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?
i'm reading independent people right now, pretty good book.....
The balkans has been a mess in general for a long time. I talked to someone a long while ago who fled the fighting there and he said that everything was fine with the different ethnic groups living together then came the day when people would go into their next door neighbours house and murder everyone there because they were a different ethnicity,, crazy.
Who cares? If the people of Kosovo decide to be an independent country it is a problem between Serbia and Kosovo.Quote:
Originally Posted by leopardsleeping
The thought of the UN doing anything is scarey.
Clearly, the conflict of the 1990s — a war literally 'on Europe's doorstep', with effects that went wider than individual country borders — passed you by.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I can think of worse things. Regime change, anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
By the way, gadjo_dilo, thank you for a very good and thought-provoking response. I still don't really agree entirely with you, as I believe that the process of separation became inevitable, but I do agree that it was a shame it had to happen, especially in the way it did. I am also of the same opinion as you regarding the desperate state Kosovo finds itself in.
Becoming independant and then joining up to the EU, seems almost odd.
When does a country become independant then, when <70% of the world has recognised it? What's to stop Scotland, Catalunya et al doing the same thing?
It is still an independent sovereign state though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
If the people of those areas want it and can make sensible, informed decisions, then let them. In both cases, I feel it would be a mistake, but each to their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
Interesting reading there Gadjo_Dilo! I have always had big difficulties in grasping the ethnic and nation-questions of the balkan countries and in the south eastern parts of Europe.
Most swedish people are rather un-nationalistic, and tend to celebrate more when Norway have their 17 of may rather then on our own 6 of june. I guess we are a bit yealous ;)
In the end though I must say that I can understand if people feels pride in their home-country, but on the other hand it probaly also depends on how old the nation is, and how long ago you had to fight for it. Sweden have been very lame, or wise, depending upon how you see it, and not been involved in warfare for almost 200 years. I think this have brought along a very little interest in what really constitutes a state.
Norway, for example, was invaded by the germans in WWII, and furthermore recently celebrated their 100 years anniversary of freedom from the union with Sweden, which was abandoned in 1905. Something many swedes regret today... Funnily enough Sweden had a clausul in the contract which stated that they could oppose to the annulment of the union until 2005. Pity no one did... Put maybe that would have been a somewhat sensitive question :D Anyway, this have naturally led to the norwegians being far more patriotic then the swedish people.
A healthy world, I believe, is a world which moves towards disregarding state-formations, and more look to peoples needs, more than states needs(that is people bond by something else then agreements on paper..). As long as our world is defined by fire-power it is a long way to go though...
It is also interesting that country after country line up to be a part of the EU. I wonder how this will look in a hundred years or so. First you kill some people in order to defend your country, then a few years later your children apply in order to make the country you fought for a part of a big union. Will there come a day when we look at the states of Europe as nothing more then beurocratical devices required for tax-control? Will there come a day when we laugh at the old patriots who gave their lives for their right to a state, and a piece of recogniced land, or will patriotisme once again flourish?
Regarding Kosovo I feel glad for their happiness, but I am also a bit worried about their possibilities in the long run. It is not a rich country we are talking about. Poor people in combination with patriotism have proven an unhealthy mix before, even more so since the serbs are not all that happy with the new country.
I wish them all the best for the future, and keep my fingers crossed.
But what legally has to happen? This is what confuses me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
There is confusion over this, hence the disagreements between different parties over Kosovo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
Legally?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
LOL
Here it is in a nutshell.....Kosovo declares independence. The rest of the world pays off Serbia not to get pissed off.
I think that the idea of a country of less than a square mile is also "odd" but one of those exists within the city of Rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
Catalunya is tehcnically known as an "autonomous community" which is kind of like Scotland in that some civil law does exist within its borders but things like taxation and the defence forces are part of a national entity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew
Scotland itself is a "constituent country" which is a term that doesn't really have a definition.
What's to stop them? Not much really. It would take a few legal instruments such as repealing the Act of Unions in the case of Scotland, but if enough impetus was shown it could be done fairly smoothly.
Specifically with Scotland, there is a set of triggers for indpendance relating to the adoption of the Euro; mainly because it would cripple the Scottish banks and therefore the economic stability of the country.
[quote="anthonyvop"]Who cares? If the people of Kosovo decide to be an independent country it is a problem between Serbia and Kosovo.quote]
You obviously care, seeing as you bothered to read this thread and make your normal carefully thought out response to it. :confused:
You obviously care, seeing as you bothered to read this thread and make your normal carefully thought out response to it. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Actually for me it's hard to make a proper statement here as Kosovo's (or Kosova's as they write now) case creates an interesting situation here in Estonia too. From the plus side we have fought for independence and know, how much does it mean for some folks to become independent.
On the other hand most of the Kosovo's people are Albanians and many have asked that why won't they unite with Albania. Estonian government has said that they'll recognize Kosovo's independence, but if we look more closely, we can see a similar situation arising here too. A neighbour's Russian minority in our country (as neighbour's Albanian minority in Serbia), who mostly live in Eastern part in our country. On Sunday a Russian grouping here declared that by the example of Kosovo Eastern Estonia should be given independence too. Therefore IMO at least for us it's a bit dangerous to recognize Kosovo quickly and we shouldn't rush, but more likely wait.
But while lots of examples of other possible breakaway factions have been cited in the last few days — the Scots, the Basques, the Corsicans, the one you mention — all are different because, discounting the ETA campaign of terror in Spain, none have been the subject of a recent war, and none seem as likely to declare independence as Kosovo has since the late 1990s. (By the way, am I the only person to have detected some revisionist history in recent days? During the war in 1999, there was a very large body of public opinion in Kosovo along the lines of hating NATO for its bombing, but hating Milosevic more. Now we are told that there are banners in praise of NATO on the streets of Kosovo. How times change...)Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
The intervention of Vladimir Putin in this one is troubling, too, for while he may have a point about the legal status of the independent Kosovo, his way of dealing with would-be breakaways has been clear for all to see in Chechnya and I don't think that's a model for the Serbs to follow.
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.
I find it curious that Serbia's minister of Kosovo, Slobodan Samardzic calls this a "breach of international law", and conveniently ignores the fact that with a 90% turnout for elections on referenda of independence in '91 & '92 Serbia declared them null and void; thus making a mockery of "democracy".
Well this is a broader question. Would the people of "Eastern Estonia" vote for it if a referendum was held? Which maakonnad are we actually talking about here? Could Idu-Viru or Polva logically support themselves? Somehow I doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
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.
That's an interesting thought, though I also wonder how much of a drain Kosovo was on Serbia's resources, given its poor economic state. Presumably, also, the revenue gained from taxation in Kosovo wouldn't have been that great per head of population as a result of the low incomes there, though for some reason I don't know enough about the Serbian taxation system to be sure!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
And, one would hope, the new Kosovar government will respect the rights of the Serb minority and not make the same mistakes in this regard that Serb governments of the past have made in Kosovo itself. This will be a key to the success of independence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
I should have been more precise in my post and talked about "Northeastern Estonia". Actually hard to give any percentage in case of a referendum. Although for example in Narva arguably about 90% are Russians, then it seems that at least some amount of Russians are satisfied with living in this state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Also with the Kosovo issue the problems of recognizing states like Southern Ossetia and Abkhazia arise.
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
I think that's the dangerous part about the whole independence issue, whether it be Kosovo or any other region.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopard
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.
I'm sure that West Papua fits this category, whereas I don't think Aceh does.Quote:
Originally Posted by leopardsleeping
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 ;) .
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
Yeah, because for you words like Kosovopolje means only Merle's Meadow . :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopard
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.