Independence for Kosovo, Yes or No?

[Gustaf]

Many here seem to take the attitude of "It wouldn't be good to have an independent Kosovo". Good for who? The only ones really in a position to make a deicision are the people of Kosovo and I think they can decide that matter for themselves. If a people wants independence they should get it.

^^^^^^^.

Also the arguement that it would cause further fragmentation of what's left of Serbia seems somewhat bogus. The only real area of any contention left in the main Serbian bulk is now Vojvodina and that has an ethnically Serb majority...

More importantly, fragmentation of Serbia has so far benefited everyone except, maybe, Serbia. Possibly even them. That was sort of my point too. Most outside observers thought it was "unwise" for countries like Slovenia to break out too, but I think the Slovenians of today are quite pleased about the way things turned out. There are many other examples of this too.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Do you people really believe there would be no discrimination of persecution of ethnic Serbs in an independent Kosovo? Especially with that butcher who currently serves as PM...

[Gustaf]

Do you people really believe there would be no discrimination of persecution of ethnic Serbs in an independent Kosovo? Especially with that butcher who currently serves as PM...

I don't think you're getting the point...there is discrimination going in a lot of countries in the world. THe solution to that isn't necessarily to revoke that country's independence.

[Verily]

Do you people really believe there would be no discrimination of persecution of ethnic Serbs in an independent Kosovo? Especially with that butcher who currently serves as PM...

I don't think you're getting the point...there is discrimination going in a lot of countries in the world. THe solution to that isn't necessarily to revoke that country's independence.

Moreover, it is reasonable possible for the Serbs in Kosovo, most of whom were relocated there within the last twenty years, to move back to Serbia.

[minionofmidas]

Do you people really believe there would be no discrimination of persecution of ethnic Serbs in an independent Kosovo? Especially with that butcher who currently serves as PM...

I don't think you're getting the point...there is discrimination going in a lot of countries in the world. THe solution to that isn't necessarily to revoke that country's independence.

Moreover, it is reasonable possible for the Serbs in Kosovo, most of whom were relocated there within the last twenty years, to move back to Serbia.

You mean Bosnia and Croatia.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I do wish that people wouldn't be so blithe about ethnic cleansing. Or class cleansing actually, but I suppose that's somewhat off topic.

[ag]

At this point, independent Kosovo is all but an inevitability: there is simply no realistic way of reincorporating it into Serbia, even nominally, without a bloodbath.  Actually, even on the extremely unlikely assumption that it were to happen, Serbia wouldn't be able to digest Kosovo and stay a democracy - in a combined state Albanians would be over 20% of the population and growing, would likely vote in bloc for some sort of irreconsilable independist party (that is, if they don't go back to fighting), which would necessitate grand coalitions of Serbian parties to govern the country for years to come (in a highly politically fragmented Serbia this would be tough to achieve).  Any, even most nominal, Serbian government presence in Kosovo would be highly resented. At most, one can talk of a nominal reincorporation, in which no Serbian government representative ever crosses the bridge in Mitrovica, except under an overwhelming NATO protection.  Ok, perhaps one could consider creating some office like "joint presidency of Serbia and Kosovo", if it can be guaranteed that its holder can't even fart in public without a written permission of Kosovo's real authorities, but this is not going to last (see the short history of "Serbia and Montenegro").

Serbia lost its chance to govern Kosovo during the 90s.  As I do not believe EU is willing (or able) to continue governing Kosovo forever, this doesn't leave many long-term options that do not involve a war.  It could be that Kosovo becomes a new Taiwan - not internationally recognized (except by Saint Lucia),  but de facto independent in every sense. However, this is, actually, a less stable arrangement (and more frought for Kosovo's minorities) than an internationally recognized independence.  "Mother countries" might dream of reincorporating Transnistria or Abkhazia or Karabakh - Kosovo is simply too big (I believe, its combined population is more than the sum total of all of the other post-Communist splinter statelets) and too close to Europe to be swallowed by Serbia.

Independence negotiations may be used to guarantee minority rights, to adjust the borders (the Slavic-majority parts of the country might be transferred to Serbia and/or Macedonia), to generally impose conditions on the Albanian majority.  Keeping it as is doesn't serve much purpose.

[Cubby]

I don't want Serbia to have control of Kosovo, and I don't like the way Russia is interfering with this issue. Why do they care so much? Is it because the Serbs are Slavs like them?

That being said, I support Kosovo being annexed to Albania. Kosovars are Ethnic Albanians. I don't like all these fragmented states in Eastern Europe. It reminds me of Germany from 1815-1871, terribly divided and politically neutered. I like nation states better than every group of 200 people getting their own country, which seems to be the way Europe is heading sometimes.

[Gustaf]

I don't want Serbia to have control of Kosovo, and I don't like the way Russia is interfering with this issue. Why do they care so much? Is it because the Serbs are Slavs like them?

That being said, I support Kosovo being annexed to Albania. Kosovars are Ethnic Albanians. I don't like all these fragmented states in Eastern Europe. It reminds me of Germany from 1815-1871, terribly divided and politically neutered. I like nation states better than every group of 200 people getting their own country, which seems to be the way Europe is heading sometimes.

Yeah, the unification of Germany sure did a lot of good for Europe.

[Frodo]

No -as with Iraqi Kurdistan they are going to have to be satisfied with autonomy as opposed to outright independence. 

[ag]

No -as with Iraqi Kurdistan they are going to have to be satisfied with autonomy as opposed to outright independence. 

They won't be satisfied, that's the problem. And there is no way of forcing them to be satisfied (short of aiding Serbia in a military occupation - Serbia won't be able to do it on its own at this point). It is possible to not recognize their independence - but even maintaining unity there is not very enforceable (unlike China, Serbia can't really do much to punish/reward countries based on Kosovo recognition).  In fact, I am not even sure it can be postponed indefinitely - at some point a declaration of independence would happen,  and I don't think there are many powers that would be willing to fight it, with sanctions or military action.

No autonomy deal in which Kosovo is de facto dependent on anyone in Serbia in anything can stick at this point. The most that a peaceful negotiation can achieve (and even that would require inordinate inducements) is a provisional arrangement under which, for some specified period, a nominal Serbia/Kosovo state is set up.  The leadership of such a joint state would have to be absolutely impotent, without any powers (other than symbolic) whatsoever, and a date for independence referendum would have to be scheduled.  It is hard to see why anyone would want to impose such an arrangement, but, perhaps, as a transitional sweetener for Serbia it might be done.  If I had to get something out of negotiations, though, I'd concentrate on protection of minorities, not on empty symbolic gestures.

Let's face it. What prevents Kurdish independence is a (very viable) Turkish threat and, perhaps, for now the unfinished division of Iraqi land/oil. There is no equivalent to Turkey near Kosovo and there is no oil anywhere nearby.  Does EU want to become an eternal protector of Kosovo to maintain status quo?  Does anybody want to enforce (with real blood and money) a symbolic arrangement for the sole object of placating the (not very popular) Serbia?

[Cubby]

I don't want Serbia to have control of Kosovo, and I don't like the way Russia is interfering with this issue. Why do they care so much? Is it because the Serbs are Slavs like them?

That being said, I support Kosovo being annexed to Albania. Kosovars are Ethnic Albanians. I don't like all these fragmented states in Eastern Europe. It reminds me of Germany from 1815-1871, terribly divided and politically neutered. I like nation states better than every group of 200 people getting their own country, which seems to be the way Europe is heading sometimes.

Yeah, the unification of Germany sure did a lot of good for Europe.

You'd rather have dozens of independent fiefdoms? Thats ridiculous now and it was already outdated in the mid 19th Century. Whether or not German unification led directly to World Wars One and Two is entirely debatable, but can't be proven as a fact.

[GMantis]

I don't want Serbia to have control of Kosovo, and I don't like the way Russia is interfering with this issue. Why do they care so much? Is it because the Serbs are Slavs like them?

That being said, I support Kosovo being annexed to Albania. Kosovars are Ethnic Albanians. I don't like all these fragmented states in Eastern Europe. It reminds me of Germany from 1815-1871, terribly divided and politically neutered. I like nation states better than every group of 200 people getting their own country, which seems to be the way Europe is heading sometimes.

Yeah, the unification of Germany sure did a lot of good for Europe.

You'd rather have dozens of independent fiefdoms? Thats ridiculous now and it was already outdated in the mid 19th Century. Whether or not German unification led directly to World Wars One and Two is entirely debatable, but can't be proven as a fact.

Actually, most historians would agree that this was one of the main reasons.
Of course, if the unification hadn't occured there might have been a French-British or a Russian British war - or both at the same time.

[Verily]

I don't want Serbia to have control of Kosovo, and I don't like the way Russia is interfering with this issue. Why do they care so much? Is it because the Serbs are Slavs like them?

That being said, I support Kosovo being annexed to Albania. Kosovars are Ethnic Albanians. I don't like all these fragmented states in Eastern Europe. It reminds me of Germany from 1815-1871, terribly divided and politically neutered. I like nation states better than every group of 200 people getting their own country, which seems to be the way Europe is heading sometimes.

Yeah, the unification of Germany sure did a lot of good for Europe.

You'd rather have dozens of independent fiefdoms? Thats ridiculous now and it was already outdated in the mid 19th Century. Whether or not German unification led directly to World Wars One and Two is entirely debatable, but can't be proven as a fact.

Actually, most historians would agree that this was one of the main reasons.
Of course, if the unification hadn't occured there might have been a French-British or a Russian British war - or both at the same time.

No, most historians agree that the initial fragmentation of Germany is what led to their militancy. Many small noble fiefdoms meant the sustaining of a large rural peasantry at the expensive of urbanization. They also encouraged militancy as each noble felt a need to be protected from the others. The unification of Germany merely turned these factors outward.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Most historians? The concept of historians agreeing is amusing. Especially when it comes to something like the Sonderweg thesis.

[Gustaf]

I don't want Serbia to have control of Kosovo, and I don't like the way Russia is interfering with this issue. Why do they care so much? Is it because the Serbs are Slavs like them?

That being said, I support Kosovo being annexed to Albania. Kosovars are Ethnic Albanians. I don't like all these fragmented states in Eastern Europe. It reminds me of Germany from 1815-1871, terribly divided and politically neutered. I like nation states better than every group of 200 people getting their own country, which seems to be the way Europe is heading sometimes.

Yeah, the unification of Germany sure did a lot of good for Europe.

You'd rather have dozens of independent fiefdoms? Thats ridiculous now and it was already outdated in the mid 19th Century. Whether or not German unification led directly to World Wars One and Two is entirely debatable, but can't be proven as a fact.

Actually, most historians would agree that this was one of the main reasons.
Of course, if the unification hadn't occured there might have been a French-British or a Russian British war - or both at the same time.

No, most historians agree that the initial fragmentation of Germany is what led to their militancy. Many small noble fiefdoms meant the sustaining of a large rural peasantry at the expensive of urbanization. They also encouraged militancy as each noble felt a need to be protected from the others. The unification of Germany merely turned these factors outward.

No, most historians disagree.

Anyway, most German states outside of Prussia were not especially militant. And Prussia's militant ways really came out when they started to aspire to the status of a great power and began the moves toward German unification. I was of course partly tounge-in-cheek; I'm not opposed to German unification in principle, but the idea that big states lead to peace is kind of ridiculous.

Verily, I'm not sure where most of your historians are, but I'd like them to explain why, if smaller states are more militant, Luxembourg, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland were, perhaps a tad less agressive than say Germany or France during the late nineteenth century.

[Verily]

I don't want Serbia to have control of Kosovo, and I don't like the way Russia is interfering with this issue. Why do they care so much? Is it because the Serbs are Slavs like them?

That being said, I support Kosovo being annexed to Albania. Kosovars are Ethnic Albanians. I don't like all these fragmented states in Eastern Europe. It reminds me of Germany from 1815-1871, terribly divided and politically neutered. I like nation states better than every group of 200 people getting their own country, which seems to be the way Europe is heading sometimes.

Yeah, the unification of Germany sure did a lot of good for Europe.

You'd rather have dozens of independent fiefdoms? Thats ridiculous now and it was already outdated in the mid 19th Century. Whether or not German unification led directly to World Wars One and Two is entirely debatable, but can't be proven as a fact.

Actually, most historians would agree that this was one of the main reasons.
Of course, if the unification hadn't occured there might have been a French-British or a Russian British war - or both at the same time.

No, most historians agree that the initial fragmentation of Germany is what led to their militancy. Many small noble fiefdoms meant the sustaining of a large rural peasantry at the expensive of urbanization. They also encouraged militancy as each noble felt a need to be protected from the others. The unification of Germany merely turned these factors outward.

No, most historians disagree.

Anyway, most German states outside of Prussia were not especially militant. And Prussia's militant ways really came out when they started to aspire to the status of a great power and began the moves toward German unification. I was of course partly tounge-in-cheek; I'm not opposed to German unification in principle, but the idea that big states lead to peace is kind of ridiculous.

Verily, I'm not sure where most of your historians are, but I'd like them to explain why, if smaller states are more militant, Luxembourg, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland were, perhaps a tad less agressive than say Germany or France during the late nineteenth century.

You're setting up a straw man; nowhere did I say explicitly that all small states are militant ones.

The small German states had large peasant classes resulting from the intentional weakening of the cities by the nobility, which wanted to control trade and distrusted (probably rightfully so in terms of their own power) rising middle class factions in major trading centers. This large peasant class enabled the nobility to field large armies, and moreover the importance of agriculture and control of land as opposed to specialized industries and centers of trade encouraged conflict between petty princedoms. The Prussians were the most successful of these princedoms, but they, like all the others, started out small and eventually conquered (or strong-armed) the whole thing.

In England, initial centralization gave way to a stronger nobility, but one that was coterminous with the middle class, driving the peasantry out of rural areas and into the cities, where they too developed some auxiliary middle class structure. The monarchy was not as strong as in some places in mainland Europe, but it was strong enough to prevent internal conflicts that might have otherwise arisen. The middle class was adverse to (land) warfare, and England didn't have to worry much about land warfare anyway except with Scotland.

In France, the existence of a single state allowed the nobility the same freedom to specialize as in England, though this was completed to a lesser extent, perhaps because France had to worry more about external threats than England did, leading to the French Revolution and subsequent conflicts between lower class and aristocracy over the course of the 19th century. In Russia, a very weak nobility was kept under the thumb of the czars, and, although agriculture flourished and therefore the peasant class was large and urbanization minimal, internal conflict was also minimal as power was extremely centralized from the beginning. (Until the peasantry overthrew both the aristocracy and the monarchy, of course, though even then power was centralized.)

[Verily]

To make things more clear, the primary cause of a militant Germany (and many militant states in the 18th-20th centuries generally) was a strong, landed nobility coupled with a weak (or in Germany's case, essentially nonexistent by this time) monarchy. This restricts urbanization, prevents the appearance of a middle class, encourages warfare between nobles, and allows for the appearance of a single charismatic figure to turn that militancy outward.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In England, initial centralization gave way to a stronger nobility, but one that was coterminous with the middle class, driving the peasantry out of rural areas and into the cities, where they too developed some auxiliary middle class structure.

I'm not really sure where to begin as I'm not sure how broad the period you're talking about is (are you starting in the 18th century? 17th? 14th?).

But the process of urbanisation certainly didn't happen like that; industrialisation was all (the enclosures were but part of the process of industrialisation). I'm also a little unsure what you mean by "peasantry", btw.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The monarchy was, in fact, so strong that a King was overthrown (and then had his head lopped off) by a group of religious Radicals.

[Verily]

In England, initial centralization gave way to a stronger nobility, but one that was coterminous with the middle class, driving the peasantry out of rural areas and into the cities, where they too developed some auxiliary middle class structure.

I'm not really sure where to begin as I'm not sure how broad the period you're talking about is (are you starting in the 18th century? 17th? 14th?).

But the process of urbanisation certainly didn't happen like that; industrialisation was all (the enclosures were but part of the process of industrialisation). I'm also a little unsure what you mean by "peasantry", btw.

Starting in about the late 16th to 17th century. Enclosures were the first step in both urbanization and industrialization. They drove the peasantry off of farms and into cities, where they became an industrial workforce. Their influence was most pronounced in England (and to a lesser extent Scotland and Wales), though the decline of public land and tenant farming contributed somewhat to urbanization in France as well.

I'm using peasantry to refer to poor farmers, especially those who do not own their own land, as opposed to poor industrial workers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The monarchy was, in fact, so strong that a King was overthrown (and then had his head lopped off) by a group of religious Radicals.
[/quote]

Well, yes, and they'd already been forced to concede some powers to the aristocracy in the past. However, unlike Germany, two nobles were not about to start a war with each other; the monarchs, even after being overthrown in both the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, were still able to put a stop to most internecine warfare.