Kosovo close to independence

[Dante]

However, the question is whether any region of a country has the right to declare independence if the majority of people living in that region wish it. And if the answer is yes, can I declare an independent republic in my back yard if I (100% of the population of my back yard) wish it?

One could argue then that it is difficult to draw the line between a country's population and a simple group of ornery people. In the past, a country was defined not by the wishes of its inhabitants but by the ability of its rulers to protect its borders. Of course without a state of near-perpetual war it is difficult to see how that would apply these days.

Perhaps this is an indication that nation states in the current sense of the term are, to quote the SNP on the Union, "No longer fit for purpose."

The above notwithstanding, I refuse to get drawn into an argument on Scottish independence. It's a tiresome debate that has reasonable points on both sides, though with a slightly asymmetrical distribution of bigotry. I'm not sure what's more bothersome, the repetition of the same tired old arguments or the constant mudslinging. Either way I'll have no part of it until something actually happens to change the status quo, one way or the other.

[Dunenewt]

Kosovo is not a nationstate.  A nationstate is where all the people in the state share the same national identity.  Therefore not even Scotland is a nationstate, as you have such a mix in the country now.  There are very few nationstates in existance.

A state used to be defined as an actor which has the sole use of legitimate force within its own borders.  Now with the EU, and other organisations, this distinction has become somewhat blurred, but it is here where I can see some people's argument against an independent Kosovo, as it has almost no control over what happens in its own borders.  So I would say that Kosovo now is de jure a state, but not de facto.

[Edric O]

A state used to be defined as an actor which has the sole use of legitimate force within its own borders.

It is useful to note that if we use that definition, states have only existed for about 400 years or so. Prior to the Peace of Westphalia there were all sorts of organizations that could legitimately use force in the same territory. In fact, one could argue that even up to the 19th century most "states" did not have the means to establish a monopoly on legitimate force within their own borders.

Kosovo is not a nationstate.  A nationstate is where all the people in the state share the same national identity.

So what exactly is a "national identity," anyway?

[Sneakgab]

Even if a goverment has an ''official'' monopoloy on legitimate force, it often doesn't really have said monopoloy.

Example scenario: Govt of Alchet can theoretically decide to execute royal family (of Chackt) member that happens to be living in Alchet who is therefore subject to it's laws, but if the Govt of Alchet decides to do this then the Govt of Chackt, with it's far superior military will destroy Alchet. So in the most technical terms Alchet is free to do as it pleases, but on these terms anyone is free to do anything ( I ''could'' go kill someone if I wanted, even though I may be executed for it). Thusly Alchet does not really have full control over what goes on in it's borders.

This can be extended to exerting economic or political influence as well. Ie: Chackt can stop trading vital grain to Alchet, resulting in Alchet's demise as it's population starves, or the EU could decide that Alchet will not be a member if it does not abide by certain demands.

With one's govt being forced to comply with the demands of others, these others often become the true rulers/authority.

That being the case, it could be said that citizens of country are really under the rule of multiple parties that are able to enforce their demands. The govt is just another party able to enforce it's demands through force right?

''However, the question is whether any region of a country has the right to declare independence if the majority of people living in that region wish it. And if the answer is yes, can I declare an independent republic in my back yard if I (100% of the population of my back yard) wish it?''

Lol, I suppose you would then be the leader of you're backyard by defualt, and thusly legally able to perform any otherwise illegal acts there as you see fit.

What is so great about independence? Is this just a matter of national and ethnic identity?

Btw, what does ethnic actually even mean? I assume it refers to different cultural groups?

With this kind of segregation, people can't really co-operate effectively. If people were seperated by geographic borders (the normal case) OR by identity/ethnicity/race/whatever, that would probably eventually work out ok. Theoretically a country full of Jews would be just as good as a country full of Muslims. Of course, this would narrow people's horizons a bit, but whatever.

However, seperating co-functioning groups by geography AND identity is unlikely to lead to a functioning country/group. If everyone in Lebanon chooses to co-operate, that's ok. But if only people of the same identity and same territory choose to co-operate then things become hopelessly splintered with some identity groups consolidating viable territory whilst others are left in no mans lands, as seems to be the case with Kosovo. If the majority of indivuals of one identity group (Israel?) could migrate from their current locales to a single viable territory then that territory could be succesful, but of course that is hopeless.

So, is it the Kosovan vote and not the Serbian (er... Kosovo is in Serbia right?) vote that decides their independence or lack thereof?

If that is the case then it seems these people are fools to doom themselves to such a fate.

If it is the Serbian vote that decides this, then the Kosovan feelings and votes could be considered to be negligible to that of the rest of the country, in which case if their independence is granted it seems more like they are being forcibly removed by the rest of the populace.

Though leaving the independence question to the group in question seems to lead to some absurdity, it is PERHAPS atleast preffered to the option of leaving it to the countrys govt. If it was up to a govt then they would probably discard people and territories as they pleased in order to be rid of some of their problems. Leaving it to a a referendum to a whole country is perhaps the most reasonable option.

If some citizen of Kosovo doesn't like being in Serbia and under the Serbian govt then why doesn't said indivual just leave? Of course immigration is not always a viable economic option, but unless you intend to lead a life of crime then it seems that living in an independent Kosovo is not either. Is this once again a matter of creating a ''national identity''? Presumably a country filled with indivuals of a certain identity group?

[Caid Ivik]

Actually, that was Milosevic's policy to part Yugoslavia into nation states based on the borders of former federation. It was a solution for all: catholic Croatia and Slovenia, muslim Bosnia and orthodox Serbia and Macedonia. Then in Kosovo he saw that Albans tend to prefer staying there instead of leaving to Albania...so he tried to force them (in a similar, altough more organized fashion as Karadzic in serbian part of Bosnia) and NATO intervened. Ethnicity was a political principle since WW1 and here is where it leads to.

[Dunenewt]

It is useful to note that if we use that definition, states have only existed for about 400 years or so. Prior to the Peace of Westphalia there were all sorts of organizations that could legitimately use force in the same territory. In fact, one could argue that even up to the 19th century most "states" did not have the means to establish a monopoly on legitimate force within their own borders.

Yes, that's exactly right.  The Peace of Westphalia did give rise to the modern state, which was a sort of evolution from the Ancient Greek city states, and the pre-risorgamento Italian city states.

[nemafakei]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7254434.stm

What's the bet that the US and Western Europe won't be lining up to support this proposal, which would frankly be far less controversial within the population than Kosovo with its rather large Serb minority?

[Mihail]

Heh, well, the world is an unfair place, but there's nothing to be done about it. Until the general population realises that this bickering and warring and hate is just inevitably dragging us towards a more or less Armageddon-type situation, then we'll continue on this road to ruin. Hopefully, something will be though of... Until then, I'm a bit pessimistic about this whole situation.  :-

[Mihail]

Well, there it goes: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7256158.stm

It is oddly unsettling, ya' know?

[Dunenewt]

Well, when Serbians behave like that, who wouldn't want to secede.

[Caid Ivik]

I guess the report tries to focus on your point too. Serbs are the bad and Albans good.

[Dunenewt]

Albanians good?  I think not.  In my home town there's big problems with Kosovan Albanian gangs in the night clubs.

This is a good read:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article688085.ece

[Andrew]

So civil war?

Serbians burned a car in front of Canadian Embassy as well.

[Tatar Khan]

Well at least they did not burn the embassy down.

I don't think there will be civil war EU and USA will send troops to stop any war. It would be too close for comfort.

[Caid Ivik]

There are foreign troops in Kosovo already - that's why they could do such insanities like declaration of independence.

Albanians good?  I think not.  In my home town there's big problems with Kosovan Albanian gangs in the night clubs.

This is a good read:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article688085.ece

We see them like that here, I really don't know why we had helped them against Milosevic.

[Dunenewt]

I'm all for Greece invading lower Albania, like they used to want to do.  The smaller Albania is, the better, because its corrupt, bankrupt, and probably the worst country in Europe.

[nemafakei]

Um, Newt, what makes you think that an invasion is going to (1) make things better?, and (2) not make things drastically worse, what with the whole, you know, killing people bit?

[Sneakgab]

I don't exactly know what the case is, but perhaps it may be that the Albanian army is sufficiently pathetic to that wielded by the Greeks that a surrender would be due in short order if the Greeks were to declare was on Albania, in which case the damage would be minimal. Also, I think Newts thinking that (correct me if I'm wrong) if the people of Albania come to be people of Greece, they will be better off as they will come to enjoy whatever advantages greek citizens hold over relative to Albanian citizens. I guess they could atleast try and get jobs in Greece or something if their country is annexed (and therefore becomes part of Greece).

Not saying that that's correct anything, just a possibility. Don't really know anything about Greece, Albania, or the terms Greece would impose on those claiming citizenhood to Albania before it's conquest by Greece.

[Dunenewt]

There's half a million Greeks in southern Albania, and Albania is a corrupt, almost failed, state.  On the other hand Greece is an EU state with a relatively thriving economy.

[Caid Ivik]

It is possible that Albania will join NATO soon...in any case, I'm sure such an operation would vastly improve the relations between Macedonia and Greece  ;D

[Edric O]

Yes, that's exactly right.  The Peace of Westphalia did give rise to the modern state, which was a sort of evolution from the Ancient Greek city states, and the pre-risorgamento Italian city states.

Yes, the Peace of Westphalia gave rise to the *modern* state, but the modern state is not the same as the concept of "the state" in general. Perhaps you could say that the *modern* state is defined by its monopoly on force (though such a monopoly rarely exists in practice; see below). But then how do you define "the state" in general? Is there even such a thing as "the state" in general, or should we consider Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire, feudal monarchies and modern states to be entirely different entities that should not be put in the same category or described by the same name?

Regarding the fact that a monopoly on force rarely exists in practice, I think Sneakgab said it best:

Even if a goverment has an ''official'' monopoloy on legitimate force, it often doesn't really have said monopoloy.

Example scenario: Govt of Alchet can theoretically decide to execute royal family (of Chackt) member that happens to be living in Alchet who is therefore subject to it's laws, but if the Govt of Alchet decides to do this then the Govt of Chackt, with it's far superior military will destroy Alchet. So in the most technical terms Alchet is free to do as it pleases, but on these terms anyone is free to do anything ( I ''could'' go kill someone if I wanted, even though I may be executed for it). Thusly Alchet does not really have full control over what goes on in it's borders.

This can be extended to exerting economic or political influence as well. Ie: Chackt can stop trading vital grain to Alchet, resulting in Alchet's demise as it's population starves, or the EU could decide that Alchet will not be a member if it does not abide by certain demands.

With one's govt being forced to comply with the demands of others, these others often become the true rulers/authority.

That being the case, it could be said that citizens of country are really under the rule of multiple parties that are able to enforce their demands. The govt is just another party able to enforce it's demands through force right?

But going back on the subject of Kosovo, I don't think ethnicity or nationality alone should determine the borders of states. I do not believe the world should be divided into nation-states; in fact I don't think it is even possible to divide the world into nation-states, because a "nation" is a vague and subjective concept. There are no objective criteria that can be used to separate one nation from another nation.

[Sneakgab]

These imaginary lines through the ground we all learned about in geography are becoming less and less relevant and meaningful aren't they? Or perhaps they were never meaningful, and we are only now realizing it. Nations, nationalities, all these concepts seem absurd. Thus, one can only laugh at those who say serving their country is their motivation and justification. There is only force and contract between participants. I think the concept of nations serves to dilute thinking. People should strive not to make their nation better, but to make things better in general. One might suspect that the concept of nations is just propoganda to provide justification to CIA like actions.

[Caid Ivik]

you may find that idea attractive but there are wars held for those "imaginary lines"...that's a sufficient meaning

[Edric O]

These imaginary lines through the ground we all learned about in geography are becoming less and less relevant and meaningful aren't they? Or perhaps they were never meaningful, and we are only now realizing it. Nations, nationalities, all these concepts seem absurd. Thus, one can only laugh at those who say serving their country is their motivation and justification. There is only force and contract between participants. I think the concept of nations serves to dilute thinking. People should strive not to make their nation better, but to make things better in general. One might suspect that the concept of nations is just propoganda to provide justification to CIA like actions.

I completely agree.

you may find that idea attractive but there are wars held for those "imaginary lines"...that's a sufficient meaning

So a nation is defined as the people living within the arbitrary lines drawn by armies at war? That is certainly the way things usually work in practice: a group of powerful people with an army establish control over some territory and then declare the inhabitants of that territory to be a "nation" in order to justify their rule. But is this how things should work? If divisions between nations are indeed arbitrary, as I believe and as you seem to agree, then surely there can be no such thing as a right to national self-determination, there can be no such thing as a national interest, and we have no reason to support the continued existence of separate nations against the international unifying tendencies of organizations like the European Union.

[Sneakgab]

''If divisions between nations are indeed arbitrary, as I believe and as you seem to agree, then surely there can be no such thing as a right to national self-determination, there can be no such thing as a national interest, and we have no reason to support the continued existence of separate nations against the international unifying tendencies of organizations like the European Union.''

Nationality is not a reason in and of it self to support or to oppose anything. Simply put, it basically doesn't matter. However, if one nation happens to be led by forces which wish happiness upon their citizenry, while another wishes exploitation upon their citizenry, then of course I would rather live in the former nation than the latter. Ie: we should not be interested in one nation as compared to the next, we should be interested in one ruler as compared to the next. I don't care if my ruler is French or Russian, I don't care if Zimbabwean govt takes over South Africa. What I would care about in such a case is that a BAD govt takes over South Africa, which just happens to be Zimbabwean and hence why I would not that govt to annex South Africa.

It is akin to this: Black man shoots you in the leg, hence you don't like this black man. But of course it is not that you are rascist and dislike him because he is black, it is because he shot you in the leg that you dislike him.

''These'' ideas of nationalism (eg: being proud to be an American) are silliness and are akin to rascism in a way. They are basically discriminating on terms of something that doesn't really matter. You should not be proud to be an American, because being an American or of some other nationality is as meaningful as being black or not.

So, fear not the American govt because it is American, fear it because it is a bad govt.

Even without the idea of nationalism, it may take some investigation to find you're true de facto ruler as opposed to you're ''official'' ruler.

'' there can be no such thing as a national interest''

National interest is only there if somebody has it. I don't see any justification for it, but that does not mean that it isn't there. There is such a thing as stupid, unjustified, senseless interests, therefore there is technically such a thing as national interest.

''and we have no reason to support the continued existence of separate nations against the international unifying tendencies of organizations like the European Union.''

Not for the sake of nations. You designate a specific in the union. Without this specific though, ''we have no reason to support the continued existence of separate nations against the international unifying tendencies of organizations like the European Union''. However, if it is the EU then we must decide whether we prefer THAT ruler to the current set of rulers. I know nothing of the EU so I can't say anything here.

It would be good if the World/everybody was ruled by a single good ruler. However, even with said ruler as good as todays average ruler (by that, I mean assign points to the seperate leaderships. Weight them considering the number of people they rule over, as I don't care about the land they rule over, and then take the average ''persons'' leadership. Well, maybe not exactly like that but you get the idea.), this rulership would still be better because we would no longer have the wasteful matters of war and other complicating factors. It is said that about 25% or so of America's income is spent on war. If George Bush ruled the whole world *shudders*, then he would at least not wait any further revenue on war, so if he allocated America it's previous share then an additional 25% would go into non-war things which would theoretically increase public spending and services. With America as it is this might not help much since they are so capitalist but that is besides the point, I could have used a more socialist country for an example... which I should have, then I would not have disturbed the sleep of those reading this with my Bush rules the world example *shudders again*.

So basically, if we look at a hypothetical world split into separate countries ruled by identical leaders, this world would theoretically be better off with one of these rulers ruling the entire world.

I recall it being cited in the past that a global government would be bad economically. Well, I don't see why. The difference lies in international trade, but if you want to trade then you can trade with random groups of PEOPLE rather than with governments. Or the government could decide who gets what. Basically, international trade is just moving stuff around, which one can be done differently and more efficiently. Eg: South Africa has shortage of oranges so govt buys oranges, but not govt own oranges and might not give it to the people wanting oranges while giving oranges to people who don't want them, all because they are perceived as being identical because they are all just ''South Africans''. Without this national identity, oranges are simply given to people wanting oranges rather than to South Africans, or, people wanting oranges take it upon themselves to make deals with possesing oranges in order to acquire them. Ie: we would just have a market economy with no nationalism involved to fill in for international trade, or we would have a planned economy.

So if somebody forced me to choose btw a random set of countries I know nothing about or a single rulership such as that of the EU that I know nothing about, I would choose the latter.