Independence

One of the main reasons Serbia is against the indepenence of Kosovo is that it regards the battle at "Kosovo Fields" as a defining moment in the beginning of their nation even though the Serbs were defeated.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kosovo)

A small quote:

"The Battle of Kosovo is regarded to this day as a milestone in the Serbian national identity. It remained a symbol of Serbian patriotism and desire for independence for centuries under Ottoman rule. The Battle of Kosovo has had recent impact in the Kosovo War cultural relations remain tense as the majority Muslim Albanians claim that their majority should grant them the right to independence while the minority Serbs claim that, partly due to the famous battle, Kosovo is still an important and integral part of Serbia."

The speech given by Milosevic at Kosovo Fields in 1989 indictated that Serbia under no circumstances would relinquish their control over this area.

Another main reason is that the Serbs reguard themselves as doing Europe a favour by stemming the flow of Muslims into greater Europe.

Part of his speech on 28th June 1989:

"Six centuries ago, Serbia heroically defended itself in the field of Kosovo, but it also defended Europe. Serbia was at that time the bastion that defended the European culture, religion, and European society in general."

At the time a friend of mine who was born in Australia of Yugoslavian heritage said to me, "Serbia will never ever let Kosovo become independent as it is too important to Serbian history" I must point out that whilst her mother is ethnically Serbian, her father is ethnically a Bosnian Muslim, so she can't be seen as having any bias.

I was going to correct my spelling mistakes (damn 15 minute limit!), but ran out of time, I was also going to say that the speech given by Milosevic in 1989 was alledgedly given to 1 million people.

So why isn't Somaliland recognised a separate county?

They broke away from Somalia following the collaspe of the central government in 1991. They have a democratically elected government, their own currency and passports and are a very stable country in a traditionally volatile area. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland)

Lets look at West Papua, alledgedly part of Indonesia, sharing nothing in common with that country as Papuans are Melalesian and not Asian, sold out by the west and in particular the US in the late sixties due to the concern of communism and the domino effect.
Indonesia will not give up West Papua due to the amount of natural resources that are there, google "Freeport Mine" for starters and also look at http://www.freewestpapua.com.au/news.php
Indonesia is moving Javanese by the thousands to West Papua and other so called Christian areas through their Transmigration policy to dilute the non Indonesian population, similar to the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories.

East Timor's bid for independence can be seen in the same light as above with regards to the fear that communism would sweep down through South East Asia. They finally threw off Indonesian control in 2002, although to be quite honest, in my opinion they (Indonesia) are still heavily meddling in East Timor's internal affairs.

Tibet? well the west isn't going to upset China and allow that to happen, same can be said for Uighur independence in the west of China.

There was a BBC series called "Holidays in the Danger Zone, Places That Don't Exist", the episode on Somaliland was very enlightening.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documen...nt-exist.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Personally I think that the Republic of Kosovo in inherantly a good idea, since it's ethnically different to Serbia for the most part...

---

I think that's the dangerous part about the whole independence issue, whether it be Kosovo or any other region.

Should differing ethnicity be enough cause to grant independence? I don't know enough about the history of the place to be sure but I believe that the only reason that there is a differing ethnicity in Kosovo from that of Serbia is that many Albanians have moved there over the years and, as a result, the Serbs have moved out. Jens' example of Russians in Estonia is another example.

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.

The other question that has to be answered is whether Kosovo (or Scotland, Quebec, Catalunya etc.) can actually support themselves economically. As it stands now, Kosovo is going to need massive handouts from other nations to survive. That's not a great foundation to build a nation on, particularly when you are starting from a low economic level such as where Kosovo are today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camelopard

East Timor's bid for independence can be seen in the same light as above with regards to the fear that communism would sweep down through South East Asia. They finally threw off Indonesian control in 2002, although to be quite honest, in my opinion they (Indonesia) are still heavily meddling in East Timor's internal affairs.

[/URL]

---

East Timor liberation happened once we have president from civil who couldn't endure international pressure and foreign interferences, especially Australia who would love to see a thorn of an independent region within Indonesian territory to ease them disturbing economic exclusive zone of the ocean of Indonesia.

As an independent country relationship between two countries is now changed to cooperative bilateral relationship to enhance the better quality of life. Although we can't see yet that Timor have anything better than that of they were integrated to Indonesia. Politically they are not ready that the differences among elite of politic have caused murder trial to the president, prime minister and contagious chaos in the said new born country.

Learning from experience, govt must be more careful to the international interference that naming themselves under international human right organization or whatever that may possibly provoke Papuan urge for the independent. Papua is now has special autonomy that enable them wider authority to take care their internal affair themselves.

We would love to keep military president whose capability of unifying the thousand islands, accommodating separatism movement such as the prolonged conflict of Free Aceh Movement peacefully, is excellent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leopardsleeping

...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.

---

I'm sure that West Papua fits this category, whereas I don't think Aceh does.

Nusa Tenggara, Maluku are I think the same ethnic as Papua, the difference we found many half white as the result of intersection once England or Portuguese occupied them.

There is not any difference of ideology, we acknowledge 5 religions all of which have equal treatment.
Integrity is fixed price, no room for separatism.

The ultimate diversity, you will find us multi ethnics country, Javanese, Sundanese, Madurese, Borneo, Celebes, Malay, and hundreds more have its own culture and characteristic. We are one, one for all all for one ;) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

It stands to reason that the Serbian government should be so tetchy about recoginising Kosovian independance. They stand to lose a fair slab of money through lost taxation revenues..

---

Not at all. It's a fact that kosovars weren't paying any tax and lived on international aids.The ball is in their court now cos they have no budget and their main activity - traffic of drugs and weapons and prostitution - is hardly taxable. :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Personally I think that the Republic of Kosovo in inherantly a good idea, since it's ethnically different to Serbia for the most part, and when they aren't even on amicable terms, then rule by another state will always be resented.

---

Yeah, because for you words like Kosovopolje means only Merle's Meadow . :laugh:
But following your reasoning then Macedonia or Bosnia weren't good ideas because there are still more ethnics.


Anyway I'll give you a tip: Serbia still owns Vojvodina, another multi-ethnical region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Camelopard

One of the main reasons Serbia is against the indepenence of Kosovo is that it regards the battle at "Kosovo Fields" as a defining moment in the beginning of their nation even though the Serbs were defeated.

---

Similar to Ireland and the battle of the Boyne. You need to learn from history but then also learn to let it go in order to move forward.

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.