What Defines a Nation?
Does anyone remember Kosovo? One of the pieces of the former country of Yugoslavia? NATO air strikes in 1999? General Wesley Clark's claim to fame? Serbia? Slobodan Milosevic? War crimes? Ethnic cleansing? Seems interesting that Tiger Wood's marriage is dominating the mainstream media, and the situation in a region that dominated the headlines and the Clinton presidency 10 years ago is going largely unreported. The situation in which Kosovo finds itself is of vital importance to the issues of national sovereignty of all countries. One would think that Brian Williams, Wolf Blitzer, or even Dan Rather (delegated to an imaginary news network) might have noticed and reported this.
Kosovo has been recognized as an “autonomous” region, province, kingdom and republic over the majority of it’s history. It has enjoyed self-rule while having its territory being claimed by various states, countries, and empires over the centuries. After the implosion of the Soviet Union, and the breakup of the Warsaw Pact, the country of Yugoslavia broke apart into its traditional ethnic regions. This was the period of the Balkan Wars when the Slobodan Milosevic, President of Serbia (Yugoslavia's most prominent ethnic region) pursued a policy of intimidation and waging war against seceding ethnic regions to preserve a "greater Serbia” - essentially trying to hold the previous borders of Yugoslavia. The Milosevic strategy was to invade, kill or drive out the local ethnic group, and replace those residents with Serbs. "Ethnic cleansing" was coined as a polite term to describe the systematic genocide that was again rearing its head in Europe. The United Nations intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo, but ultimately it was NATO air strikes brought the violence to an end. The situation was resolved in Kosovo by a UN declaration setting up a provisional autonomous government in Kosovo, yet allowing Serbia it’s claim to the territory. The peace has been enforced by NATO. In February of 2008, Kosovo issued a formal declaration of independence from Serbia, which was recognized by 63 nations, including the United States. Other nations, notably Russia and China (suffering from their own troubles with breakaway regions), declined to recognize an independent Kosovo. Serbia brought suit at the World Court in The Hague, Netherlands, to determine the legality of the Kosovo declaration. The World Court opinion is non-binding, but therein lies the problem.
What defines a nation? The definition has changed over time and history. For the purpose of this piece we can go with the most generic definition. A nation is traditionally defined as a geographic area presided over by a form of government that defines the rules of society within it's borders, and can defend those borders from outside aggression, either on it's own or in concert with allies. This definition applies equally to the United States, Russia, either Korea, and the Netherlands. It is how we define societal groups and why armies are created. A nation is autonomous, and matters happening within its borders are internal matters. National Sovereignty is the fundamental principle defining human civilization at this point in history. Outside entities are entitled to persuade by diplomacy, negotiation, and economic pressure to influence the internal working of a country, as is being done with North Korea and Iran. Outside entities are also entitled to declare war to enforce its position, as was the case in Iraq, and World War II. These are legitimate forms of resolving disputes between nations. A non-binding opinion by a group of legal scholars is not a legitimate forum for resolving a dispute between sovereign nations.
The claim of national sovereignty argues in favor of both Serbia and Kosovo. On behalf of Kosovo we can look to our own Declaration of Independence and break with England. Our Declaration of Independence is not subject to the opinion of any world body. Our independence was gained through the determination of the American people to no longer be subject to the British Empire. 10 years of formal war and nearly 40 of military mischief earned us our nationhood. For it we owe a debt to our allies that we constantly repay. A ruling by a world body is no more legitimate in returning Kosovo to Serbia, than would be returning the United States to Great Britain.
On behalf of Serbia, in the same way, no world body has the right to rule on the legitimacy of our Civil War. Though brutal and wrenching for the peoples of both the Union and the Confederacy, it was an internal matter of the United States and not subject to any outside body. In the community of nations, each nation is sovereign and not subject to another's wishes. Persuasion and coercion are the tools available to diplomatic efforts. If those efforts fail, war is the enforcement mechanism.
Compounding this, the World Court is not a legitimate forum because neither side will accept a ruling against their position. Kosovo is absolute in its demand for independence. Serbia is absolute in its demand that Kosovo remain a part of Serbia. It is precisely the same situation that we find in Tibet, Taiwan, Chechnya, and Northern Ireland. The United Nations has offered diplomatic assistance in resolving those disputes, as it’s charter calls for. It has not ruled on the legality of any of the disputes involved, as those rulings would be dismissed by the parties involved as beyond the jurisdiction of World Court and internal matters of sovereign nations. Serbia can exercise the same claim and do as it pleases – as have Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan and other so-called “pariah” states. Serbia has brought this suit to the World Court in expectation of a win because it’s claim is based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244 which set the terms of Kosovo’s status. It is a fig leaf for Serbia to resume a war on Kosovo with the justification of a UN opinion declaring it’s legal claim to the territory.
Common Sense dictates that the final resolution of this situation does not lie in a legal opinion. In the end, what will resolve the question of whether or not Kosovo is an independent country is establishment of the fact that it meets the criteria of an independent country. As previously stated, the government of Kosovo must be able to defend it’s borders, either on it’s own or in concert with allies. If Kosovo can accomplish this, then it is a nation, if not, it is a province of Serbia. The World Court has no business in this or any other internal matter in any sovereign nation. Period.
Categories: Foreign Affairs
Tags: historical perspective foreign policy
Trackbacks
-
5/16/2010 3:52 PM
pligg.com wrote:
This isn't arguing for war over peace, or whether Obama is a weenie or not. The simple fact is that the World Court and the UN do not decide what a nation is. The people residing in it do. -
5/16/2010 5:40 PM
pligg.com wrote:
This isn't arguing for war over peace, or whether Obama is a weenie or not. The simple fact is that the World Court and the UN do not decide what a nation is. The people residing in it do. -
5/17/2010 6:40 PM
socialwebcms.com wrote:
This isn't arguing for war over peace, or whether Obama is a weenie or not. The simple fact is that the World Court and the UN do not decide what a nation is. The people residing in it do. -
5/17/2010 10:05 PM
Womcat.org wrote:
This isn't arguing for war over peace, or whether Obama is a weenie or not. The simple fact is that the World Court and the UN do not decide what a nation is. The people residing in it do. -
5/19/2010 9:04 PM
social.weehz.com wrote:
This isn't arguing for war over peace, or whether Obama is a weenie or not. The simple fact is that the World Court and the UN do not decide what a nation is. The people residing in it do. -
5/20/2010 10:38 PM
links.coolmsgs.com wrote:
This isn't arguing for war over peace, or whether Obama is a weenie or not. The simple fact is that the World Court and the UN do not decide what a nation is. The people residing in it do. -
5/22/2010 12:27 PM
pligg.com wrote:
This isn't arguing for war over peace, or whether Obama is a weenie or not. The simple fact is that the World Court and the UN do not decide what a nation is. The people residing in it do. -
5/29/2010 3:18 PM
pligg.com wrote:
This isn't arguing for war over peace, or whether Obama is a weenie or not. The simple fact is that the World Court and the UN do not decide what a nation is. The people residing in it do. -
5/30/2010 2:31 AM
pligg.com wrote:
This isn't arguing for war over peace, or whether Obama is a weenie or not. The simple fact is that the World Court and the UN do not decide what a nation is. The people residing in it do. -
6/2/2010 7:34 PM
pligg.com wrote:
This isn't arguing for war over peace, or whether Obama is a weenie or not. The simple fact is that the World Court and the UN do not decide what a nation is. The people residing in it do. -
6/4/2010 11:00 AM
pligg.com wrote:
This isn't arguing for war over peace, or whether Obama is a weenie or not. The simple fact is that the World Court and the UN do not decide what a nation is. The people residing in it do. -
6/6/2010 2:05 AM
pligg.com wrote:
vThis isn't arguing for war over peace, or whether Obama is a weenie or not. The simple fact is that the World Court and the UN do not decide what a nation is. The people residing in it do.
I think that especially with the history of Serbia attacking other countries, that having them go to court to settle this is a big step forward. There could be armies marching.
Reply to this
This is exactly why people get nervous about Obama being so warm and fuzzy with the rest of the world, and our "community of nations". It is perfectly good to ally with other nations, to form negotiation blocs, and even to go to war as an alliance when necessary. The fear for many Americans is that Obama prioritizes cooperation with other nations - and "world bodies" - above the interests of the United States. It's not hard to envision a scenario where our interests demand we act in one way, the UN says no, and Obama defers to the UN - as a gesture of cooperation. Hr's already folded on the misslie defense system that Bush was deploying in Czech Republic and Poland to keep Russia happy. He's only marginally committed to the idea of "succeeding" in Afghanistan, but he can't bring himself to use the term winning. He is the President of the US, not the world, and he needs to put our interests as a nation first.
Reply to this
I worry that Obama is too quick to back off of our interests to please these world organizations, and even our enemies. Iran has already thumbed their nose at us, and India has told us to pound sand with the climate change issue. The guy folds every time he meets resistance. It's like Carter II - the return to misery.
Reply to this
It's like the article says - it's not a step forward if Serbia only uses it as a green light to invade Kosovo again. Got to wonder if Obama will answer it back like Clinton did. I think not. Wow, Bill Clinton as a good president - never thought I'd say that... go figure. I guess it's all in the context of what we have now.
Reply to this
You would think that trying to settle this matter in World Court and at the UN would be a better solution than waging war. I can't see how this is a bad thing.
Reply to this
Well, there's 3 issues going on with this. The first is that World Court's primary function is to try war criminals and pronounce sentence. It wasn't set up for this kind of thing, and it really has no powers in it's charter to make a ruling on the status of a country (or breakaway province). The author made mention of several other places in the same situation - it's just not their job. The 2nd is that this seems harmless in resolving a quarrel between two tiny countries that no one in the United Stattes really cares about, or could even find out on a map. If a legitimate "jurisdiction" is created for the World Court by recognizing the outcome of this trial, then a legal precedent has been set. Down the road any two bit country with a beef cabn sue the United States for whatever it wants and be ruled against. This can endanger our citizens abroad and our protections under the various treaties and alliances that we have. Third - this is very likely a smokescreen for Serbia to excuse the actions that will folllow a ruling in their favor or against them. If the court rules for Serbia they can invade invoking the legal opinion of Worlfd Court as giving it that legitimate right to reclaim it's territory. If the court rules for Serbia, they can still invade, claiming that the court's decision is not binding. It's really a win-win for Serbia.
Reply to this
Actually, if you create that jurisdiction, we might never get out of Iraq or Afghanistan. They can claim that since we invaded and destroyed their countries, we need to fix everything and bring them up to modern times. It's one thing to offer help after defending our interests - that's the civilized thing to do. It's another entirely to be saddled with modernizing a place that was in the stone age to start.
Reply to this
Or have the Iriquois nation send us all back to where we came from. Yeah - this whole setup is a bad idea. The reason civilization works with the rules we have is because those rules work.
Reply to this
Reuters gave this a headline this morning. On the plus side, the US is arguing on Kosovo's side, using pretty much the same arguments. On the downside, the US participation in the trial gives it a legitimacy that it shouldn't have. We'll see how this works out.
Reply to this
I agree that Obama spends a lot of time going out of his way to gain a consensus. If you want to quote the psych-babble it probably has to do with his experience growing up in a broken home and his being "different". Gill Clinton had the same thing going. Consensus isn't a bad thing, as long as Obama remembers that his job is to guard American interests first. He really hasn't been tested on this yet. Everything that he's doing is just a fuurther outgrowth of something started under Bush. The closest he's come is this "surge and exit" plan for Afghanistan. There will come a time when he can't just split the difference and will have to stand up firmly on something. When that happens we will see what he's made of.
Reply to this
Talk about not connecting the dots. Obama has been called to stand on principle on everything from Guantanamo to healthcare. Thankfully, every time he meets opposition he folds. That's good for us domestically, but it will be a disaster when dealing with Iran, N. Korea, China, or Russia. Those places are run by people who know tough. Bush was tough. Obama is not. This is just one more piece of evidence. America should be in the business of promoting freedom, not politely defering to a world organization that may authorize the oppression of a new nation. We should not recognize the proceedings, and we certainly should not participate.
Reply to this
So working it out peacefully is not an option, but saying "bring it on" is? Why not try to exhaust peaceful means before promoting going to war?
Reply to this
This isn't arguing for war over peace, or whether Obama is a weenie or not. The simple fact is that the World Court and the UN do not decide what a nation is. The people residing in it do. World Court has NO jurisdiction over this - they try war crimes. The only acceptable judgment that the UN may offer is to grant or deny membership to the UN. Neither is chartered to approve of a people's right to self determination. It is up to that people and their ability to draw support from other sovereign nations. It is not up for a vote.
Reply to this
I was a little encouraged to see Obama defend the US and our use of arms to promote freedom at the Peace Prize award ceremony. I'd feel better id he say "proud" to defend US interests rather than "obliged", but at least he didn't get up and apologize for us again.
Reply to this
Hey I would like to find out where you found this template from I want it!
Reply to this