Kosovo

Published on February 18, 2008 By Leauki In Politics

After some consideration I have decided to support Kosovo's independence. Serbia's choice of allies and Kosovo's attitude towards America and Israel contributed to my decision.

It will be interesting to see how the Muslim world reacts to a country that

a) was carved out of another country

and is the result of occupation of parts of that country

c) has seen refugees leave the country who would probably be entitled to a “right of return”

d) and has the support of America and wins its wars because of that support.

I don't think the above really applies to Israel but it does apply to Kosovo.

And while I support Kosovo for the same reasons I support Israel, I will look forward to the Arab world showing their support for a fellow Muslim country without condoning occupation and the “refugee” problem.

Even funnier will be Syria's and Iran's reaction. Their great powerful ally is Russia, who has been handed a dismal defeat in Kosovo. Can Iran and Syria recognise Kosovo without angering Russia? Can they afford angering Russia?

Another aspect is that Kosovo's independence is a slap in the face of Islamic fundamentalists. An America-loving Muslim country that is in the international spotlight as such, that is allied with Turkey and friends with Israel is a terrible propaganda loss. Plus it supports the Europe-friendly secular elite of Turkey. The liberation of Muslim Kosovo is their victory, not the Islamists' and Kosovo appears to want to become a new Turkey, not a new Iran.

Just like Israel Kosovo has an enemy who wants to destroy it. Some people have compared Kosovo to the "Palestinians", but I don't think the comparison makes much sense. The Kosovars want independence but do not want to destroy Serbia. The "Palestinians" on the other hand want to destroy Israel but have consistently rejected actual independence (in 1948, 1967, 1994, 2000, and finally 2006 in Gaza).

Kosovo might set a precedent, that's true. But I would laugh if the West Bank declared itself independent again. The precedent now is that if you do, your former sovereign doesn't owe you anything. That'd be the day when Israel is no longer forced to provide electriticy and health care to "Palestinians".

And what is perhaps more interesting is that we have been focusing so much on "Islamic" fundamentalists (and to a degree Arab nationalism) that we have forgotten about the existing enemy, Russia. Russia has only been in the picture as a helper of Iran and Syria and Saddam's primary weapons source; but it doesn't look like Russia has given up superpower aspirations.

Losing Kosovo is defeat for Russia and in this case Russia cannot act militarily because confronting American or British or even French or German troops would mean admitting that the Russian army is useless.

Russia can use force against brake-away provinces in the Caucasus where she faces a few terrorists, but fighting the British would be different. If it turns nuclear it's the end of the world, if it doesn't, it will be the end of the legend of the Russian army and an economic disaster for Russia. Russia knows that and hence didn't react as violentely or angrily as was perhaps expected.

I wish Russia best of luck with keeping Iran and Syria inline. They have chosen their alliances and should stick to them, Russia deserves as much.

And I wish Kosovo and the Albanians all the best. Keep the American and European flags up and show to the world that another part of Yugoslavia has become part of the west. We need people like them.

As for Serbia, they have chosen the wrong allies and were disappointed by them. Russia is not as powerful as Serbia thought she was. Russia knew that and tried everything to stop this conflict. And yes, Kosovo was/is the core of the Serbian kingdom, but Kosovo was also a part of Albanian kingdoms and the Ottoman empire. The argument "we were here first" or "we were here longest" is not as powerful as "we are here now" and "we do not intend to harm anybody".

The Kosovars are not out to get Serbians and life and peace are more important than territory. Serbia does not need Kosovo to defend itself against her enemies because Serbia does not have any enemies now.

Comments (Page 1)

cactoblasta

on Feb 18, 2008

I think you're understating the amount of hostility towards ethnic Serbs in Kosovo, but perhaps with independence that will die down a lot. Certainly I think we'll either see a short, sharp increase in atrocities against ethnic Serbs (with a corresponding flight from Kosovo) or things will become more peaceful without much fuss. I still expect to see a flgiht from Kosovo by ethnic Serbs though. Which way things go is up to to the Kosovan people.

As for the pro-US, anti-Russia thing, I have a feeling Kosovo will be invited into the EU before it's invited into NATO. By which I mean it's more likely to be EU-aligned than US-aligned.

That makes sense too, considering its position and its most likely trading partners. The US was undeniably influential in the area's protection and creation, but in the face of a huge and probably fairly accessible trading bloc to the east I think priorities might shift a little over the next decade or so.

All in all though I think it's a positive thing. Self-determination is always a good thing. A people that makes their own choices have a better chance of success than a people who can't or won't.

Leauki

on Feb 18, 2008

Kosovo is already in NATO, in the sense that is is occupied by NATO troops. Membership wouldn't change much as Kosovo certainly cannot send troops to help other NATO members.

As for the EU, I'm not sure. Kosovo is poor and its independence is opposed by Spain and Greece.

Cikomyr

on Feb 18, 2008

Kosovo is already in NATO, in the sense that is is occupied by NATO troops. Membership wouldn't change much as Kosovo certainly cannot send troops to help other NATO members.As for the EU, I'm not sure. Kosovo is poor and its independence is opposed by Spain and Greece.

On the other hand, NATO membership garantee that if it is attacked, NATO will automaticly declare war upon the agressor. I think Kosovo kinda need that sort of protection in the near future.

Leauki

on Feb 18, 2008

NATO membership garantee that if it is attacked, NATO will automaticly declare war upon the agressor. I think Kosovo kinda need that sort of protection in the near future.

A presence of NATO troops is just such a guarantee. West-Berlin wasn't in NATO, but the presence of American and British troops made attacking it virtually impossible.

Problem is, the aggressor will be Russia. NATO cannot risk war with Russia because it has to turn nuclear for Russia to remain a world power. Serbia cannot win against even the occupation troops currently in Kosovo.

Leauki

on Feb 18, 2008

Quoting doesn't appear to work correctly.

Cikomyr

on Feb 19, 2008

A presence of NATO troops is just such a guarantee. West-Berlin wasn't in NATO, but the presence of American and British troops made attacking it virtually impossible.

but becoming a member of NATO makes the whole situation permanent. It was the joining of West-Berlin in NATO that prompted the creation of the Warsaw pact.

Dr Guy

on Feb 19, 2008

This will be an interesting scenaraio. I note that while some nibble at the issues, no one has really debated the core of your article,

Seems most agree with you, as do I.

Anthony R

on Feb 19, 2008

I don't think the US, EU or the UN should be in the business of enforcing unilateral declarations of sovereignty. Something had to be done in this region to stop the violence, but thats it. Once the violence ended, our business should have ended. This region is the birthplace of world war and one of the worst flash points in the world. Perhaps the worst flash point. The same pan nationalistic sentiments that caused WWI still exist in the world, and its very dangerous for us to interfere with this dispute unless there is a genocide or a humanitarian crisis. We should proceed with extreme caution.

Leauki

on Feb 20, 2008

It was the joining of West-Berlin in NATO that prompted the creation of the Warsaw pact.

West-Germany joined NATO in 1955. West-Berlin, like East-Germany joined in 1990, effective 1994.

Before that date West-Berlin could not join NATO because it was not part of an independent state.

East-Berlin was (illegally) annexed by East-Germany.

I don't think the US, EU or the UN should be in the business of enforcing unilateral declarations of sovereignty.

Why not?

Serbian rule over several other peoples was the reason for the violence. The violence in the rest of Yugoslavia ended when either Serbian rule or the Serbian military presence was ended. And none of the other peoples of Yugoslavia wanted to remain a part of an entity controlled by Serbia, not even Montenegro.

The same pan nationalistic sentiments that caused WWI still exist in the world

A Serbian terrorist caused WWI. There were other indirect causes. But it was a Serbian attempt to create a Greater Serbia that ultimately started it.

The sentiments still exist, but taking Kosovo away from one of the pan-nationalist entities will weaken them.

Cikomyr

on Feb 20, 2008

West-Germany joined NATO in 1955. West-Berlin, like East-Germany joined in 1990, effective 1994.
Before that date West-Berlin could not join NATO because it was not part of an independent state.
East-Berlin was (illegally) annexed by East-Germany.

Oops, indeed. That was I meant. But it was a single city, which is not quite the same thing on the scale of military involvement when you are assuring the defence.

And since W-Berlin wasn't a nation-state, the whole political ramification of joining NATO was nil from the start, so I don't see why you use it as an example. If W-Berlin would have been allowed to join NATO, do you think it would have?

Something had to be done in this region to stop the violence, but thats it. Once the violence ended, our business should have ended. This region is the birthplace of world war and one of the worst flash points in the world. Perhaps the worst flash point.

A lot of people agreed that the non-independance of Kosovo would only have lead to more violence eventually. And since Serbia refused any form of sovereignty of Kosovo, there would be no other way, on the long run, to do the right thing except unilaterally.

Leauki

on Feb 20, 2008

And since W-Berlin wasn't a nation-state, the whole political ramification of joining NATO was nil from the start, so I don't see why you use it as an example. If W-Berlin would have been allowed to join NATO, do you think it would have?

I used it as an example because it demonstrated that a state that is not a member of NATO but occupied by NATO troops is still completely secure.

West-Berlin didn't have a military hence couldn't have helped any NATO allies. But NATO troops nevertheless would have defended West-Berlin and maintained a strong presence in the city.

Cikomyr

on Feb 21, 2008

West-Berlin didn't have a military hence couldn't have helped any NATO allies. But NATO troops nevertheless would have defended West-Berlin and maintained a strong presence in the city.

But again, I ask it. If the NATO's constitution would have allowed W. Berlin to join in the first place, do you think it would have?

So, I Kosovo requires NATO's protection against Serbia & Russia, they should be allowed to join NATO to make the whole protection deal permanent. That would be a nice gesture toward the Muslim on NATO's part.

Leauki

on Feb 21, 2008

So, I Kosovo requires NATO's protection against Serbia & Russia, they should be allowed to join NATO to make the whole protection deal permanent. That would be a nice gesture toward the Muslim on NATO's part.

NATO does not exist to make gestures.

A military alliance exists, nominally, for members to provide support to each other. Kosovo cannot possibly be of any help.

I think NATO should protect Kosovo, but I don't see membership.

West-Berlin is really to special a situation. Its rulers were NATO military.

Cikomyr

on Feb 21, 2008

Its rulers were NATO military.

So, NATO protected W. Berlin because they were protecting their interest, or at least their own skin. They weren't there volountary for W.Berlin's sole sake. QED.

Leauki

on Feb 21, 2008

So, NATO protected W. Berlin because they were protecting their interest, or at least their own skin. They weren't there volountary for W.Berlin's sole sake. QED.

QED? You think NATO protected West-Berlin because of the presence of NATO generals in West-Berlin?

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to withdraw the NATO generals?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!