Tension Over Kosovo Independence

Kosovo becomes independent. Why? It is little different from numerous separatist areas of the world that launch terror attacks in the quest for power. The problem of Kosovo did not begin in 1989 with Milosevic’s firey speech, but much earlier, and only a handful–Serb or Albanian– wanted violence. Nevertheless, Serbs were not, and are not, willing to give up territorial integrity or sovereignty of the Serb state.

If Kosovo goes independent, fine, then give the Republika Srbska independence also. Likewise, Kurdistand deserves independence. Hawaii also, and of course the Basques. Abkhazia and Ossetia, naturally.

You can’t have it both ways folks. Kosovo independence will set a precedent.

One must also ask why independence is necessary if Milosevic, the Balkan Booman, and his policies were the problem. Serbia, with Vojislav Kostunica and Boris Tadic at the helm is a completely different Serbia.

Independence is not necessary, but if awarded, it will cause problems around the world. Likely, however, ethnic Albanians in Kosovo will soon be like the dog who caught the fire truck and wonder what in the world to do with it.

Thank you for the great reply Tom! Indeed, a Tadic-Kostunica Serbia is completely different from the one in the Milosevic days (or indeed a Nicolic one, and I can’t help but wonder how that would have turned out).

Concur on your conclusion. Even a mole can see the fault-lines of political stress across the globe. If part of the reason the 90% of kosovar Albanians want independence out of fear of the boot of authority or more hard-line unilateralism. I fear that independence will leave them with quite the opposite.

Thanks again

Thank you for your return comment. I am terribly concerned about this issue. I truly believe Kosovo independence will catalyze the downfall of the current Westphalien System of sovereign independent states. This is a precedent in
international law, and we (the United States and the “West”) have a re-invigorated Russia serving as the
other pole in a new bi-polar world. Whereas we have debt, deficits, military over-extension, and recession, Russia has surpluses and can exercise the kind of soft power we
used to have. Also, Russia has started to advocate international law the way we used to. As we know, world courts are very apolitical.

If we set this precedent, the strategic landscape will change dramatically. Just think what a Kosovo precedent means to multi-national (by this, I mean the traditional definition of “nation”), multi-ethnic states that are currently sound.

To quote the Rocky Horror Picture Show, “It’s the end of the world as we know it!”

Certainly.

What are your thoughts on China’s role. They seem to be less aggressive, not because of possible “western” lock-down (China has its fist around the U.S currency). Supplying Sudan’s government with guns, while the entire west groans about Darfur an example.

I had hoped the Olympics would coerce CHina into a softer and warmer light. But as far as I can tell, they’re getting away with murder.

I say this because both China and Russia seem to be getting along rather well…

I’m not sure why I went off on this tangent precisely. So you’ll excuse my jumping around I hope

I am not a China expert, and hence have little background to comment. I am somewhat surprised, considering the consequences a Kosovo Precedent will have regarding Taiwan. As you state, however, China has the United States “by the short hairs” so-to-speak in holding roughly 10 percent of the national debt. Also, they have the Yuan pegged at an unreasonably low level, as does the U.S. with its dollar. The United States has always maintained that Kosovo is “unique,” although my apparent ignorance in international affairs and international law prevents me from seeing the circumstances that make it unique. Therefore, I suppose the U.S. could claim Kosovo independence has nothing to do with Taiwan and the “One China” policy. Such a claim would, at least to those as ignorant as me, validate international claims of America’s system of double standards.

China and Russia have been getting along quite well, even to the point of holding joint military exercises, but Russia and the United States have done that also. It one listens to news coming from China and Taiwan, one would think the two are almost prepared to reconcile anyway.

China is truly exercising sovereignty, and few countries, if any, are challenging it.

My response above may appear a bit schizophrenic. I will justify that by saying I am only following U.S. foreign policy, which has not only been schizophrenic under the current administration, it has also be paranoid since 9/11 as well.

Since you went off on a wide tangent, I will permit myself to do so as well. I have two heroes in international relations. The first, Professor Joseph Nye, preaches a doctrine of “Soft Power,” which I believe in completely. Dr. Nye believes that if America stays true to its ideals, other countries will follow our lead simply because it is “the right thing to do.” Naturally, Dr. Nye believes in a strong defense, but he also believes America does not have to force or coerce any country–we simply need to lead. Others will follow, if not now, in the future. I think he is right.

Needless to say, Dr. Nye is an idealist. He truly has faith in the goodness of the human race. My other hero, surprisingly, is a realist who understands, and for a long time practice the balance of power. Dr. Henry Kissinger.

It is amazing how close Nye’s “Soft Power,” and Kissinger’s “American Exceptionalism” are to one another in principle.

The bottom line to both is that America must lead according to its longterm principles. It must stay true to its founding. That is a strategic vision that helped the world recover from World War II, and through numerous other international crises. We cannot form strategy while thinking tactically.

Supposedly, Kissinger once asked Zhou Enlai what the significance of the French Revolution was to the world. Zhou replied, “I think it is too early to tell.” There are so many things that happen on the international stage that carry longterm significance, but we fail to see beyond a four-year presidential term, or a six-year senatorial term. I respect the Chinese, and others, because they see the world in centuries or millennia. What could have been prevented if Kaiser Wilhelm II had not relieved Bismark in 1890? What could have been if Kennedy had not been shot? The consequences extend into eternity.

America’s Kosovo policy is tactical. It will not get us to a cooperative or united world, but take us back to the time of tiny kingdoms and petty wars. It certainly will not dampen terrorist movements centered on separatism. Nor will it dampen terrorist movements of ideology. We will have acted for the “feel-good” moment to punish a nation (true definition intended) without considering the consequences.

Where are tomorrow’s thinkers like Kissinger and Nye? What Bismark has America relieved?

You speak of ignorance but your logic and consistency put me to shame. I certainly agree with the philosophy of “American Exceptionalism”, and the results of breaking the trend on — as you say — “soft power” principles have been painfully devastating.

Lack of repsect, lack of cultural following, lack of influence. A reversal of the trends that as you quite aptly noted, where part of the rise and glory of post war America.

I’m a little surprised by your choice in Kissinger, I’ll have to read up on the material. Pairing an idealist with a famous proponent of realism, or Realpolitik. My last impression (2006) of Kissinger wasn’t altogether a very flattering one. When he claimed,

“Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy.”. Coming from a “realist”, frankly, it makes little sense to me.

I re-iterate however that I lack the background, and that this is purely observation. I thank you for giving further food-for-thought.

You conclude by asking an interesting question. There are those that would claim that figures such as Ron Paul fit the niche. Although I disagree. While his constitutionalism seems like the nectar of the Gods in today’s world. It is an urge driven by fear. An “anything but them” response, or “at least we’ll be free — despite the rest”.

Personally, had I been an American, I would have voted Kucinich. Despite not being a big fan of democratic party principles and big-government ideals (with the exception of Universal Health care). Come to think of it, despite many heralding my criticsm and idealism as “liberal trash”, I’m probably closer to being a pre-Reagan Republican.