(Rational) Discussion on Kosovo

turgon

If your going to reply please do so rationally.

I think the heart of this issue is that there are 2 million Albanian's (90 percent) in Kosovo. Now these want independence.

A roughly similar comparison could readily be made with Ireland in 1920. Most of the populace desired independence and they got it. With the sting in the tail of not getting the North. But thats similarly like as if Serbia kept the two northern countries where Serbs warrant a majority. So anyone who favors Irish independence from Britain can hardly condemn Kosovar independence, at least that is how I see it.

So I cannot understand how this is undemocratic or wrong. The only problem is if other groups (like the Basques in Spain) wrongly follow suit, and if it becomes accepted that any group can become a nation. Which is obviously wrong. Otherwise there would be six billion nations in the world (i myself wouldn't mind being a king of my own country.....!!!!)

andala

I don't think Irish independence has anything to do with Kosovar independence. The Irish were occupied by Brits. Albanians in Kosovo came there, they are not native inhabitants of this area. Never before has there been a Kosovar country.

If there used to be such a country, I would love to read about it and review my views about this region as the last thing I want to be is biased.

If you claim democracy itself has the power to establish countries then I don't understand why Basques or Chechnians are despised and called terrorists by some sources.

What I feel is wrong with Kosovo having become an independent country, is the fact that it is a country of immigrants, not a country regaining its independence. It is like legalising a diaspora and extorting a piece of another sovereign country for this aim. Albanians already have their country. How fair and democratic is it to have two official countries?

brianthebard

andala wrote: »

I don't think Irish independence has anything to do with Kosovar independence. The Irish were occupied by Brits. Albanians in Kosovo came there, they are not native inhabitants of this area. Never before has there been a Kosovar country.

The problem is there was no Serbian country a few years ago either. We're talking about a region of diverse ethnic groups, which less than 100 years ago was ruled by a variety of empires, and after that by the USSR. So its not exactly fair to talk about nations and nationality given that most of the people of the region (not just Serbs and Kosovarans(?)) have only had about 10 or 20 years to start building concepts of nationalism without outside interference.

turgon

Andala, your solution to the problem would be apparently to move all the Kosovars back to Albania? I cannot see you views supporting any other solution. Would it be fair then to ask, for example, all the protestants in Ireland to kindly vacate to Britain? I do not think so.

The Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985 states that northern Ireland will remain in which country the majority wish. This is similar: the majority wish to be independent and so be it.

Apologies if I am making to many comparisons with Northern Ireland.

Final not: could you please support your claim of all Kosovars being modern immigrants with a reputable website or something. I'm not being cheeky, but that is such a major point being made and I would like to know the full story and and not be naive!

turgon

Forgot to mention the Basques Chechen etc. I just think with all the history there, of Kosovo being under UN administration and all the conflict there that it warrants independence. But you raise an excellent point: how far do you go with these groups? I think its a tough question to answer, and in fact something that must be dealt with on a case by case basis. But your right: we all cant go mad and be setting up republics everywhere.

FTA69

BTB,

We're talking about a region of diverse ethnic groups, which less than 100 years ago was ruled by a variety of empires, and after that by the USSR.

Yugoslavia was not ruled by the USSR at all, but was a member of the Non-Aligned crowd. The area was also probably much more stable and generally better off under Yugoslavia than the ever expanding group of ethnic states we are seeing today.

Turgon,

A roughly similar comparison could readily be made with Ireland in 1920. Most of the populace desired independence and they got it.

There is no comparison. Irish Republicanism is about Irish people in the country of Ireland determining their own political destiny as a unit, that has not come about yet. Republicans would also argue against the concept of an aritificial minority created by a power a bloc having a veto over secession.

The only problem is if other groups (like the Basques in Spain) wrongly follow suit,

How is the concept of Basque independence "wrong"? The Basques are the oldest nation in Europe, they suffer cultural and political discrimination; they are as entitled as anyone to self-determination. In contrast, Kosovans are not a nation at all, rather they are either Albanians or Serbs who live in a province which is disputed. The Basque case for independence is arguably a lot stronger than that of Kosovo.

That having been said I'm all up for Kosovo, the amount of cheap fags I get off the Albanians in work is unreal.

DadaKopf

But you raise an excellent point: how far do you go with these groups?

Logically, you go down to the nearest grain of sand. Practically, you have to stop somewhere. Someone has to impose order.

It should be said that the international system being discussed here is really only 300 years old. Sovereign states are the primary 'units' of the system, which therefore imposes a particular logic, which is only as strong or as weak as what people make of it.

Anyway, as for Kosovo, clearly it was created as a protectorate to prevent further killing of ethnic Albanians, and I'm not sure what the way out from this could be. The thing about saying, "it's always been part of Serbia" or "it belongs to Albania" or whatever is that these boundaries are recent historical constructions. The historical argument doesn't hold up. I can't imagine even rational, peacenik Serbians letting it go. The political argument is the only game in town, and it could get bloody. The inhabitants within the Protectorate of Kosovo are already suffering.

The Basques are the oldest nation in Europe

Let's be clear about terms. They say they have a unique language, and the Basques are among the oldest of the European cultures. But 'nationalism' is a recent concept (arising out of the new international system which carved up territories as sovereign units) - therefore, the Basque 'nation' is as old as all the other nations when they discovered the ideology of cultural identity. That is, fairly recent.

andala

turgon wrote: »

Andala, your solution to the problem would be apparently to move all the Kosovars back to Albania? I cannot see you views supporting any other solution.

No, actually I see no solution that would satisfy both Serbs and Albanians. The point I was trying to make was that EU and US decision about granting independence to Kosovo was a dangerous one. If Albania claimed the Kosovar territory, I believe the decision would be different. The strategy of claiming independence by a new country was by far safer. The problem is that the region of Kosovo is inhabited by Albanians - a nation that HAS its country. The decision that most of the world accepted was to create a new country on a territory of one country with a nation of another. A hybrid.

To make things worse, we have approved a new country and a new nation, but at the same time reject granting the same rights to a pre-existing nation i.e. Basques. Also, these are basis for any numerous group of immigrants (speculative as it may be whether they are immigrants, Kosovar Albanians had Serbian citizenship) to vote independence on any country's territory.

As for reliable sources, I have no idea if there are any. The problem with history is that it is always a subjective view depending on the author. In the locked thread I quoted Wikipedia, which was ridiculed straight away but no sources were given either to prove me wrong.

However, I do agree that it's no use debating over whose territory it originally was and who has the historical right to it. It is impossible to state which century's borders should be reinstated or to design a modern world by means of ethnic belonging as this would alter all the boundaries.

DadaKopf

An Garticle a few days ago called Kosovo a 'post-modern state'. Basically, it will be independent on paper, but will be effectively an EU protectorate. Kosavars will have no executive or decision-making power. The gap between image and reality is enormous.

FTA69

DadaKopf wrote: »

Let's be clear about terms. They say they have a unique language, and the Basques are among the oldest of the European cultures. But 'nationalism' is a recent concept (arising out of the new international system which carved up territories as sovereign units) - therefore, the Basque 'nation' is as old as all the other nations when they discovered the ideology of cultural identity. That is, fairly recent.

Nonsense, cultural identity is not necessarily an ideology and nor is it intrinsically linked to the concept of political nationalism. People have always been aware of their ethnicity and the concept of nations.

Running Bing

turgon wrote: »

If your going to reply please do so rationally.

I think the heart of this issue is that there are 2 million Albanian's (90 percent) in Kosovo. Now these want independence.

A roughly similar comparison could readily be made with Ireland in 1920. Most of the populace desired independence and they got it. With the sting in the tail of not getting the North. But thats similarly like as if Serbia kept the two northern countries where Serbs warrant a majority. So anyone who favors Irish independence from Britain can hardly condemn Kosovar independence, at least that is how I see it.

So I cannot understand how this is undemocratic or wrong. The only problem is if other groups (like the Basques in Spain) wrongly follow suit, and if it becomes accepted that any group can become a nation. Which is obviously wrong. Otherwise there would be six billion nations in the world (i myself wouldn't mind being a king of my own country.....!!!!)

Some major differences between the situations though.

Amazes me to see Britain is in support of it. Slightly hypocritical no?

Running Bing

turgon wrote: »

Andala, your solution to the problem would be apparently to move all the Kosovars back to Albania? I cannot see you views supporting any other solution. Would it be fair then to ask, for example, all the protestants in Ireland to kindly vacate to Britain? I do not think so.

The Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985 states that northern Ireland will remain in which country the majority wish. This is similar: the majority wish to be independent and so be it.

Apologies if I am making to many comparisons with Northern Ireland.

Final not: could you please support your claim of all Kosovars being modern immigrants with a reputable website or something. I'm not being cheeky, but that is such a major point being made and I would like to know the full story and and not be naive!

How do you define the majority though? Personally, as a nationalist, I feel a vote on northern Ireland should encompass the whole of the island.

turgon wrote: »

Apologies if I am making to many comparisons with Northern Ireland.

Not at all, I think its fascinating to draw comparisons tbh, even though as I have stated there are some major differences.

CamillaRhodes

The question of 'right' or 'wrong' in Kosovo, whether it be independence or whatever, goes back to the break-up of Yugoslavia and the war, aspects of which are still open to debate as to their 'rightness' or 'wrongness'. Issues of morality vs. legality also get entangled.

Was the ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo wrong? Absolutely. But does that mean the bombing of Serbia was right? Many would argue not necessarily so. However, by bombing Serbia into submission, the Albanians were essentially told by NATO that they (the Albanians) were right and the Serbs were wrong. So does that then mean that what the Albanians want is right, and what the Serbs want is wrong?

Serbia is arguing that the declaration of independence is illegal, not morally wrong. And to many extents, Serbia is right. Does that mean that the Albanian right to self-determination is wrong?

I find discussions of 'right' and 'wrong' in politics to be unhelpful sometimes. I'd be interested to hear the views of lawyers (I'm not one) on the question of whether this is legal or illegal.

cabinteelytom

Dermot Ahern has said Ireland will recognise Kosovo and added,' the bitter legacy of the killings of thousands in Kosovo and the ethnic cleansing of many more has effectively ruled out any restoration of Serbian dominion in Kosovo'.
Let us remember this principle of the Irish government; that states which disgrace themselves by killing thousands of civilians and practice ethnic cleansing should lose territory. Hear..Hear.
Unfortunately in this case there has to be the uncomfortable feeling that the support for Kosovo in other quarters is based less upon a principle of self determination for poorly armed people, and more about seizing the fruits of cold war victory.
Serbia did utterly disgrace itself, and some action is appropriate.
But should subviable new states be assisted to become 'independant'? Can the result be stable?
Parallels between Ireland and other countries usually strike me as very specious, and usually neglect how unique a place Ireland is. I might accept some parallels with Japan...stronger if the 'devine wind' had not saved them.

Midna

Babybing wrote: »

Some major differences between the situations though.
Amazes me to see Britain is in support of it. Slightly hypocritical no?

not really, they're not the same people for it to hypocritical.

not surprised at spain's stance. I wonder has madrid bombing changed their policies on such external conflicts.

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

People have always been aware of their ethnicity and the concept of nations.

Not really; the idea of a nation, in the modern sense at least, is a relatively new concept.

The fact that Kosovo has never before existed as a sovereign nation is irrelevant in my opinion. I think Dermot Ahern is right in saying that the actions of Serbia in Kosovo made it virtually impossible for the two to exist as one nation, not that the Kosovars are saints themselves. There would appear to be few options other than self-determination.

I'm not sure if the parallels being drawn with Ireland are all that relevant - Kosovo's history is vastly different to our own.

Partizan

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Dermot Ahern has said Ireland will recognise Kosovo and added,' the bitter legacy of the killings of thousands in Kosovo and the ethnic cleansing of many more has effectively ruled out any restoration of Serbian dominion in Kosovo'.
Let us remember this principle of the Irish government; that states which disgrace themselves by killing thousands of civilians and practice ethnic cleansing should lose territory. Hear..Hear.
.

So Spain should lose the Basque Region for the disgraceful way that it treated them, France with Polynesia and New Caledonia, likewise Croatia shoudl lose Kraijina & Eastern Slavonia for murdering 1.7 million of its constituent Serbs and Jews in WW2. How many have been killed in the disastrous US invasion of Iraq? Your argument does not stand up at all. The independence of 'Kosova' has nothing to do about bringing peace and democracy to the 'Kosovan' people. It is about the US setting up a NATO puppet colony for its own selfish geo-strategic interests in the process wrenching 18% of Serbian territory from Belgrade in flagrant violation of International Law (UN Resolution 1244, Helsinki Final Act 1976 which governs and upholds the territorial integrity and involibility of nation states) and gaining a foothold in the Balkans so it can point more missiles at Russia and gain control of the area's resources. Also the present Serbian government has no links or no connection whatsoever with the actions of the previous Yugoslav regimes of Milosevic or Tito. The current government in Belgrade was democratically elected and is pro European and liberal in outlook. To blame Tadic for the actions of Tito or Slobbo is akin to blaming the current German government for the crimes of the Nazis.

Remember the UK went to war with Argentina in 1982 to uphold its territorial sovereignty. Also if 'Kosova' is allowed to breakaway then why not Republika Srpska, Herzegovina, Basque Region, French colonies and south eastern US states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Serbian anger is understandable and if they go to war with NATO they would be completely in the right as International Law is on their side. Also note many states with no historical, religous or cultural connection with Serbia (including many Muslim states) are supporting Belgrade. Ask yourself, why is that?

The actions of EU/NATO/US is a slap in the face for the pro EU camp who despite handing over Milosevic to the Hague and who slavishly followed EU diktat over the last 8 years are rewarded with the dismemberment of their country. No wonder the Serbs are turning east towards Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi. We have betrayed a people who have put so much trust in us over the last 8 years only for us to turn around to tell them to 'eff off.

Shame on Ireland and its duplicity in the American imperialist agenda.

wes

You are talking about the same Serbia that still hasn't handed over Ratko Mladić (responsible for genocide at Srebrenica) and Radovan Karadžić?

Maybe more people would trust the Serbian government if it wasn't hiding these men.

As for Kosovan independence, well its the least worst solution imho. I really don't see how they could possibly live in Serbia, which still hasn't come to terms with its crime in the 90's. This is especially evident since they still haven't handed over some notorious war criminals, as mentioned above.

Kaiser_Sma

Self determination is probalmatic and often (especially in the case of eastern europe) leads to a galvanisation of cultural differnces and sometimes this can foster conflict. Alot of the nations created or recreated in the 20th century tend to foster international opposition as part of their cultural identity.

You also get a load of tiny conflict borne nations with ethnicly pure populations, which will never be powerful enough to enter the world stage or maintain a standard of living or infrastructure enjoyed by larger nations.

On the other hand the majority of international wars (especially between smaller natiosn), last shorter periods of time and are less costly interms of civillian casualties then the majority of civil wars. So peace can benefit from the addition of borders.

djpbarry

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Self determination is probalmatic and often (especially in the case of eastern europe) leads to a galvanisation of cultural differnces and sometimes this can foster conflict. Alot of the nations created or recreated in the 20th century tend to foster international opposition as part of their cultural identity.

You also get a load of tiny conflict borne nations with ethnicly pure populations, which will never be powerful enough to enter the world stage or maintain a standard of living or infrastructure enjoyed by larger nations.

Can I ask what you're basing all that on (particularly the part I've highlighted)?

turgon

Partizan makes a good point be saying that why should all these other places not get independence. And even though im for the Kosovar thing, I must admit that the motivation for the US to support it is not for the good of the people - the United States want to bring more land into the pro EU, US side. That is why for example, they would be against the Basques, because the Basques wouldn't be as favorable to them as the kingdom of Spain.

I see Ireland's motivation for support as simple: in this day and age with the North and all that, they probably want to be seen as a tolerant state and not anti the minorities. Remember that Ireland has to start courting the unionists now if they want any chance of a united Ireland

Basically what has to be clearly defined is what is a nation. Then can you give all the nations their own government? For example should Cornwall, Brittany and the Isle of Man be independent Celtic republics? There is no doubt as to there cultural differences and their history, but is it being realistic?

Tea drinker

turgon wrote: »

I see Ireland's motivation for support as simple: in this day and age with the North and all that, they probably want to be seen as a tolerant state and not anti the minorities.

I disagree, I think it is down to follow the leader, or more aptly, the herd.
This is what caused the break up of yugoslavia, the rest of Europe followed the German and vatican lead. Germany help rest of Europe over a barrel and dismembered (against previously mentioned helsinki agreement) the Yugoslav federation

mick72

If Gerry Adams proclaimed independence of Northern Ireland tomorrow, what would the British Government do?

Serbia is completely right when it comes to Kosovo independence. Someone mentioned War criminals and its relevance to Kosovo being independent. I would like to know how do you bring into relationship these two?! Does that mean that Germany should not exist today?

Serbian state goes back to medieval times; battle of Kosovo took place in 1389 when the Serbs fought the Turks (Ottoman Empire).
Albanians came to Kosovo over the centuries and were not majority until 1941 when they sided with Germans and conquored Kosovo. After the WW2 not many Serbs returned due to Tito's repopulation policy, and over the next few decades, Albanians became majority primarily due to high birthrate. They were always seeking for Kosovo sovereignty and secession, and the West never intervened while Tito's police was beating them because it suited their interest at the time.

It was only in 1999, that the West saw no interest and started bombing Serbia effectively giving Albanians full control of the province. The region will remain unstable, since everything points that Serbia will use its military as soon as NATO leaves or there is global unstability or perhaps war.

wes

mick72 wrote: »

Serbia is completely right when it comes to Kosovo independence. Someone mentioned War criminals and its relevance to Kosovo being independent. I would like to know how do you bring into relationship these two?! Does that mean that Germany should not exist today?

Are the German hiding Nazi's these days? There not, but Serbia is hiding mass murderers guilty of genocide. I think this is very relevant in relation to Kosovo, as Serbia has no sense of guilt for the crimes they committed against there neighbors as they tried to cleanse enough land of the wrong type of people to create a greater Serbia and I believe a state which ignores it past atrocities (especially very recent ones) are more than capable of doing it again.

As for the mythic battle of Kosovo, well how is that relevant? They beat the Ottomans in a battle, hundreds of years ago? Well good for them. I fail to see how that has any bearing on the current situation, with the exception that Serbia are proud of there historical victory.

As for the other historical details, well I have heard plenty of conflicting information on that. So I can't make an educated judgment on how the current ethnic make up of Kosovo came about.

mick72

Wes, before you post such comments I'd advice you to read more or do some research.
First of all, have you got any proof that Serbian Government is hiding anybody? How can you say things like that without any proof? How can you say they are mass murderers without a valid judgement? Only a month ago, the EU offered Serbia Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) which means closer ties with the EU resulting in eventual membership, and you are talking about mass murderers as if every Serb is a mass murderer.

My point about battle of kosovo is not to about who won or lost, but to emphasize that Serbs inhabited Kosovo back then, when no Albanian was around. So you can't talk about ethnic mixture and self determination right without any reference to history. Perhaps in 100 years or so, some 2nd or 3rd generation of immigrants that came to Ireland could break away and declare independence if we were to follow your logic.

When you speak about ethnic cleansing, it happened on all sides. The fact that Serbs were fighting everybody so their crimes were committed on more ethnic groups does not mean that they are 'mass murderers' any more than Muslims, Croats or Albanians. Are Americans mass murderers going around world bombing nations?

Somebody mentioned the break-up of Yugoslavia and its relation to the right of self determination. That's fine, but let's have a look from Serbian point of view.
The Serbs are among old nations because they had acquired their national identity before the modern doctrine of nationalism was formulated. The Serbian Uprising in 1804 marked the beginning of the national and social renaissance of the peoples of South-eastern Europe, in which the Serbs undoubtedly played a significant and even a leading role in certain periods. After the Serbian came the Greek Revolution in 1821, and then the national movements of the Croats later in the century. In a struggle for liberation from Ottomans and later Austrians, Setbs suffered enormous human losses unlike Croats, Muslims or Albanians who were on oppressors side. During that struggle of all the Yugoslav peoples only the Serbs managed to create two independent state centres - Serbia and Montenegro - during the 19th century, which became internationally recognised states in 1878 (Berlin Congress). And it was only these two Serbian states that built their independence and sovereignty into the foundations of the common Yugoslav state in 1918.

I hope you know more recent history, so there is no need to go on, but bearing this in mind, only the Serbs were prevented from self-determination in the 1990s due to fact that they were pro-Russian rather than pro-American. More than a third of the Serbian nation lived outside Serbia elsewhere in Yugoslavia and they also declared independence (Krajina in Croatia), (Republic of Srpska in Bosnia). We know the Krajina's fate, which had always been an ethnic Serbian region and under UN protection; however they were not allowed do what Albanians are doing today.

djpbarry

Tea drinker wrote: »

This is what caused the break up of yugoslavia, the rest of Europe followed the German and vatican lead.

I would say ethnic tensions within Yugoslavia had a lot to do with its demise.

mick72 wrote: »

First of all, have you got any proof that Serbian Government is hiding anybody?

They may not be "hiding" them, but they certainly could be doing more to apprehend them:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/european_football/article733340.ece

mick72 wrote: »

My point about battle of kosovo is not to about who won or lost, but to emphasize that Serbs inhabited Kosovo back then, when no Albanian was around.

Kosovo was actually part of Bulgaria and then Byzantium before it became part of Serbia.

mick72 wrote: »

Perhaps in 100 years or so, some 2nd or 3rd generation of immigrants that came to Ireland could break away and declare independence if we were to follow your logic.

Seeing as how none of us will be around by then, I don't think it's all that relevant to the discussion.

mick72 wrote: »

The Serbs are among old nations because they had acquired their national identity before the modern doctrine of nationalism was formulated.

What has that got to do with anything? Serbia is a staunch nationalist state, so we should just do what they say?

mick72 wrote: »

In a struggle for liberation from Ottomans and later Austrians, Setbs suffered enormous human losses unlike Croats, Muslims or Albanians who were on oppressors side.

Where do Muslims come from? Muslavia?

Again, I fail to see the relevance of this. These battles took place hundreds of years ago.

mick72

DJPBarry,

you are correct when you say that ethnic tensions had a lot to do with Yugoslav demise; however without Germany and Austria in first place openly supporting secessionism of Slovenia and Croatia, it wouldn't have been enough. Ethnic tensions in former Yugoslavia were far smaller then tensions in the North. Slovenia and Croatia would have never proclaimed independence without German backing. Croatia signed SAA agreement with the EU in 2001, and Ante Gotovina was only arrested 2 or 3 years ago.


I know that Kosovo was part of Byzantium, but I think that it is irrelevant. Not only Kosovo but whole of Serbia was part of Byzantine, it was part of it rather than being under oppression. Most of Europe was under Roman Empire, you have to differentiate between historical progression and nations. It was not until 18th century that most humans are divided into groups called nations as we know them today.

In regards that none of us will be around in 100 or more years is not irrelevant. Legacy of history and past mistakes goes from one to another generation. Do you want to say that French are not proud of Napoleon or Americans of George Washington? One of the main purposes of soveregnty is to organise you own education system where you teach your kids who they are, things to respect etc..

No one tells you to do what Serbia says, but to respect international law. Why do you think that Serbia is a staunch nationalist state? This just show how ignorant you are.

Ignorance again. Muslims? Muslims are indegineous national group who call themeselves Bosniaks for the past 15 years. They live in today's Bosnia, Sandzak in Serbia, and to less extent in Montenegro. Many arguments suggest that they were largely Christians (Serbss or Croats) who converted to Islam during Ottoman rule for personal gain in terms of being upper class, not having to pay 'tribute in blood', land posession etc... That population sided first with Austrians in the WW1, then with Germans in WW2 so it's not hundreds years ago, is it not?

What I am trying to tell you that over the past century or so, the Serbs were very naive unlike Muslims or Croats or particularly Slovenes.

I completely understand why they burned US Embassy. Why did they not burn Chinese Embassy, Spanish Embassy, or Brazilian Embassy, or you-name-it Embassy?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29y1L9jIQdE

djpbarry

mick72 wrote: »

Slovenia and Croatia would have never proclaimed independence without German backing.

But they wanted independence none-the-less. Yugoslavia was little more than a make-shift state thrown together after WWI.

mick72 wrote: »

I know that Kosovo was part of Byzantium, but I think that it is irrelevant.

So, the fact that Kosovo was part of Bulgaria and later a part of Byzantium is irrelevant, but the fact that it was part of Serbia in the Middle Ages IS relevant? Why? Because it conveniently supports your argument?

mick72 wrote: »

In regards that none of us will be around in 100 or more years is not irrelevant.

Yes it is, because it is pure speculation. Nobody can say with any degree of certainty what will or will not happen over the next 100 years.

mick72 wrote: »

Why do you think that Serbia is a staunch nationalist state?

I don't know; you tell me.

mick72 wrote: »

Muslims are indegineous national group who call themeselves Bosniaks for the past 15 years.

Eh, no. A Muslim is an adherent of the religion of Islam. You are referring to Muslims as if they were a race, which they are not.

mick72 wrote: »

...then with Germans in WW2 so it's not hundreds years ago, is it not?

Every Muslim in the Slavic states sided with the Nazis in WWII? Please...

mick72 wrote: »

What I am trying to tell you that over the past century or so, the Serbs were very naive unlike Muslims or Croats or particularly Slovenes.

I’ve no idea what you mean by that.

mick72 wrote: »

I completely understand why they burned US Embassy.

So it's ok for Serbs to use violence as a form of protest? What if they attacked the Irish embassy?

wes

mick72 wrote: »

Wes, before you post such comments I'd advice you to read more or do some research.

Research? Well, you seem to be making a lot of statements without proof as well, I might add. The version of history you present is disputed by the Kosovan Albanians.

My main issue is that Serbia hasn't handed over there criminals. The EU won't allow Serbia to join until they hand them over. So stands to reason that the EU is of the opinion that the Serbian government can hand them over at any time. So thats enough proof for me.

Also, my point from before had more to do with Serbia not handing over there criminals. Bosnia and Croatia have handed many of theres over, so there is quite a big difference there.

mick72

DjpBarry, how little do you know?? Hm...

Okay,

they wanted independence. Croatia wanted independence from Yugoslavia, and Serbs in Croatia at the same time also wanted independence from Croatia. That's the whole point I am making, how Croats were allowed exercise self determination unlike Serbs from Croatia. You are not armed with enough facts when it comes to Balkan issues. Prior to Croatian independence, Serbs in Socialist Republic of Croatia were not national minority but constituent nation of Croatia, just like Croats. That means that they could exerccise sort of VETO to protect Serbian national interests in Croatia such as cyrilic script etc.. Overnight they lost this status and became a national minority or ethnic group, cyrilic script was done away with, and new Croatian flag , anthem and coat of arms represented Croatian nation only. That's why Serbs rebelled in Croatia.
I wouldn't agree that Yugoslavia was little more than a make-shift state. South Slav people had always sought to unite in the same state, if you look at the Serbian and Croatian national Movements in the 19 century, that's where idea of south Slav state came into existence. Whole literal and other cultural pieces of that time was in relation to this idea.

Byzantine, Bulgarian, Serbian..Yes, Byzantine Empire finally fell to Turks in 1453. Bulgarian Empire fell in 1422. Regardless, all this time Serbs lived in Kosovo, hence so many Orthodox churches, and monasteries in Kosovo. Regardless of all this, there was no Albanians in sight at the time.


You just do not get it. No one predicts what's going to happen in 100 years here, I am talking about principles and sovereignty. How would you react if today some 300,000 immigrants proclaimed independence here and set up border crossings without asking Irish people?


You said Serbia was a staunch nationalist state without any justification. I do not think so. I have been to Serbia many times, and not a single time did I feel isolated or anything like it. What NATO did to them by bombing them on the pretext of removing Milosevic is disgusting. You don't hit a hospital, a bridge, a factory, school, or train in motion to remove somebody from power.

A Muslim is an adherent of the religion of Islam, I agree with you. But you should also know that in Yugoslavia there was a nation called Muslims, who were also of Muslim/Islam religion. Albanians living in Yugoslavia were also of Muslim/Islam religion, but were Albanian by nation. The Yugoslav Muslims (by nation) for the past 15 years call themselves Bosniaks. Prior to that they were Muslim by nation and Muslim by religion.


I did not say that every Muslim sided with Nazis, but vast majority did. If 70-80 percent of people do something in particular we can certainly say that the nation does it, even though you will never have every member of a nation doing it.

What I am trying to say is that Serbs nearly lost have its population in the 20th century in order to liberate the south slav lands, and then welcomed the Croats, Muslims and Slovenes who were on the oppressors side to that very new country called Yugoslavia. Croats, Mulims, Slovenes practicaly avoided bearing any consequences that Austria and Germany bore for example. IMHO, Serbia would have been better off if she never united with Croats, Muslims as she had already liberated ethnic Serbian lands in the 1918. Slovenia would probably even to this day stay within Austria, while Croatia would probably still be independent but in a far smaller size and without Adriatic Sea which would probably stay Italian.


What did you expect from Serbs? To throw flowers at the US Embassy.

There is many Embassies in Belgrade, as far as I know all of them are fine minus US embassy. Serbs have no reason whatsoever to attack the Irish Embassy; Ireland never did anything on Serbs

wes

Just read this article which sums up the situation perfectly. I have to say, I rarely agree with Christopher Hitchens, but in this instance he has hit the nail on the head. So credit where its due as they say. He also has a far better knowledge of the history than myself.

Self-Inflicted Wounds

With Kosovo independent, Yugoslavia is finally dead.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Friday, Feb. 22, 2008, at 12:51 PM ET

Someone with a good memory of the conversation once told me how Lord Carrington, then one of the "mediators" of the incipient post-Yugoslavia war, came to the conclusion that Slobodan Milosevic was a highly dangerous man. Well-disposed toward Serbia (as the British establishment has always been), Carrington told the late dictator that he understood Serb concerns about significant Serbian minorities in Bosnia and Croatia. But why did Milosevic also insist on exclusive control over Kosovo, where the Albanian population was approximately 90 percent? "That," replied Milosevic coldly, "is for historical reasons." It's a shame, in retrospect, that it took us so long to diagnose the pathology of Serbia's combination of arrogance and self-pity, in which what is theirs is theirs and what is anybody else's is negotiable.

Click here for rest of the article