Independence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

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.

---

You should pick up a history book.
Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia were part of the federal Yugoslavia as was Serbia. Those teritories were always inhabited by croatians, Slovenians, Macedonians, Bosniacs (not sure how it is right to say it in English).
Kosovo has been mainly inhabited by Serbs since the 11th century and until end of the 19th century when Otomans helped by mulsim Albanians cleansed the Serbs from the Kosovo region. However after WWI Serbia retook Kosovo untill now.

USA and some (not all) the European countries went along with this so called new country.
Americans do it because they have their agenda (I suppose that no to long from now we will see a new American military base established in Europe, guess where that will be!).

The European Union were simply thinking with their backsides ever since they tried to solve the problem in the region.

We don't have to forget that the UNO has laws that govern what can and what can't happen in the World.
What has happened in Kosovo is illegal by those laws and for USA and some European countries to support a breach of those laws, that were put in place after WWII in order to make sure that such events do not occur again, is pure idiocy at its finest.

As for France, Great Britain, Belgium and other countries that accept this I would like to see how they will deal the day when Pays Basques, Northern Ireland, Scotland and other regions will decide to do the same! Will they be the first ones to recognize a new country that appears on their territories? I doubt it.

Russia and China will never accept the creation of this new Israel! They have their own well founded reasons for this.
And without them agreeing on it, either there will be no independent Kosovo or there will be no more United Nations Organization on the Earth which means we will come back to pre- WWII situations!

So for once I will support the Russian and Chinese position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

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.

---

You're wrong there.
The UN Permanent Council involves the militarily strongest countries in the World, any decision they take has to be unanimous unless we need a new World War, because any of them can put an end to this world by pushing a button.

So please don't say foolish things without thinking at a scale that involves more of this world than just your backyard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

So we now have a new country in Europe - Kosovo.

---

And BTW you and I or we don't have no new country in Europe. Kosovars might have a new country in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

Thank you guys for your understanding. I was expecting an avalanche of posts against me as it seems I'm the only one who shadows the "kosovar happiness".

I see that most of you still think that if a majority ethnic in a certain region wishes its autodetermination then it's fair for them to declare it. Judging the things " at cold " and taking the things out of context it has reason although there is something that it's called " local autonomy " and I think it works in every country..

But as theory is always sublime, it's the practics that kills us. Once again I'll speak only about the Eastern Europe because I want to underline that things are more complicated and should be judged not only with our minds but also with our hearts. You think like westerners forgetting that the history of the east was different. There were 3 empires who fought and divided this region and they all were guided by the principle "divide et impera" ( divide and rule ). It's a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. In reality, it often refers to a strategy where small power groups are prevented from linking up and becoming more powerful, since it is difficult to break up existing power structures. As a result the process of uniting different different regions lived by the same nation was imposible. At the same time areas "wandered" from one country to another and many times the process was followed by colonization with other ethnics ( like my family ). I suppose we can also see these results in the former USSR countries who were either victims of russification or of deportation. That's why an ancient romanian teritory like Rep.of Moldova has now a strong russophone population.

I'm sorry if I bored you with such things but I think that the history of a region should also be taken into account. Otherwise with the waves of today's migrations in a few hundred years we'll have a surprising map of the world.

The kosovar independence still did a good thing: for the first time I agree with the point of view of our government, and the parliament adopted the decision to don't recognize Kosovo with a bashing majority ( only 27 votes against. guess whose? the party of hungarians who incidentally fights for...autonomy ).

Last but not least, I see that none of you noticed that the unilateral decalration of independence broke the in international rules regarding sovereignity and the inviolability of borders.

---

Another very well thought out and put together post. Your knowledge continues to astound me :) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You're wrong there.
The UN Permanent Council involves the militarily strongest countries in the World, any decision they take has to be unanimous unless we need a new World War, because any of them can put an end to this world by pushing a button.

So please don't say foolish things without thinking at a scale that involves more of this world than just your backyard.

---

And we can do without you calling anyone who disagrees with you a fool or liar. I stand by my original post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camelopard

Another very well thought out and put together post. Your knowledge continues to astound me :) .

---

Sorry to disapoint you but I'm just a semidoct who just finished to read the morning papers, :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Legally?

LOL

Here it is in a nutshell.....Kosovo declares independence. The rest of the world pays off Serbia not to get pissed off.

---

Are you serious?
Oh wait, I think you must be American, so better not even start a debate on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

And we can do without you calling anyone who disagrees with you a fool or liar. I stand by my original post.

---

I didn't call you a fool or a liar! In the best case you might say I hinted at your ignorance.

And you may very well disagree. I just pointed it out that you were wrong. Can't take it? Fine, but than do not attack me.

Generally independence that's formed out of an aura of trouble and a recent history of conflict/repression is stillborn.
Just look at East Timor and even Israel, who are still in conflict today, regardless of whether it was right or wrong.

And regardless of whether it was right or wrong, Kosovo will be the same for at least the near future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

Sorry to disapoint you but I'm just a semidoct who just finished to read the morning papers, :laugh:

---

Shouldn't you be working?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Can't take it? Fine, but than do not attack me.

---

Neither post was an attack like you suggest it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camelopard

Shouldn't you be working?

---

I've just noticed that really interesting topics come whenever I have a hard work ( you might think I don't have too much to do but it's not true ).
Fortunately, I'm greater than Napoleon ( who was supposed to do 2 things at the same time ). So I simultaneusly analyse a law, read the papers, "have activity" on the forum, drink a tea, try to don't listern to my boring colleagues. :laugh:

In English are people from Kosovo Kosovans or Kosovars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew

In English are people from Kosovo Kosovans or Kosovars?

---

Call them albanians. They wave albanian flag not the one of their "country ". :laugh:

Just read their currency is euro. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew

In English are people from Kosovo Kosovans or Kosovars?

---

I was under the impression that it was Kosovars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You should pick up a history book.
Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia were part of the federal Yugoslavia as was Serbia. Those teritories were always inhabited by croatians, Slovenians, Macedonians, Bosniacs (not sure how it is right to say it in English).

---

ioan, I am perfectly well aware of those aspects of the history of those countries, thank you very much.

Is it possible to rebut the posts made by others without telling them to 'pick up a history book' or saying that they are being 'foolish'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

Thank you guys for your understanding. I was expecting an avalanche of posts against me as it seems I'm the only one who shadows the "kosovar happiness".

---

Not at all. I think it's right to be cautious about the prospects. And you present your arguments very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

ioan, I am perfectly well aware of those aspects of the history of those countries, thank you very much.

Is it possible to rebut the posts made by others without telling them to 'pick up a history book' or saying that they are being 'foolish'?

---

OK, I was far to cynical. My bad.

I hope however that you got the point about the differences between Croatia, Slovenia etc and Kosovo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

OK, I was far to cynical. My bad.

I hope however that you got the point about the differences between Croatia, Slovenia etc and Kosovo.

---

Yes. No hard feelings!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

If enough French people move into southern England should they be able to declare independence? It's very far-fetched, I know, but is it impossible? I think national boundaries should be very hard to change otherwise, particularly in a place like Europe, you'd have the potential for chaos..... (snipped)....

The other question that has to be answered is whether Kosovo (or Scotland, Quebec, Catalunya etc.) can actually support themselves economically.

---

From the point of view of Catalan nationalists, it's very significant that the Spanish government won't recognise this as a new country. The main opposition don't recognise it either.

Catalans have been asking for years for the financial details of how much they pay into, and get out of, the Spanish economy. Both government and opposition parties, bitter enemies, refuse to publish these details. It's one of the few things they agree on. So one can only conclude that there's a good reason why ie that Catalans wouldn't like it (the basque country collects its own taxes, and then pays what they think is correct to Madrid each year).

So, many in Catalunya are hoping things go well for Kosovo.

There hasn't been a referendum on independence in any of the Spanish "regions" because it was written into the constitution that a referendum could not take place (a constitution which was rejected in the Basque Country). It is also written into the Spanish constitution that it's the army's duty to maintain the unity of Spain against ALL threats. It's a bit of a mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Are you serious?
Oh wait, I think you must be American, so better not even start a debate on this.

---

So you have finally realized I am right!
Now your life will be much more fulfilling!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

If enough French people move into southern England should they be able to declare independence? It's very far-fetched, I know, but is it impossible? I think national boundaries should be very hard to change otherwise, particularly in a place like Europe, you'd have the potential for chaos.

---

Not only is it possible but with the long viewpoint of history it's accepted FACT. Who would you like to start with?

Saxons, Danes? How about when a fellow by the name of Billy set sail with his army of nine thousand Normans, after one of the most confusing roll-calls ever taken and after taking someone's eye out declared himself king? English history is replete with invasion after invasion. As of now there's a Scottish Queen, a Scottish Prime Minister and a Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer in charge of England.

How about in the country you live? Sufficient number of English people just turned up and settled there and as far as I'm aware, the Australian flag still has a Union Flag in the canton and HM Lizzie is on the back of coins.

Maybe a history lesson is in order. You may like to check out the League of Prizren which was formed in 1878 or 1879? I can't remember.
At any rate, Kosovo was roughly 75% Albanian in origin and about 25% Slavic by the time of the Baltic Wars of 1912 anyway; certainly the Kingdom of Serbia took the place by force, so it could very easily be argued that the formation of the modern republic is just a return to the proper owners anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

you'd have the potential for chaos.

---

1914-1918, 1939-1945 mean anything to you?

I believe any region of the world should be allowed to seek independece through a referendum, in the end why force people to be part of a country they don't want to?

But on this specific case, I don't think it's the right thing for Kosovo, having quite a lot Albanians doesn't seem like a good reason enough, they had autonomy before right? I think in those cases autonomous regions should work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Maybe a history lesson is in order. You may like to check out the League of Prizren which was formed in 1878 or 1879? I can't remember.
At any rate, Kosovo was roughly 75% Albanian in origin and about 25% Slavic by the time of the Baltic Wars of 1912 anyway; certainly the Kingdom of Serbia took the place by force, so it could very easily be argued that the formation of the modern republic is just a return to the proper owners anyway.

---

Let's take the history lesson further and see how many Albanians were living in Kosovo around before 1878?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

1914-1918, 1939-1945 mean anything to you?

---

Chaos that we don't want to see repeated, that's why everyone should stick th the UN laws that managed to keep us out of trouble for over 60 years, instead of getting euphoric about a bunch of ex-terrorists proclaiming the independence of a region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Let's take the history lesson further and see how many Albanians were living in Kosovo around before 1878?

---

Ok. Let's apply it to your country then. If your flag is correct and you do come from Romania, then your country can't have existed for any more than a couple of months at best, longer than Kosovo did. Romania was created under the same set of circumstances at the Congress of Berlin in June of 1878, which also created Serbia and Montenegro on July 13 of that year.
How many Romanians were there before 1878? None. They were all citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

I refer you to the famous Pot vs Kettle racial discrimination case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Ok. Let's apply it to your country then. If your flag is correct and you do come from Romania, then your country can't have existed for any more than a couple of months at best, longer than Kosovo did. Romania was created under the same set of circumstances at the Congress of Berlin in June of 1878, which also created Serbia and Montenegro on July 13 of that year.
How many Romanians were there before 1878? None. They were all citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

---

Excuse my curiosity but are you related to a guy called Mihail ROLLER?
Anyway thank you, Rollo. I was sad this morning and this post was a real laugh. After all Ioan wasn't so wrong the other day. Before he'll send you to the corner ( and this time you deserve this place) I tell you that you studied romanian history from a wrong book. :laugh:
Just for fun check if it was published in Budapest. :laugh: :laugh:

BTW, you told us what romanians "were", now just enlighten us telling what was Romania. And for God's sake don't miss Transylvania. It was, it is and it will ALWAYS be romanian land.

And again for fun I wish that your post is read by a guy from Tibet or by a kurd. :laugh:

From the standpoint of international law you can argue either way for or agaist the right of peoples to self-determination, because the law and its interpretations are very confusing. After WWII the right to self-determination tended to be applied exclusively to colonial peoples. There were exceptions like Bangladesh and Eritrea, though. In any case, Kosovo is another precedent in favor of a broader interpretation.

In terms of realpolitik I find Kosovo independence very dangerous, though. I think everybody is equally guilty of the mess that happened in former Yugoslavia but only Serbs were made to pay for that. Kosovo is allowed to secede from Serbia, but Serbs are not allowed to secede from Bosnia and Croatia. At the same time Serbia is by far the most belligerent nation in the Balkans and further humiliation of Serbs is the shortest way to future unrest. Unless Serbia is generously compensated Europe is in for another big unrest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Maybe a history lesson is in order. You may like to check out the League of Prizren which was formed in 1878 or 1879? I can't remember.
At any rate, Kosovo was roughly 75% Albanian in origin and about 25% Slavic by the time of the Baltic Wars of 1912 anyway; certainly the Kingdom of Serbia took the place by force, so it could very easily be argued that the formation of the modern republic is just a return to the proper owners anyway.

---

I raise my hands up and admit that if there ever were Baltic Wars in 1912 I missed that lesson ( disliked the modern and contemporary history lessons ).
And can't see any relation between Kosovo and Baltic Sea.
I suppose you're talking about Balkanic Wars which is another fish dish.
According to the serbian represantative in our parliament serbs were in majority even before 2nd WW when Mussolini determined serbs to leave and find refuge in Serbia. Then after the war Tito gave a decree that interdicted them to get back and albanians became the majority. Don't know if it's true cos he could be biased. But it's not fair to take things out of context and say in the year X there were...
For ex.: in Bulgaria there is an area we use to call Cadrilater. Before the balcanic wars no romanian lived there. Then after balcanic wars Romania won it and colonized it. In 1940 Bulgaria won it back and all romanians were sent back in 48 hours. It's more than fair for a romanian to say that this land is bulgarian even if in the year 1940 we were probably the majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Ok. Let's apply it to your country then. If your flag is correct and you do come from Romania, then your country can't have existed for any more than a couple of months at best, longer than Kosovo did. Romania was created under the same set of circumstances at the Congress of Berlin in June of 1878, which also created Serbia and Montenegro on July 13 of that year.
How many Romanians were there before 1878? None. They were all citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

---

:rotflmao:
We got to the point where an Englishman believes he knows better Romanian history than a Romanian.
You seem to only know about facts from 1878 up to now. Well, I have some new for you, the world existed before 1878 too.
I'll even go as far as telling you that we, Romanians, existed hundreds of years before the Ottoman Empire was created!
As for the first time when Romania was created as independent state that united all 3 provinces that were inhabited by Romanian speaking population I'll refer you to year 1600 and Mihai Viteazul (Michael the Brave).
Here, have good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_the_Brave

You will notice that he was let down by his so called allies (the same ones that let down Romania in WWII in front of the Russians) who went as far as killing him.

We as a people might have been divided and ruled by different Empires over the history from the 3rd century up to 1918 when we managed to brake free, but we were still talking the same language after more than a thousand years of occupation.

I hope this helped to give you some knowledge of pre 1878 history of Europe!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I refer you to the famous Pot vs Kettle racial discrimination case.

---

I don't see the utility of this comment in this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

We as a people might have been divided and ruled by different Empires over the history from the 3rd century up to 1918 when we managed to brake free,

---

Would you classify 1947-1989 as 'free'?

Quote:

---

but we were still talking the same language after more than a thousand years of occupation.

---

It's an evolution of the same language, but I doubt any spoken language today is the same as it was 1000 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

From the standpoint of international law you can argue either way for or agaist the right of peoples to self-determination, because the law and its interpretations are very confusing. After WWII the right to self-determination tended to be applied exclusively to colonial peoples. There were exceptions like Bangladesh and Eritrea, though. In any case, Kosovo is another precedent in favor of a broader interpretation.

---

Our president, government and parliament affirm that international law is very clear in forbidding to confer " collective rights " to minorities. So in Kosovo's case the "interpretation" is illegal.

Otherwise we might have a " Matrioshka " effect: a majority ethnic proclaim its independence in a teritory, then in one of its regions an ethnic who's in majority will claim the same thing, etc. and we'll may assist to an " atomization" of earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Would you classify 1947-1989 as 'free'?.

---

Yeah. Despite the comunist regime, it was a sovereign state, member of the UN. Even your lovely queen welcomed Ceausescu with great honours and showed him London from her carriage. :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

It's an evolution of the same language, but I doubt any spoken language today is the same as it was 1000 years ago.

---

Of course not. In the meantime we invented the most colourful insults and swearings in the world. However the basic lexic is the same and even preserved words from the Dacian period.
I've just remember that on my computer I have access to ALL romanian legislation. The opening page is "The treaty from 1393 between Mircea I, Suveran of Valahia and Sultan Baiazet Ilderim " ( where our mutual friend Rollo can see that romanians existed before 1878 and even enjoyed a large autonomy :laugh :) and despite a few archaic forms of the verbs and an exaggerated politness that might sound odd for the crazy stressed man of the 20mth century it's in the most genuine romanian posible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Would you classify 1947-1989 as 'free'?

---

Yes it was free from occupation by any other country.
Had a president and a Parliament.

And BTW I said from 1918 not 1947. Between 1919 and 1939 Romania had one of the best (maybe even the best) economical situations in central and eastern Europe!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

It's an evolution of the same language, but I doubt any spoken language today is the same as it was 1000 years ago.

---

Of course it did evolve, but as already pointed out by gadjo_dilo it isn't so different and we can easily read and understand it, not to mention lots of words that kept their form for more than 2000 years.

I know for a fact that 99% of the western people only know about Romania that it is an ex-communist country and that Dracula was a Transylvanian prince.
I wouldn't dare to comment about a country with so little knowledge of it's history, history that starts thousands of years ago.

And I suppose that all the ex-communist countries are in the same situation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

Our president, government and parliament affirm that international law is very clear in forbidding to confer " collective rights " to minorities. So in Kosovo's case the "interpretation" is illegal.

Otherwise we might have a " Matrioshka " effect: a majority ethnic proclaim its independence in a teritory, then in one of its regions an ethnic who's in majority will claim the same thing, etc. and we'll may assist to an " atomization" of earth.

---

And here's a pretty good illustration of the "Matrioshka" effect:
http://media.hotnews.ro/media_server...atrosca_41.jpg

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Of course it did evolve, but as already pointed out by gadjo_dilo it isn't so different and we can easily read and understand it, not to mention lots of words that kept their form for more than 2000 years.

---

Of course 2,000 years ago it wasn't Romanian at all but Latin.

BTW for those interested in the history of countries in Europe this site is excellent http://www.euratlas.com/summary.htm It shows a map for every 100 years from the year 0. It's fascinating to see how different it was even in 1900.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Of course 2,000 years ago it wasn't Romanian at all but Latin.

---

Well in fact it was not Latin, but Dacic (not sure how it is right in English).
Romans first conquered Dacia in 101 AD.
A bit of info about the ancient Dacia (now Romania):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacia

It's a good read, many valuable infos about our ancient history.

Romanian language contains words of Latin, Dacic and Slavic origin (and nowadays many others were added mostly technical terms like internet ;) !)

Interesting. Romanian is generally regarded as a 'Romance' language in the same way as French, Italian etc, of course these languages diverge by taking on aspects of other languages and dialects spoken in the local area.

English of couse has a strong latin fluence too but not as strong as in Romance countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

BTW for those interested in the history of countries in Europe this site is excellent http://www.euratlas.com/summary.htm It shows a map for every 100 years from the year 0. It's fascinating to see how different it was even in 1900.

---

Thanks for the link.
Very interesting indeed.
A pity that they seem not to be very sure about what was happening outside of the Roman Empire after their retreat to the south of Danube in 273 AD.

Their map is either white with lots of migratory tribe names all over it or is blurred with indefinite contours of known principalities extending over some parts with unsure limits. Also there are very old cities, dating to centuries BC on the Black Sea side that should be on the map but aren't there.

I can hardly believe that there wasn't a stable population in the region when there is proof that it wasn't this way.

However we are not to talk about Romanian history but rather about the independence of Kosovo. Let's look it up on that map! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Interesting. Romanian is generally regarded as a 'Romance' language in the same way as French, Italian etc, of course these languages diverge by taking on aspects of other languages and dialects spoken in the local area.

English of couse has a strong latin fluence too but not as strong as in Romance countries.

---

There are various degrees of Latin influences on almost all the languages spoken in Europe.
My GF said that it was easy for her to learn Russian because she learned Latin previously, and well she is a native German speaker.