's romantic feelings abut independece but in this special case for me it's obvious that Republic of Kosovo is not a happy ending but an unhappy prelude.
Tell me, did you support the independence of Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia from Yugoslavia? Yes, the aftermath was bloody, but it had to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
In the case of Kosovo, as stated by a British Labour MEP on the radio this morning, the idea of Vladimir Putin becoming any sort of arbiter of international law is most unpalatable.
I think UN is an international body that is supposed to facilitate any international conflict among its member, and the rest of the world. The institution isn't party to blame for any failure and its impotence solving the problem, but some countries who undertake their interest by the name of UN and disobeying anything once they found discordance against their interest, who should be responsible for its impotency.
The non permanent security council must play their role in beautiful way, they have to accommodate international and humanity resolution, but on the other hand as far as possible to make decision not in cross of nations the biggest power holder.
I think we have to distinguish those deserve independence or separatism movement. A region with people historically and ethnically different and or treated differently because of difference of ideology I think deserve the independence and have its own right to determine their future.
The problem at the moment with the UN as I understand it is that any permanent member can veto any proposal, even if supported by every other member, which can't be right.
So it have to happen the independence of Kurdistan but for a reason that I miss ( :laugh :) USA and EU countries dislike the idea. And they are not ready either to recognize the independence of the turkish part of Cyprus.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Back to your question: I couldn't support something I didn't understand. More than that I don't know why it had to happen. First of all it's my background:
1. I'm of aromanian ( or macedo-romanian ) origin, this population is spread through the balkans: Greece, Bulgaria, Albania and the FYRM . We've never had our state although there were times when we were the majority ethnic in that area and we don't pretend to ever have one. Many of us were already asimililated in these countries and generally we aren't recognized as minority. Due to ethnic persecutions many of us emigrated from Greece at the begining of 20 th century to a bulgarian area who for a short period of time was part of Romania. Then bugarians got it back and my family was forced to get established in Romania. Whether I like it or not I was born in Romania and I consider myself romanian and respect the laws of this country. And my cousins who remained in Greece consider themselves greeks. At the same time I'm sure I can live very well everywhere in the balkans, there are many things we have in common although we are either greeks or slavs or latin, etc.
Sorry for this long digression but i wanted to underline that in the balkanic area there is a puzzle of ethnics who generally get on.
2. On the other hand as a romanian citizen I believe the union of the 3 romanian principates is probably the most important thing that happened in our history and mades us stronger. Although until the end of XIX th century and the begining of theXX th, Transylavania, Wallachia and Moldova developed separately and were shared by 3 diferent empires the feeling we are the same nation was always very strong and apart from some hungarian assholes nobody want a separation. As a result I can't understand why Yugoslavia had to divide. They were all southern slavs and talked the same language, they share a culture (and still vote for each other on Eurovision :laugh: .), they were an example of welfare and were united a few times in history. Then where did the need of separation come from? . OK, I admit Croatia and Slovenia used to be organized as kingdoms in the past but the others? In the bosniac conflict there were 3 parts involved: serbs, croats and the muslims. Who is the bosniac nation? The same thing is with FYRM, they were never a distinctive nation and this republic will probably have some trouble in the future as it's inhabited by 3 ethnics.
And let's come to the new state. A small state with the population of my hometown, with 45% rate of unemployment, with no resources and infrastructure, without foreign investments and any developed economic branch ( well, they say that in this region the organized crime is almost an industry...) and with a leader whose past remembers the one of Yasser Arafat. How will this survive?