It is with extreme sadness that I learn that Kosovo has been recognized as an independent state. I am not sad that people may get the right to better control their own government. I am not sad that people may get the right to live in peace. In normal circumstances, these would be great achievements. President Bush stated that independance and recognition will bring peace to the Balkans. I am not sure which history book he is reading, but it is not the one I read.
Now granted, I am not a history major, nor do I have a particularly great understanding of the Balkans. I do know that by meddling in another sovereign country's territory is not going to be particularly well thought of. Siding with a relatively modern ethnic majority in a particular piece of land, land occupied for a very long time by another ethnic group is surely not going to bring peace.
And what peace are we talking about anyway? Peace in Kosovo? Who will get peace? Who is making war? Serbian's aren't making war since the NATO bombing. So ethnic Albanian's can't be the one to need peace. How about the ethnic Serbian people that live in Kosovo? Are they committing atrocities? It would be hard to imagine 10% of a particular population committing atrocitites on 90% of the population, at least not for very long. Rather, let us look at the majority of ethnic crimes being committed in the Kosovo region. Hundreds of churches have been destroyed or badly damaged. Ethnic Serbs have been forced through violent intimidation to abandon areas where ethnic Serbs have lived for hundreds of years. Monasteries which have a population of monks that feast on prayer and love for mankind, have been destroyed and the monks have been scattered. Peace for whom? If there was to be a peace, it should have been for the Serbs.
Little does President Bush, and the rest of the major European countries (except Spain) realize what precident has been set. Imaging Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and other states or regions that have a large population of Spanish as the primary language residents. Even more think of those residents that have never wanted to become American citizens, or have been blocked from becoming citizens. Are they people without a country? In 50 years will they resemble the Albanians that fled from their homeland to a country that could house them in relative peace and modest prosperity? If so, what if they demand a homeland. What if they demand a government that understands them, or is representative of their ethnicity? What if a majority or a super-majority of a region of the USA votes for independence from the USA? The precident says that they should be granted that as a right.
Someone may counter that this is not the same thing as in Kosovo. The Serbs lost the "moral authority" to govern Kosovo because of violence against the ethnic population. Does anyone remember the US civil war? That population (the Southern states) may not have differed ethnically from the other, but this argument isn't really about ethnicity. It is about the right of a people to decide who should govern them. The North could be Serbia desiring to keep its territory and protect its ideology. The South could be Kosovo and its people the ethnic Albanians trying to keep their ideology. This precedent would indicate that the North should have let the South govern its affairs and allow them to become independent.
The European powers that supported independence for Kosovo do not themselves have issues with ethnic separatism (at the moment, but just think about the influx of ethno-religious Muslims immigants). Spain, on the other hand, has some issues with this. Will the Basque in Spain see this as their chance to gain autonomy or independence? Spain is understandably reluctant to support another ethnicities independence when that precedent can be used against them sooner or later.
The United States of America is in a little different situation. It has a huge population of people that wish to maintain very strong ethnic ties to their homeland. A desire I certainly understand and in general support. However, I also support the concept of the current territorial integrity of the USA. There are many people who do not. This gives them quite a wonderful wedge against the USA on the world political scene.
The precedent set is not really a precedent, but actually a continuation of a very old axiom, "might makes right." This is also known as the golden rule: "he who has the gold makes the rule." Can anyone guess what happens when these axioms or rules are exercised? War. War of all stripes. Rather than gaining peace, the USA has victimized a people. It has alienated ethnicities, spread distrust, and solidified the necessity of alliances not previously needed.
With all due respect, Mr. President, "peace in the Balkans?", you must be insane! While I would like to be wrong, I am certain that this line will go down as Bush's most foolhearty statement ever made.
Now, when are we going to start bombing our NATO ally, Turkey since I believe that they have lost the moral authority to govern the Kurds?
