How about independence for Northern Cyprus? Independence for Texas (or giving it back to Mexico)? Using Nato troops to make two different states out of bilingual Belgium? Sending Nato in to occupy Bophuthatswana, and perhaps link it to Botswana?
Why is it that in the same decade that South Africa abandoned apartheid, the Europeans adopted it with such enthusiasm, and the British are keen on introducing our old 90-day detention (which was soon extended to 180 days, and then made indefinite)?
But at least there are some other voices from South Africa counteracting the spin? See what Grant Walliser says in his No independence for Kosovo.
Western Europe, instead of trying to defuse tensions in the Balkans in the 1990s, acted deliberately to exacerbate them. This was noted by Samuel Huntington in his book The clash of civilizations:
The breakup of Yugoslavia began in 1991 when Slovenia and Croatia moved toward independence and pleaded with Western European powers for support. The response of the West was defined by Germany, and the response of Germany was in large part defined by the Catholic connection. The Bonn government came under pressure to act from the German Catholic hierarchy, its coalition partner the Christian Social Union Party in Bavaria, and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and other media. The Bavarian media, in particular, played a crucial role in developing German public sentiment for recognition. ‘Bavarian TV’, Flora Lewis noted, ‘much weighed upon by the very conservative Bavarian government and the strong, assertive Bavarian Catholic Church which had close connections with the church in Croatia, provided the television reports for all of Germany when the war [with the Serbs] began in earnest. The coverage was very one-sided’… Germany pressured the European Union to recognise the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, and then, having secured that, pushed forward on its own to recognize them before the Union did in December 1991.
and also
Austria and Italy promptly moved to recognize the two new states (1991, Slovenia and Croatia, after German recognition and pressure), and very quickly other Western countries, including the United States, followed. The Vatican also played a central role. The Pope declared Croatia to be the “rampart of Christianity,” and rushed to extend diplomatic recognition to the two states before the European Union did. The Vatican thus became a partisan in the conflict, which had its consequences in 1994 when the Pope planned visits to the three republics. Opposition by the Serbian Orthodox Church prevented his going to Belgrade, and Serb unwillingness to guarantee his security led to the cancellation of his visit to Sarajevo. He did go to Zagreb, however, where he honoured Cardinal Alojzieje Stepinac, who was associated with the fascist Croatian regime in World War II that persecuted and slaughtered Serbs, Gypsies and Jews (Huntington 1998:282).
What Yugoslavia needed in the wake of a communist rule that had lasted as long as the Nationalist government in South Africa was a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. What it actually got was a civil war, with countries in Western Europe taking sides, culminating in the Nato bombing of 1999. This was followed by Nato occupation of Kosovo, but far from ending ethnic cleansing, it has continued ever since.
For more background information, see my article on Nationalism, violence and reconciliation.
1 Comment
9 December 2007 at 10:39 am
I appreciate your reasoned comments on the issue of the future status of Kosovo. I don’t necessarily agree with them.
The whole snowball argument — independence for Cyprus? independence for mothers against drunk driving? independence for New York City? — while seemingly relevant, is not. Perhaps Cyprus is an example of why Kosovo needs to declare independence. Moreover, I don’t think the world is going to end as the Russians believe it will.
Moreover, you are absolutely correct that Albanians have — like the Serbs — committed horrendous war crimes (see Latif Gashi etc). But the sad fact is that Albanians and Serbs just don’t get along. It’s a pessimistic view for sure. I think there’s more to it than a simple misunderstanding.
But what are the options for Kosovo? An autonomous province? They were already an autonomous province until Slobodan took it away without reason. Kosovo’s rights were supposed to be protected but were not. What guarantees would they have now? Why should they believe Belgrade, particularly when you hear and read some of the rhetoric coming out of there?
There’s no middle ground. Serbia is carrying crap cards given what it did in the late 90’s. Kosovo is carrying the cards. Independence is the key. But the real question and issue is what will happen after. Have the institutions of Kosovo been empowered to maintain good governance and a stable economy? In the end, it is more this than the fact of independence that will guarantee stability in the region.
Leave a Reply