Most American would probably say they support Kosovo's declaration of independence. But I have changed my mind since originally reading about it. Although we believe in the rights of individuals for self government, we have to be careful how we handle these situations. I would liken Kosovo declaring independence to if the Kurdish region of Iraq declared independence. Both can site oppression and ethnic cleansing by a former government. Both are ethnically different than the rest of their country. But we would not support the Kurdish part of Iraq from declaring its independence. Both situations would cause less stability in their regions.
Would the Serbs be justified in using force to keep Kosovo part of Serbia? Yes. The United States used force in the civil war to keep the South as part of the United States. We justified our use of force on the basic principle that a Nation State has the right to do what is necessary to keep itself together.
The other problem is that if Kosovo is allowed to become independent without the approval of Serbia, then what will happen in other parts of the world? Will Chechnya follow suit? What about areas in Europe that are ethnically one nationality, but their territory is in another country? (Anyone remember how Hitler justified annexing territories in France and Poland because the people living there were Germanic?)
Although we love to see people fighting for their rights and throwing off other peoples control, as a nation, we need to do what is the right thing for the world. We must not encourage independence in this situation
I think we have a genuinely hard case here. On the one hand, we have seen that forcing people who want self-determination to remain under oppression causes wars. See for example, what triggered World War 1. On the other hand, we have seen that trying to transform all national borders to match ethnic ones only leads to more problems. See, for example, much of what triggered World War 2.
YanıtlaSilKosovo is a genuine case of an ethnic group seeking freedom and self-determination. But it is also a case where the demand for self-determination is not necessarily justified by history or population. Thus, it is a genuinely hard case.
My own take is that the USA's role should be SIMPLY to encourage both sides to keep their disagreement on the diplomatic level. If they keep talking, there is the chance that this can be resolved... or at least extended indefinitely. If Kosovo or Serbia go to war, expect a return of Milosovic-style ethnic cleansing and horrific war. And the Balkans are the powder-keg of Europe, so ever Balkan war has the potential to spread exponentially. Let's NOT welcome the next president to office with a declaration of World War 3.
Our independence wasn't justified by history or population. We were a colony of England, mostly English people, England had invested time and money in growing the colony's for it's own gain. We have since then supported any nations right to exist if it is oppressed, and there is the justification for our independence, as well as for other countries.
YanıtlaSilI think Kosovo is genuinely tired of being oppressed by the Serbs. If that is the case, we should support them. If not, then we shouldn't.
But just saying we should keep the "worlds interests" as our interest is short sited, and does lead to bigger problems (the world interest of no war led to WW2...)
If the Kurds were oppressed by the current Iraqi government, we should support them. If not, stay out of it and let the situation resolve itself (much the way England stayed out of our affairs during the civil war). Same with the Chechen's. If the Chechen's are truly oppressed by Russia, we SHOULD support them, even if it means a war with Russia. France did so against England in our war for independence!
Hopefully, as Nomad said, we can be mediators in the process, with Kosovo as well as with anyone else, and keep things civil and diplomatic. But I think once we begin to suppress our principles behind pragmatic policy decisions in the interest of "world peace", we end up causing more problems than we supposedly stave off. The world will only be peaceful when there is true freedom from oppression everywhere.
The caveat is, of course, that we need to make sure we clearly define oppression.
Judging by the violent reaction after independence... yea, they would be totally safe if there were not peace keepers there. And, they were totally safe during the nineties, and Chechnia is totally safe from russia. And we were better off under British rule. I am not suggesting an answer, but I think that they should be given the benefit of the doubt. They can probably run better by themselves than the 70% unemployment that is currently the norm. They have been discriminated against economically for decades.
YanıtlaSil-BowHunter