Comments on: Kosovo

By: Roach

Roach — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:08:21 +0000

There is no legal basis for this and it violates a treaty we, the KLA, and the Serbs signed.

Not only that, there is no upside. Kosovo is weak. The Muslims will still hate us. Europeans will do nothing to help us elsewhere, mostly because their defense budgets are so tiny. And it will enrage Russia and deeply concern China. Plus, it makes us look like two faced liars who go to war on false intelligence . . . . oh wait, we knew that.

By: nathancontramundi

nathancontramundi — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 03:02:05 +0000

Though reasonably convinced by most of the comments here, I think it remains important to recognize that, even if one must reach back eight hundred years to do so, Kosovo (or Dardania), has a history not at all wholly tied to that of Serbia. Whether such an early date of conquest negate arguments that I previously made I’ll leave to others to decide, but the area’s history as a haven for the culture and language of the Illyrians (possibly the antecedents of the modern Albanians) ought, I contend, to count for something.

Thanks for that bit, taxman10m. Apropos as it is to the current discussion, I can’t help thinking that numerous situations require its application by our administration more urgently than Kosovo.

By: adam

adam — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:55:01 +0000

The larger point is the historical fallacy of viewing Albanian Kosovo as something more than a demographic accident. Albania is a nation, in the classic sense of that word: a language, a culture, a history. A majority Albanian Kosovo is a mere demographic accident, and one that has serious ramifications for the territorial integrity of many nations: (Columbia, southern Russia, Spain, SW United States, Phillipines, Inodnesia, more parts of Africa than you could count, etc.

By: Matt S.

Matt S. — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:40:43 +0000

Yeah, far be it from you to support a secessionist movement that subjugates minorities…

By: taxman10m

taxman10m — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:09:35 +0000

Today, Washington’s Farewell Address will be read to the Senate as it traditionally is on this day.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Heh.

By: Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:05:27 +0000

To be legalistic about it, Timor-Leste was occupied by Indonesia which crossed a frontier to do so. Its independence merely rectified a previous violation of what passes for international law.

Timor Leste is thus not a violation of the apparent principle you’re asserting–don’t divide existing sovereignties up ethnically, because there’s no end to it. Neither does T-L violate the principle of making no concessions to militant Islam, its people being, to some degree, Catholic.

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:59:40 +0000

But it isn’t a question of whether we ought to offer support for subjugating Albanians. Washington chose to take the side of the Albanians, despite there being no reason to do so, and abetted an organisation that our own government deemed a terrorist group and unleashed criminality and pogrom on the surviving minority population. Just as in the case of Chechnya, we don’t have to cheer on or aid repressive tactics of another state against their Muslim insurgents, because it is not our business, but likewse we should never feel compelled to meddle in other states’ affairs when the result of that meddling is another haven for criminals, narcotraffickers and jihadis.

Timor-Leste is a prime example of a non-viable state being created out of a feeling of the need to “do something.” Kosovo will be the same in terms of viability, but will be worse for regional stability. Empowering the KLA is not a case of supporting “regionalism,” but of fueling irredentist nationalism of the crudest kind. FARC also has control over large swathes of Colombia, but it represents a petty tyranny of thugs and not some kind of regional self-determination. The people ruling Kosovo are much the same. I’ll have more to say on this in coming days.

By: nathancontramundi

nathancontramundi — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 02:15:32 +0000

I must respectfully disagree here. The increased tensions between the US (and the West in general) and Neo-Soviet Russia are, of course, cause for concern. Such issue notwithstanding, this seems to be, as perhaps Timor-Leste, too, is, a prime example of a minority — cultural, religious, and ethnic — realizing its desire (Dare I suggest its right?) to self-rule. Serbian frustration at losing what is considered to be an ancestral homeland is certainly understandable, and perchance, so long as they felt intervention to be necessary, Western nations ought sincerely to have addressed this problem. Nevertheless, for the subjugation of a minority by a nation the power whereof is rooted in prior communist power as much as greater history we ought not to offer support.

Be regionalism such an important principle of the broadly paleo nature of TAC’s conservatism, should members of the journal’s staff and readership be so wary, practical concerns aside, of supporting Kosovar liberation, the ultimate in regional control for the people of this war-torn nation?