What does everyone think about the newly formed government in Kosovo declaring it's self independent of Serbia?
I've heard that Kosovo used to be populated by Serbians but the Albanians/Muslims (with NATO's help) expelled 2/3rds of the Serbians in the region. Is that true? I don't know too much about that part of the world. Maybe I should look into getting a book on the history of the region, if anyone here knows a good one.
I've heard some people say it's the beginning of a Muslim foothold into Europe and that since Russia is a strong ally of Serbia they might intervene on their behalf and the NATO countries might end up going to war with Russia (and their ally China interveneing) starting World War 3.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Software Foundation
There is a fairly recent book, The Balkan Wars by Andre Gerolymatos, which will give you a history of the region and it's politics. Kosovo is where the Ottomans defeated the Serbs in 1389, after which the Balkans became an Ottoman province. The Kosovo legend has been at the very root of Serbian nationalism ever since and losing it will be like the US ceding Pearl Harbor to the Japanese or Yorktown to the British.
For more recent history I highly recommend the television documentary "Yugoslavia: The Avoidable War" which can probably still be found through bittorrent.
The Albanians have indeed been busy doing ethnic cleansing in Kosovo lately; but the Serbs were not the majority there and have not been since the early years of communist rule. Tito thought moving people around was a good way to keep the peace. It is of course also a good way to achieve just the opposite.
The answer: Do NOTHING!!! Do not recognize this as a country. Do not offer any aid. Remove any troops in the country. The fact that Clinton tried to use this flashpoint as a mechanism to divert attention from his behavior only makes the impact of starting a policy of non-intervention harder to implement. But in any case it is still the cheapest, least violent most moral policy.
What the US has done is to fire up the Serbs who will harass the Kosovars in any mechanism available. The US has also got itself having to aid this impoverished place.
I agree with billott1. This is something that cannot be taken care of from outside. A little discussed aspect of the United States intervention in Yugoslavia was the fact that it gave safe havens and refuge in Bosnia and Kosovo for Islamic terrorists (with connection to Al Queda!) who were there supporting a jihad against all the other warring ethnic groups. Even one of the Bosnia Leaders we supported wanted to enforce Shiara law there!! Not a ton of them were there but it gave a very safe transit route for them. I love how this is never mentioned in the media though it is a simple fact. I think it has to do with the fact it was a politically correct intervention. Quite frankly I dont see a bit of difference behind why Clinton got involved in Yugoslavia and why Bush went into Iraq. Also our first intervention certainly suppressed the violence but did not end the ethnic hate. There was violence in the Kosovo riots of 2004 and before that the United Nations seperated the ethnicites by fences and controlled the entrance of political parties in elections and could veto any act of the local governments. What a way to solve their ethnic problems!
If you look at who we backed in Yugoslavia or aided it was Croatia, Bosnia (against both Croatia and Serbia) and Kosovo all who took part in a fair amount of atrocities along with Serbia. But Serbia is a Southern European ally of Russia. Supporting Croatia's fight against Serbia hurt Serbian goals of dominance in this region. Supporting Bosnia helped weaken Croatia but ALSO Serbia and finally helping the terrorists groups in Kosovo (which is IN Serbian borders) against an oppresive Serbian government once again weakens Serbia. Russia sent in troops in the late 1990's if anyone recalls, to protect Serbian interests. So to make a long story short If we diminished the power of Serbia in the Balkans (a geopolitically important region since it forms a cross road to the Middle East and Eurasia) we reduce the hegemonic stretch of the Russian Federation and can expand NATO and get bases and more influence there. You weaken your enemies allies, you weaken your enemy. It is the simple and asinine game of empire and it costs dollars and lives to play it.
I find it funny (to an extent) that the US Government encourages the "secession" of Kosovo from Serbia (which really is just past of the European Union), but shuns the secession of the Confederate states in the history books 150 years ago.
I'm against governments forcing people obey them and live under them especially if that government uses violence as a means of coercion. In this case I support the Kosovars' secession but I don't see what place the United States has in that conflict.
shazam:I find it funny that the US Government encourages the "secession" of Kosovo from Serbia , but shuns the secession of the Confederate states
You don't have to go back into history to find a double standard. They currently oppose the secession of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia and the secession of Transniestra from Moldova. Last decade they opposed the secession of Krajina from Croatia and Srpska from Bosnia. And let's not even bring up Chechnya.
In general the US government always tends to support centralization. Yugoslavia is a rare exception. Bush 41 even gave a speech urging the Ukranians not to secede from the Soviet Union - the so called "Chicken Kiev" speech.
I wonder what they will say when Vermont decides to secede. :)
Because of how much the Union has been corrupted by centralist and statist planners, I'm all for my homestate of California seceeding and declaring a sovereign California Republic.
Still, dunno if that would be such a good idea considering the amount of pinkos there.