Kosovo declares independence

Remove all ads!

Well it's pretty much only a formality but now it's done. Kosovo has declared independence from Serbia and is expecting recgonition from most of EU as well as the United States. Russia and Serbia as most probably know will resist this declaration and Kosovo might be forced to wait for their de jure recognition for quite a while.

What do people around here think? Now that Svytoslav has been gone for a while I don't think there are lot of folks around to condemn this move by Kosovo but the declaration is never the less quite controversial from the legal point of view (there is no UN resolution accepting it) as well as from a political point of view. Considering that it will take years for Kosovo to be actually independent and free of all aid from EU. I'll be posting more thoughts later but at the meantime views of Kosovo's independence and its consequences are welcome.

 

Morgoroth, you Finnish ninja, you

Hmm, with Svyatoslav gone on hiatus - or just gone, I don't know which - I guess it falls to me to take up the mantle of pan-Slavic unity. Luckily or unfortunately, on this occasion I wouldn't be playing Devil's advocate with my feelings, either. I don't know if I can condemn it, but I wish it hadn't happened - and I think we'll regret it. From what I know, Kosovo has had an organized crime problem that makes my fair country seem law-abiding in comparison, and I've heard a few rumors that only Bosnia trumps it as far as Islamic extremism is concerned. With that in mind, and given the poor state of its industry and infrastructure, it might be a failed state in all but name*. Great, just what my metaphorical backyard needed.

From what I know of Serbian history, Kosovo is as important to them as Macedonia is for us, if for slightly different reasons... If I were to compare it with a formative moment in the US national narrative (or what I know of it), I'd say it would be kind of the Serbian Alamo, only with the added undertone of religion and spirituality - there are a whole lot of old churches and monasteries there, some of which got attacked after the region got autonomous. I hope you get what my view is... let's just say that it's an issue that is beyond sensitive: it's one of the site that make Serbian history what it is, and Serbians take history as seriously as anyone. I don't know, national relations in the Balkans are a weird thing. If we get to speak history, Bulgarians and Serbs haven't been getting along - pretty much never, really, or at least since both our people had our modern states got up and running in the 19th century (and not before then either, for all it counts). Yet on some level, I think most people I'd know would feel with the Serbs on that one. And if the secession/independence thing spreads to Macedonia - not that likely, I admit, but not impossible - things get a whole lot more personal. One thing is certain - the Serb nationalist minority, which almost captured the prime minister's post, is going to push the issue for all it's worth, and it will find ears enough to listen. If I remember correctly, the Serbs sure didn't expect Kosovo to go independent when they signed the peace treaty (which iirc Russia mediated, btw) back in 1998 - and while the agreement and the UN resolution spoke of wide autonomy, wide autonomy does not mean independence.

And as for the Kosovar "independence," the word deserves quotation marks the size of my thumb. I don't care how much they say they won't join another country - even if I didn't have my doubts about how likely it is that a country like that could really be independents, the Albanian flags all over Pristina would have tipped me off. What worries me most, however, is that the scenario might play itself once more... and if the Albanians in Macedonia decide to go that way too (they were playing that game a couple of years ago), **** may just hit the fan once again. While Kosovo is a hot topic for Serbia, Macedonia is a region which figures heavily in Greek and Bulgarian history as well. Eris' apple of discord has nothing on the Vardar plains, I can tell you that.

Well, now it's said and done, I wish the new country all the best, and hope they show at least as much tolerance and aid to their minorities as they got - not just in the last twenty years, mind you.

*: I don't know if we can blame the Serbs for that, either - a year or so ago I checked a few things for an argument in another forum, and it seemed Kosovo got more than it gave in the Yugoslav budget.

P.S.: I looked at this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7244538.stm when something struck me. In the part where the author mentions the argument against Kosovar independence, s/he mentions which EU countries are wary of it. Put them on a map, and most of them have something interesting in common.

 

Of course they have something in common, basques, catalans, nothern Cyprus, muslim minority in Thrace, muslim minority in southern Bulgaria, hungarian minority in Romania and they are not the only ones who are influenced by Kosovo's independence. Which logical can argument could persuade the Kurds that they have not the right to create their own state taking territories from Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey? Or the Palestinians? Or to take it even further, what could not convince Scots that they don't have the right to declare independence and leave UK? That is the problem with Kosovo's independence, it opens the can of many nationalistic desires that are lurking in many parts of the world and especially in Europe. It creates a dangerous example with a state being created without the acceptance of the previous owner of the territory. As far as I remember, this has never happened in the past (Taiwan is a very different story). Every time the a new state was created, it had the acceptance and recognision of the previous owner (who of cource was forced to agree and did it unwillingly).

Now as far as the future of Kosovo concerns, its independence will not last long, the annexation with Albania will take place in few years and then a new can of worms will be opened.

 

I meant that many of them were in geographical proximity to Kosovo, but your point is valid as well

 

With nationalistic movements in Catalunya, Basque Country, Scotland and Belgium flaring up in the last couple of years, it would indeed be a pretty bad can of worms if all these people decide that Kosovo is a precedent to be followed. I would like to say things wouldn't get this far, but having seen first-hand just how radical nationalism in all these places is becoming doesn't make me very optimistic.

 

I think that everyone who rejoices in face of Kosovo independence ought to think twice. Shaman is quite correct about pan-slavic feelings as the main reason why Russia supports Serbia. For Russia Kosovo's independence is very much 'in your face'. It's very much a special relationship between Russia and Serbia (both being orthodox and Slavic), much like the 'anglo-saxon' (white protestant) link between the US and the UK.

From newspaper commentators I have heard allegations of nefariousness to explain why Russia supports Serbia (after the 'logic' that evil supports evil ) which is of course nonsense. They never heard of the Balkan crises pre-dating WW-I I presume, or how WW-I started?

From a cost benefit view, to trade friendship with Russia for friendship with Kosovo is a stupid move. Which naturally means it is just a question of time until with unfailing savvy for the worst political deal and the most destructive gesture the state will be recognised as a nation state by the US and receive a state visit by President Bush himself, giving opportunity for a presidential legacy photo op. And I don't find the European support any less stupid.

From a practical point of view I do expect the Kosovars to fail economically and have severe political problems. The 'political leaders' that have emerged from the KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army, are mostly crooks and mostly criminal crooks. Considering the way it is now, the state will also have a persistent problem of corruption and organised crime. The country has no economical base and will continue to be dependent on aid. The state is not feasible except as a vessel for feelings of Kosovar nationalist grandeur, the consequence will inevitably be at a later point an attempt to merge it with Albania for a Greater Albania. It will be plagued by a chronic nationalism. At some later point we can probably expect 'resettlements' because according to the Albanian nationalists there is no place for Serbs in Greater Albania.

Just another nationalist folly.

 

I'm actually having problems believing someone could be so naive and yet call themselves a commentator, and I'd actually appreciate a link or two for the laugh.

Pan-slavism is not a great foundation for foreign policy, and imo it's not the leading factor for forming the Russian position on the topic. It certainly looks good for the public, of course, and you can never have too high party ratings - especially in case a corruption scandal pops up or the government makes a misstep somewhere. Yet as an old soc-film went, Moscow does not trust tears; imo the main reason for the Russian support is because of its own problems with separatism. Yet just how exactly it is nefarious for a state to preserve its territorial integrity? Pragmatic and self-serving, perhaps, but that's how states tend to be. Hell, a state that doesn't try to hold back a province or region(s) from seceding faces a risk of complete disintegration. It's pointless to speculate about history, but I doubt the US would have fared as well as it did if Lincoln had just shrugged and allowed the southern states to just go their way.

But you know what? This takes the cake: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_kosovo .

Oh my God. This woman is either clinically disturbed or beyond shameless. She studied, and taught, political science. This woman could have been my professor, and yet she says something which I bet would get a first-year student laughed out of a serious discussion - and with good reasons. Unusual combination of factors not found elsewhere? Oh dear, most of these factors - breakup of a multinational state, history of ethnic cleansing and crimes against civilians - were present on several occasions no further away than in the ex-USSR - the same ex-USSR that Ms Rice was an expert on during the Bush Sr. administration! Not to mention how many UN missions took place in countries that had, at some point, changed their borders or experienced oppression of civilians or ethnic cleansing. Why, if tomorrow the minorities in Bosnia decided to break up, what would have been different?

As for the UN administration, just how does it detract from Yugoslavia's rights in this case? Here's how: it doesn't. The UN administration only happened due to the UN declaration 1244, which is based on accords Yugoslavia accepted and Russia brokered - a UN declaration, by the way, that expressly reaffirms the territorian integrity of the Yugoslav federation and states that Kosovo is to enjoy autonomy within it. If anyone's interested, here's the full text, carefully look at the introduction, point 10, and annex II. Yet Ms. Rice uses the international presence based on the UN resolution to argue for a solution contrary to what is several times mentioned in the resolution and its annex - that Kosovo is to remain a part of Yugoslavia. It's like having your cake and eating it too.

It gets better, mind you. All UN member states, the US included, have commited themselves, I quote, "to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2." Oopsie, looks like they forgot.

Mind you, Ms Rice saved the best for last. "Kosovo cannot be seen as a precedent for any other situation in the world today. " Cannot? It very well can, and it will be. If the support of certain countries trumps a UN declaration, then said support is all it takes for any minority claiming ethnic oppression to go the way of Kosovo.

 

I would agree that independence may not have been the best of choice for Kosovo and an autonomy under Serbia would have been a better option for both of them, however after what Serbia did there I can understand why Kosovo Albanians would refuse to live under Serbia. There was only two options here and the KLA made it clear that only independence was acceptable, the other option being a guriella war and establishing of yet another de facto independent state, or even worse a Serbian occupation which no doubt would have led to more deaths. Former president (of Finland that is) Ahtisaari made quite clear that this was the option which would lead to the least bloodshed.

On the negative side, I absoltuely agree that the Kosovo economy will not stand alone, and to be honest the country will remain practically a NATO puppet state for quite some time with some serious "nation building" taking place. However successful that will be remains to be seen.

As for the damage done to the relations of Russia, trade will continue as normal, business is very much separate from this and won't be harmed so the economical point is moot. It is worth noting that Russia has it's fair share of de fact independent terretories in South Ossetia, Transdnistria and Abhkhazia, which are quite openly supported by Russia, with only the official declaration of independence lacking.

When it involves ethnic cleansing I'd say pretty damn nefarious. While it's pretty clear to me that Serbia today would not committ such attrocities I can't blame the Kosovo Albanians for fearing for it.

 

As an end, I'd say protecting its integrity it's about as neutral a goal for a state as they come. The means to do so might be nefarious or admirable, but it's something every state does, and can't really avoid. Besides, I was commenting on Ragusa's mention of newspapers who say Russia's support for Serbia is somehow "nefarious," not on Serbian history in this case.

 

Shaman,
that is the piece I had in mind, it's directly from the Prawda.

 

Well I'll be, that was some heavy-hitting stuff right there. The internet has all kinds of viewpoints, I suppose. Yet it seemed to me that the author was seeing Pristina only as a mirror to Baghdad anyway.

 

At Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard the attitude towards Russia is just like in the Cold War: They're evil and to be rolled back. And Kosovo is as good a reason to bash them as any other.

 

I'm sorry - maybe I'm just not as educated on the former Yugoslavian republics as others on this board - I'm aware of the NATO action there during Clinton's time in office but maybe I'm not as familiar with the back history - but is Serbia all that much more land hungry than a lot of their neighbors? And what is the fantasy of Great Serbia that you reference? Are they delusional in the sense that they think they should have far greater control of the Slavic territories than they presently do? I thought the fighting seen there was due to ethnic and religious differences more than control of the land itself.

 

Oh my - after reading the link it appears that the concept of a greater Serbia encompasses lands of a greater area than that of former Yugoslavia. I had assumed that the term referenced controlling all of the former Yugoslavian nations, but apparently it ecompasses pretty much everything that boardered the former Yugoslavia as well. At a bare minimum, it appears that in addition to the nation of Serbia that included Kosovo, Greater Serbia would consist of all the following nations, in full or at least in part:

• Macedonia
• Slovenia
• Croatia
• Montenegro
• Albania
• Austria
• Hungary
• Bulgaria
• Romania
• Slovakia

Yeah, that's pretty delusional.

 

I made a comment in the Pakistan thread that has relevance to the discussion here.