Thread: Realpolitik

Originally Posted by Bruno

True. Some situations are ver complex.

For example, when our crown prince married, every line in the ceremony was repeated thrice. Once in each language, that way noone would feel offended.
But of course, they also had to change the language that was read first with each part of the ceremony, so that noone would feel offended that the other language was always read first.

And this is just a harmless situation.

Forgive me Bruno my friend, but this sounds remarkably petty. Is this really common fare for Belgium?

Originally Posted by JMS

Forgive me Bruno my friend, but this sounds remarkably petty. Is this really common fare for Belgium?

Oh yes. The whole government process can grind to a halt over an issue like this.
For example, the reason the last election process took 190 days was that 2 major parties had elevated a symbolic issue to a deal breaker.
Even the couple of thousands of people who the issue was about said to get on with it, but of course they didn't.

In the end they proposed an interim government to keep the country going, and
meanwhile they would keep on debating about the 'core' (read: symbolic) issues.
If all goes well, The new government will be in office by Easter. I give it a 50/50 chance.

There is real tension between French speaking and Dutch speaking people.
These days it is a bit better, but 20 or 30 years ago you could / would be beaten up for speaking the wrong language at the wrong place.

A couple of years ago did a project at Alcatel Bell Space, and my direct colleague was French speaking. We settled on speaking English because he didn't learn Dutch (it was a Dutch speaking company) and I didn't want to speak French because we were in the middle of Flemmish territory.
If I am in the French speaking part of Belgium I will try to use French wherever possible, but not in Flanders.

Except when talking to foreigners because French is just their language. We are taught to be at least bilangual from the beginning of high school.
I know it can look silly to outsiders, but this kind of thing runs in our blood, and noone ever forgets it. It also has historical causes that go way back. And both sides were at fault one time or the other.

Anyway, it also has a positive side. Our diplomats are world wide reknowned and respected for their mediating skills. Our daily politics are a minefield of volatile topics, so our politicians have to be skilled in understanding all the issues and factions in order to get something done.

For starters, let's get a couple of things straight...
1) The same investigators that found drug cartel graves in Mexico within a couple of weeks, spent more than 6 months in Kosovo and couldn't find any.
2) Serbs didn't carpet-bomb Albanians in Kosovo. NATO carpet-bombed Serbian cities. I lost a great-aunt when the hospital she was being treated in got hit by a Tomahawk and a classmate from elementary when they decided to bomb media outlets "to stop the spread of propaganda."
3) There was no referendum. A regional government decided that it wanted to separate the region from the state it belonged to.

The bottom line is that this is a clear violation of international law. To become independent, there has to be a referendum and negotiations with the country that they currently belong to. I guess they found a new recipe for a state:
1) Move into a region and do a couple of decades of ethnic cleansing until you form a majority of population.
2) Attack the police and the army
3) When the police and the army react to the attacks, create a good media spin and go crying to the big dog.
4) Give the big dog a couple of months to devastate the state that the region of your choice belongs to.
5) Once you have enough foreign soldiers occupying your region, form a regional government.
6) Screw referendums.. They're a waste of time and money. Just declare independence and you'll be recognized by the US and most of western Europe.
7) Wait for foreign aid to start coming in.
International law has provisions for state formation. Those provisions weren't met. Kosovo literally sets a precedent where if you had a Mexican majority in San Antonio and they formed a municipal government, they could declare independence.
From a Canadian perspective, PQ could have unilaterally declared Quebec's independence and they'd have been automatically recognized as a sovereign state by the powers that be.
Isn't it ironic that Russia and China are today's high profile defenders of international laws?

This is a difficult situation. I can really see both sides.

Ilija, I am truly sorry for your loss, but I have to say - NATO did not "carpet" bomb cities. This doesn't change the outcome for your family and I realize that. 'Nuff said.

As a relatively "hawkish" American, this is one area I've always wished we could stay out of and let the EU take a greater lead.

Jordan

I think people are misguided when it comes to the UN. The UN is not an international government, it is a collective of countries that publish formal opinions about the world. It has only the power given to it by its members, and has no way to project that power independently. In other words, the UN is just a bunch of hot air machines and pencil pushers.

The EU is a little different, but not by much. It is an agreement by member countries to come together under a common government, much like the US as was pointed out. As such, they have no authority over non-member nations such as Norway or Iceland. It is tantamount to the US saying that Canada isn't a country- unless we decide to take it over by force, Canada is whatever it wants to be. So, if the EU, UN, or Serbia has a problem with Kosovo, they can use their mighty militaries and tell Kosovo how it's going to be...or shut their bureaucratic pieholes.

The bottom line is that Serbia has too much cultural heritage and natural resources in the region to give it up against any precedents of international law. If other countries would find the decency mind their own business, Serbia could easily send in the armed forces and reestablish law and order in the region within a couple of weeks.
Realistically speaking, NATO likes having military presence in eastern Europe, so the media here would start spewing out recycled fairy-tales about mass graves and Tomahawks would start falling on Serbia again. That's why Serbia won't be taking any military action.

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

The bottom line is that Serbia has too much cultural heritage and natural resources in the region to give it up against any precedents of international law. If other countries would find the decency mind their own business, Serbia could easily send in the armed forces and reestablish law and order in the region within a couple of weeks.
Realistically speaking, NATO likes having military presence in eastern Europe, so the media here would start spewing out recycled fairy-tales about mass graves and Tomahawks would start falling on Serbia again. That's why Serbia won't be taking any military action.

Well, one reason that we are of a mind to acknowledge kosovo as a country is that -realistically speaking- it is the only option that does not involve a civil war that might destablize the entire region.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Well, one reason that we are of a mind to acknowledge kosovo as a country is that -realistically speaking- it is the only option that does not involve a civil war that might destablize the entire region.

I have to disagree with you Bruno, the same way Kosovo was told they cannot join Albania they could have been told that they can only be autonomous but not independent. The actual people there have very little to do with the decision making. It's mostly US and to lesser extent Europe.
I may be wrong, but as far as I understand the military leaders (former guerrila) in Kosovo have (had) links with Al-Quaeda and the US interests are that they (US) have full control over Kosovo. Plus as Ilija said US-dominated NATO likes to move to regions being formerly being under the geopolitical influence of Russia.

In any case Kosovo is way too small and underdeveloped to pursue civil war. It can however pursue terror and as far as I can tell certain circles in Serbia won't have any issues dealing with it, in the historically successful ways (not pretty, but very effective).

Bruno.. Recognizing Kosovo will cause a heck of a lot more instability globally. There is a whole bunch of regions all over the world that's drooling over the precedent that this violation of international laws sets.
The other danger is the humanitarian crisis that will occur when the international aid runs out for all those self-proclaimed states.
Kosovo will never survive on its own. While it has some resources, it doesn't have enough to establish a viable economy to support 2,000,000 people. Serbia won't trade trade with'em or offer them any aid. I don't expect much warmth from Montenegro and Macedonia either. Even if the residents of Albania overcame the general state of mild dislike for the Albanians residing in Kosovo, Albania's a busted country with no economy to speak of. The only hope for Kosovo is for NATO to unload a bunch of troops in the region and start paying rent.

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

The bottom line is that Serbia has too much cultural heritage and natural resources in the region to give it up against any precedents of international law. If other countries would find the decency mind their own business, Serbia could easily send in the armed forces and reestablish law and order in the region within a couple of weeks.
Realistically speaking, NATO likes having military presence in eastern Europe, so the media here would start spewing out recycled fairy-tales about mass graves and Tomahawks would start falling on Serbia again. That's why Serbia won't be taking any military action.

As usual, the west ignores the history of the situation so they can "feel good" about supporting "democracy". Albanians have no history in Kosovo. A majority were relocated there under Tito, as the area is predominantly agriculture and they needed folks to work the land. Many of the Serbs had moved into the cities and industry.

Kosovo field is to Serbia as Lexington, Concord, Valley Forge, and Gettysburg are to America, Hastings is to England, Bannockburn to Scotland, Borodino to Russia.

Kosovo is covered in Serbian cultural sites dating back to the Byzantine Empire. Many of these sites have been burned or vandalized by Albanians, priests and nuns murdered, elderly burned out of their homes...but none of this appears in the press.
This issue is dealing with over 620 years of institutionalized ethnic, religious, cultural hatred and animosity and for some reason, the Serbs get the blame. I have a feeling that the US sides with the Muslims, so they can tout it to the Middle East, saying Look, we are supporting your brothers!" No one is crying about the massacre of over 700,000 Serbs and others by Catholic Croatian forces under the command of the Nazis.....no one is demanding justice for the Bosnian Muslims involved in decapitating Serbs, gouging their eyes, or pulling out the heart from the chest of a Christian as a sign of Islamic piety.

Tha Battle of Kosovo Field was a turning point in European history. While the Serbs lost, it stopped Ottoman aggression northward through the Balkans for years and showed that they were not invincible, thus emboldening other leaders such as Vlad Tepes. The final blow to the Ottomans was at the gates of Vienna in the 17th Century, where the siege was relived by Polish and French troops. How close was Europe to falling? Very. Imagine Notre Dame or the Dom in Cologne as a mosque.

Everyone in the Balkans has blood on their hands - there is no such thing as a "Serb-Muslim" conflict - this is more ignorance by the west. The conflict is Orthodox Christian-Muslim.

Under the Turks, some Serbs converted, others did not and were forced to live as second class citizens. The strongest, most handsome youths of Serbian families were taken as children and forced into service of the Sultans, becoming Janissaries (elite troops) who were sent back to control their countrymen in Serbia.

Albania didn't even exist as a state at this time.

Later, the conflict exploded during the nationalist uprising in 1848. Still later, Serbia and Montenegro succeeded in becoming independent kingdoms. During WW2 another twist was added when Croatia sided with Germany and partisans in the Balkans were split between communist and non-communist.

As for Russia's involvement, this is also historic - when Constantinople fell on May 29, 1453, the mother Patriarchate of the Eastern Church was now in the hands of Muslims. Moscow became the successor to Constantinople and was referred to as the 3rd Rome (thus the rulers taking the title "Tsar" which comes from Caesar). This was religious and political, as the Grand Prince Vladimir (1053-1125) was a descendant of the Byzantine Emperors of the Monomachos Dynasty and the marriage of Sophia Paleologus (neice of the last Emperor of Byzantium and Constantinople) to Grand Prince Ivan III of Moscow. At this time, Russian was subjugated under the Golden Horde and controlled by the Tatars - all Muslims. Over time, Russia drove the Tatar Khans out of Russia and the Tsars reclaimed the territory, taking the title of Tsar specifically for any territory which had been Tatar (Kazan, Siberia, Astrakhan, etc.). Soon, Russia became the protector of the Slavic/Eastern Orthodox Nations (Georgia, Armenia, etc.)....in 1878 after the Russo-Turkish War, the world had 3 new Orthodox Christian Kingdoms: Romania, Montenegro, and Serbia. Austria-Hungary was allowed to occupy Bosnia-Herzegovina (which turned out to be a b-i-g mistake), Great Britain got Cyprus, and Russia recovered territories lost in the Crimean War. If you look at churches in Russia today, even new ones, the crosses on the domes show a cross over a fallen crescent - the triumph of Christianity over Islam. (The attached photo is of my parish church while I was working in Moscow.) How concerned was Turkey about the possibility of Christians re-taking Constantinople - in WWI, orders were given to obliterate the Hagia Sophia if any Christian Army entered the city.

So, in 1914, after a Serb shoots the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia, Russia mobilizes to defend Serbia, Germany mobilizes to support A-H, Brtian and France mobilize...etc., and you have WWI.

So, is this just a conflict arising from some long-oppressed people who finally are demanding independence from a nasty ethnic group that does nothing but commit genocide? Hardly.

As for EU and US intervention - doctor heal thyself. The US has slavery and American Indians, Britain has India and a myriad of other issues, the Belgians have the Congo, France has Indochina and Algeria, Spain has most of Central and South America...plenty of bloody hands to go around.

In a discussion with some co-workers, I even proposed that a solution would be to split Kosovo, making sure that Kosovo Field was in Serb hands and making sure that the remaining sites of Serbian culture were either protected or moved into Serbian Kosovo. But any such solution would require the world to stop viewing Serbia as the bad guys....in the Balkans, everyone has bad and good.

Without negotiation and recognition of ethnic, cultural, and historic concerns on both sides, the conflicts will continue...be it Kosovo, Zimbabwe, Congo, Tibet, Chechnya, etc. I had thought the world powers would have learned about create fictional nations after the troubles in the Middle East, after Britain and France tried to screw over the Arabs at the end of WWI, the end result being Iraq, Jordan, Syria, etc.

In the end, it is moot, as Kosovo has very little in the way of economic strength...so we will end up with another welfare state.