The Greatest Crime in the History of the World

May come if Kosovo declares independence.

The heartland of Serbia - equivalent to London, to the townlands of Paris, equivalent to the hills of Rome, equivalent to the swamp on the Potomac where the United States truly became a country - will be stolen by a group of soldiers-followers, a race that followed in on the coat-tails of the Turks, slaughtering wounded and killing innocents.

Some will say "well, they are a majority in Kosovo", so let them be. But who draws the boundaries? There are parts of Kosovo that are majority Serb; should they be part of Serbia still? Hell, there are enclaves in Pristina that are majority Serb. Should we have micro-states within Kosovo? A country cut up into a thousand slices?

The fact is that the boundaries of Kosovo as it is today are merely boundaries of convenience; they were not designed to be the basis of a future nation.

Not to mention the fact that the Kosovars do not deserve it. Of all the races of Europe, few have been as mediocre as the Albanians. They seized their homeland when the Illyrians/Celts left. They hastily converted to the religion of the conquerors, even as their brethren to north, south, east, and west held faith with their heritage.

Now, through breeding - through demographics - not through the law, or through battle, not through negotiation, not through any of the thousand and one rightful processes that might have created a state - they will seize the very heart of one of the noblest and oldest European states.

619 years ago, a Serbian army fought on the field of Kosovo to save Europe from the Turks. They were slaughtered, but not before they had inflicted such losses upon the Turks that their headlong advance into Europe had been halted. The Serbs died for Western Europe, for the survival of the flame of liberalism and democracy against Oriental despotism.

Just as the 300 at Thermopylae are remembered, so are the Serbs at Kosovo Polje.

A thousand tiny states may seem an absurdity, but how many more should die for the sake of an ideal? If these people cannot agree to keep their country intact so be it.

OneHappy, the problem with allowing Kosovo to secede from Serbia is that then theoretically the Serbian provinces of Kosovo should be allowed to secede from Kosovo. And then the Albanian enclaves in those Serbian provinces should then re-secede, and so on ad infinitum.

That's the obvious outcome, yeah. Maybe then they might begin to appreciate the virtues of cooperation.

I didn't even need to open this thread to know what this was about.

Democracy rules?

Democracy relies on a border. Who has the right to draw the borders?
Why can Kosovo secede, but Serb parts of Bosnia can't?

WHo cares? Let the fuckers kill themselves and their antediluvian 19th century nationalism might die with them.

If the rest of the world didn't interfere, Serbia could rid the world of the Kosovo problem in a few short weeks.

Just as a side-note, aren't the Serbians responsible for some of the most heinous war crimes in modern history?

Even their identity stripping actions of Albanians in the 90s basically served their own desire to later on be able to arrest those people as criminals (without their proof of anything it made it hard to defend yourself - moreso because they often only spoke the easily distinguished Albanian) or simply to deny them anywhere to call home.

The whole lot of them should be able to do as they please - having been a drain on the world for decades - militarily, emotionally and financially for purely cunty reasons. And I don't see too much real objection from the Serbs so why not let them form their own country?

R

just like Hitler's Final Solution to the Jewish Problem?

i.e manufacture a problem that doesn't exist then fix it

I wouldn't call it the greatest crime in history but I'm with the Russians and the Serbs on this one, Kosovo's declaration of independence is a violation of Resolution 1244 and the general principles of international law. As such, if permitted it will set a dangerous precedent. It will also further weaken the authority of international law and fuel the already existing perception of international law as being nothing more than a tool of the power nations.

However, the atrocities that were committed by Serbs against Albanians in Kosovo as recently as 1999 have to be factored in. Along with the atrocious track record of Serb violations of the most basic human rights afforded to Albanians living in Kosovo. It is therefore a little hypocritical that the state of Serbia now calls for observance of the very laws they habitually breached in Croatia, Bosnia and most importantly Kosovo.

If you ask me, Serbia should agree to Kosovo becoming an independent state. It's a dump of a place anyway and short of a few religious establishments and a couple of valleys with historic significance, means jack shit to Serbs, certainly less than entering the EU according to the polls. So I have to say I'm surprised with Kostunica's rather idiotic reacton to this (lashing out at the EU and the West and threatening to sever diplomatic relations with countries that recognise Kosovo as an independent state - wtf? how will the the likes of US, UK, France etc give a shit that Serbia wants to sever diplomatic relations?). He should have conceded to the secession and bathed in the splendid pro-Serbia PR that would follow. Instead he looks like like a Milosevic troll and Serbia like the genocide-loving nationally extremist rogue state that it was 10 years ago.

how about seceding only that part of kosovo that is not serb dominated and uniting the serb part with serbia for a greater serbia?

Yes, but what about the atrocities committed by Muslims in Serbia from 1389 onwards? Atrocities committed by Albanians from 1945 or so onwards? Why did Milosevic get so much support in 89, BG? Because Albanians were assaulting Serbs everywhere.

History = culture = race.

Kosovo is a SLAVIC word, not Albanian. It is the birthplace of Serbia. No different to the countries i named before.

If they love Albania so much as to wave flags around, why don't they fuck off to Albania?

Ummm... Because Kosovo is their home? From what I have read/heard ethnic Albanians make up 90% of the population of Kosovo and the significant Serb minority has been guaranteed extensive protection in the new constitution. The new state has even adopted a flag that deliberately excludes any of the Albanian or Serb national symbols.

Yugoslavia - "the kingdom of all the Slavs" has proved to be an historical failure. All that is left is Serbian imperialism. It,s time for the Serbs to let it go, and accept that greater Serbia is never going to replace Yugoslavia except at cost in human life that NATO will not allow.

So, if some people came into your house as guests, if in a few years they outnumbered you, they could claim your house, could they?

Kosovars are almost ALL post-1945 immigrants anyway. Kosovo is no more their home than Mission Bay is. Etymology doesn't lie, and Kosovo is obviously a Slavic, not an Albanian word. Indeed, the place names all through Kosovo are Slavic words, indicating quite clearly that it is a SLAVIC PLACE. Those are centuries old place names.

They don't make up 90% of the northern provinces of Kosovo, so why should those Serbs have to secede? Why can't those parts re-secede?

The fact is this - you're either with a people who have fought for the Light of Western Culture for a thousand years, or you are with a people who came into Europe as conquerors aiming to turn ALL free peoples into slaves - Islam means SUBMISSION.

It's your choice.

hands Vads Tama Iti's phone number

If I agreed that Tame Iti was defending a country from seizure, then I would defend his actions. I disagree with the first part, so I can hardly defend the second.

assaulting < ethnic cleansing

or in other words conduct of individual albanians towards individual serbs every now and then is not comparable to outright and systematic breaches of international laws by the Serbian government in Kosovo.

do you seriously not see the Serb hypocrisy?

So what the Turks did from 1389 onwards isn't "ethnic cleansing"?

Incidentally, statistics prove that NATO bombing was more causative of so-called ethnic cleansing in 1999 than were earlier Serb actions.

so now you are attributing Turk actions from 1389 to Albanians living in Kosovo in the second half of the 20th century?

whether the NATO bombing was more or less causative of anything or not is really irrelevant. the point is the intent of the Serbian government at the time which was clearly ethnic cleansing of Albanians living in Kosovo. add to that systematic breaches of human rights which the Serbian government has been implementing for decades in Kosovo and you have yourself an on-going and endemic disregard for international law by the Serbian government which they are now calling in aid because it suits them. and you see nothing wrong with that?

Why should minor actions by security forces against Islamic terrorists in 1999 be so bad whereas centuries of Muslim enslavement of Slavic people be forgotten?

You lack historical context.

maybe i do. but yours is warped and nonsensical. we can't redress the atrocities of the 1300s ffs, but we sure as hell can redress those from the 1990s!

besides you are missing the point. this is about the hypocrisy of the Serbian govt. 10 years ago they shat all over international law. now it's a different story. it's LOL

They didn't shit over IL. The core principle of ALL IL is the state.

that is correct, as far as it goes....

however the 20th century saw incursions into that principle

Given that the only way the Europeans ever find peace is after they ethnically cleanse their countries of racial and linguistic minorities (breakup of the Hapsburg empire, re-drawing of Polands post-WWII borders, the expulsion of all Germans from the old USSR, Czechoslovakia and Poland after WWII, etc etc) I probably agree that the best thing in this case is to re-draw the border along ethnic lines, letting the Serbs live in a slightly bigger Serbia.

Like all those GErman-speakers on the Don even today?

Ahh, but states are still the actors - they are the signatories, correct?

states are the ONLY actors in International law (apart from certain international organisations - even they don't have FULL standing)

your point being....?

Well, to use the analogy of criminal law... we don't give equivalent rights to bacteria as we do to humans, do we?

The key thing here is WHICh is a more egregious crime in IL: destroying a STATE (which is an actor), or killing a few / thousand / million people, who are NOT actors.

you need to be more specific about what you mean by "destroying" a State i.e. that's an emotive argument

does secession = destruction of a state? maybe in one sense.....

and I think it's problematic trying to compare those two things

not in this case

serbia still exists but in diminished form

By 1950 less than 12% of the pre-war ethnic German populations remained in Eastern Europe - around 500,000-2,000,000 had been killed, and 13-16,000,000 expelled from Poland, Russia, annexed German territories, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

So my point stands.

well yes, that's what I would say too

I'm indulging vads to SOME small degree here i.e. he no doubt perceives this as "destruction" of a state

If I tear your arm off, JH, is that just the destruction of part of your body? Or will the loss of blood kill you?

it is interesting though that Bruce Jesson, with whom, I assume, you would share a common political philosophic sentiment, regarded himself as something of a nationalist don't you think?

or is your definition of nationalist specifically located in the 19th century?

yes, but international law ALLOWS states to secede!

look at the break-up of the USSR for example

assuming the rest of the world recognises the new state as legitimate

the USSR was the result largely of conquest and brutal suppression in any case

Mongol Conquest, mainly.

Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great and Stalin were Mongol?

think of it like this vads, is secession of Kosovo the price Serbia has to pay for it's own breaches of international law? probably.

can't impose post-facto terms in a contract BG :>

??? What the hell are you on about?

a question I often find myself asking about you

How exactly did those rulers "conquer" anything? They expanded the natural boundaries of the Russian State.

but here's a wee hint

I still don't get what the fuck you are on about NR?

You are trying to imply that the "USSR" was the successor of a Russian state that was - to use your words - "a result largely of conquest and brutal suppression."

First, what conquest? Natural expansion; manifest destiny to occupy the Eurasian hinterland, sure. But conquest? The states around them were mainly terra nullius, and when they were not, were occupied by infidels lacking any rights; eliminating them was the same as killing flies.

However, the Mongol conquest of much of Russia shaped the Russian psyche and made it more brutal, watering down the high Nordic "Rus" strain and polluting it.

and what rights did the vast ranks of the great unwashed enjoy under imperialis rossiae?

The glory of Imperial Russia?

And indeed Imperial Russia was a cruel master - which is why the glorious Revolution came along!

oh yes

the internationale and the death knell of nationalism

interesting that stalin was appointed commissar of nationalities by Lenin after some little deliberation as to the political wind direction and went on to experience a sea change in his political thinking vis a vis national self-determination along with lenin inasmuch as self-determination could only be tolerated if it identified its interests intimately with Moscow

Serbs are gaining my admiration....

A McDonald's restaurant is destroyed in Belgrade.
Photo / Reuters

heard of implied terms vads?

this is the second time you've tried to be clever about law and...failed

besides, what does contract law have to do with it? last i heard, states couldn't contract in and out of war crimes

you used the term "price", "pay", and "breaches"

I bet if we ran a word search through various parts of the law, contract law would feature those terms a bit more than other types :>

ugh. i'll go along with this retarded contract analogy only because it's still mildly amusing me....

in that case, at the time Serbian govt attempted to ethnically cleanse Albanians living in Kosovo it impliedly agreed that within the next 10 years Kosovo will secede.

:>

the thing is vads, secession is not unlawful under international law, indeed, it is the natural corollary of self-determination.

the right to self-determination holds a very high place in international law, in theory at least, if not always in practice. self-determination is meaningless without a corresponding right to secede.

BG raises an interesting point however: what if the secession is in breach of a UN resolution, or a treaty of regional cooperation?

the answer is by no means straightforward - this is clearly a complex area - your arguments, vads, against this background of complexity come across as somewhat glib and simplistic.

there is a right to VOLUNTARY secession.

Because lawyers and diplomats for centuries have bandied mealy-mouthed-words and split hairs and considered and prevaricated and for what? In order to display moral cowardice.

By definition N cannot be N'. Therefore something cannot be both right and not-right.

what do you mean by voluntary? the original parent state won't always like or agree to what's happening - the right to self-determination can still be exercised - sometimes a civil war is involved

This is essentially what the Serbs and the Russians are saying, it is a breach of Resolution 1244. But the wording of the Resolution has also been interpreted by the approving States as providing for the secession of Kosovo (though to be honest it is a very generous interpretation of the wording of the Resolution). I am minded to agree with the Serb/Russian camp on the interpretation point but at the same time I see no benefit in locking Kosovo in with Serbia unless and until Serbs agree to secession or the Security Council passes a resolution to that effect (which too is unlikely with the US and Russia both having veto powers and both clearly on opposing sides of the issue).

A further matter which I find to be of concern is the implication of all this for international law and the public perception of international law. I think there exists a widespread perception that international law is wishy washy, too ambiguous and thereby vulnerable to manipulation by power nations which essentially use it to get legal backing for whatever they are wanting to promulgate at the time. Unfortunately the issue of Kosovo's secession is proving that perception to be true once again, with different States alleging that resolution 1244 does and does not permit secession. The credibility and authority of international law is waning, which is a real shame.

The right to self determination must be exercised with agreement by both sides FOR EXAMPLE the breakup of the Soviet Union.

To do otherwise is treason.

treason? no that's your own peculiar argument - we have been there before!

that's actually wrong.

lack of consent of the predecessor state is the key element that characterises a strict notion of secession.

you might be referring to devolution, as opposed to secession

remember that we are talking about a UN resolution which does not have the same binding status in international law as a treaty. If I recall correctly, a UN resolution can attain the status of a rule of customary international law under certain circumstances (I wrote a paper on this once but that was a long time ago!)!! - in which case it can be binding.

having said that, I should add the proviso that this area of international law is full of conflicting viewpoints.

it should also be noted that not ALL exercises of self-determination/secession will be lawful under international law.

however there seems to be some degree of consensus that a state has a unilateral right to secede in cases of "last resort" - if a particular ethnic group has been the subject of serious abuses (even war crimes/crimes against humanity) - then it seems logical that they have a right to self-determination in the form of exercising a unilateral right to secede - see BG's comments above

At time N-1, all of the territory belongs to state X. At time N, suddenly a good chunk of state X belongs to new state Y.

What magical equation occurs during that time period that makes said secession any different to invasion and annexation?

Territorial aggression would be defined as "the seizure of territory governed by a state by another state", which secession fits into. Secession is annexation by another name.

The territory BELONGS TO STATE X. It cannot be stolen legitimately.

If the people of state Y don't like state X, leave.

There's a paradox here.

Any ethnic group that had been subjected to the level of abuse you are talking about would not have the ability to secede. It'd exist only as a few survivors wandering a smoke-filled wasteland.

you are correct to observe that it comes down to territory - and the issue of territorial integrity - which is often not sufficiently recognised in discussions about secession.

which leads me to say....Serbia can simply refuse to recognise Kosovo as a separate state, and deny that Kosovo has a right to that part of its territory. of course, Kosovo will try to resist that and...yay..another civil war! hah!

...actually, it wouldn't be just a civil war, it would be an international conflict.

that is because a number of states (including powerful western states like the US) will have recognised Kosovo as an independent nation by that stage...assuming any "invasion" by Serbia of Kosovo, the West would view that as invasion of an independent separate state i.e. an act of war - whereas of course Serbia would simply view it as a reclamation of its own territory.

Ahh, but the crux is this: how many nations need to recognise it to regard it as a civil war?

If you steal a watch from me, and BG recognises your "right" to it, it doesn't mean it wasn't theft.

Anyway Serb Army vs KLA = lulz.

Stratfor agreed with a lot of what BG said, namely that Serbia was in effect paying the consequences for its earlier actions. It also analysed it from Russias perspective and said that this was a critical situation for Putin and no action from him will result in a loss of face
It was interested to see what happens out of the upcoming “informal” CIS summit in Moscow on Friday, tho it raised the possibility that Russia might extract its payback from the West in the Middle East - Iran are attending the conference - and not in Europe.
I cant link to the whole article. I can cut and paste it if requested.

putin can send a few of his long-range turbo prop bombers across the Kosovan skies to keep his face not that it will mean anything as with all the rest of their recent posturings

haven't rad the stratfor yet... but did find this piece by Patrick J. Buchanan interesting

www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=25077

Turkey may well raise that issue of Cyprus but there is the wee small issue of Kurdistan

ahh...true, but I think we can safely predict that NATO with full backing of Western powers will be in there in a flash the moment Serbia takes any action against Kosovo

anyway Serbia might as well file a petition claiming Kosovar territory immediately in the ICJ - if nothing else it will add some moral and legal force to its position, as well as being a symbolic, formalised statement of its stance in relation to Kosovo. may be useful later on.

the tu-95s are cruise missile carriers. it doesn't matter that they're turboprop - it matters what ordnance they carry, cos they can sit 1500nm away and put a ton of HE through your bedroom window

I would actually disagree.

They'd be there, sure, but after a LOT of squabbling. We need some good old fashioned gunboat diplomacy. Russia sends fighter jets and air defence assets to the Kosovo border and declares a no fly zone.

:>

well, you're the expert on this stuff, so I defer, General

JH deferring to vadinho





what is the world coming to?

Russia won't intervene JH, but neither will NATO straight away.

This is a fascinating thread.. I wish I knew wtf anyone is on about :/

Fuck you crack me up sometimes bg :>

The Russians appear to have made their move on the Kosovo issue. They have supported the idea of the mainly Serbian region of northern Kosovo breaking away from Kosovo and rejoining Serbia proper if the region wishes. The Russians also warned NATO and its members not to try to seal the border between this region and Serbia or to try to force NATO authority on the Serbs. The Russians remained vague about what else they might do in response to Kosovo’s secession, but they did refer to the possibility of another frozen war in Europe — which we would rephrase as a Cold War.

The Russian strategy is to establish the principle that if one ethnic area can secede, any other ethnic area can split as well. In that case, the principle that Europe’s boundaries cannot be changed goes by the wayside. Whether this will evolve into anything more substantial is uncertain, but the door is open.
(Stratfor)


I now have a full login to Stratfors website - for two weeks only tho. Its proving a tad overwhelming but will investigate as time allows. It could also be rewarding though (so as to pay for itself) eg they had an article on SA gold mining y'day reporting that huge cuts in production were imminent due to electric power generation issues - gold and silver have shot up %5 since then.

which is the most logical postition to take on the matter

I wonder where that leaves Moscow on the question of the fractious states of the Caucasus

So should Hastings be taken from England?

Ha - clever - establishing that principle as a rule of customary law via "state practice." And Russia is expressing opinio juris. If other States follow suit, there may be sufficient state practice to legitimise this rule i.e. that any ethnic group can secede unilaterally...

The only latin that matters here is:

CARTHAGO DELENDA EST.

Just replace CARTHAGO with ALBANIA.

explain yourself further

I agree with vadz in the sense that the last thing the world needs is more weak states that can barely support themselves. Look at East Timor. I also get the feeling that Kosovo leadership is making a power grab because they know they are under the umbrella of NATO security. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that many Serbs feel like vadz here - still smarting from the 1999 war no doubt.

The important question to ask is whether they have calculated the situation correctly. I think many expected the Serbs to just take this on the chin and move on, but that obviously hasn't happened. Russia is unpredictable, and clearly not as militarly weak as it was in 1999. And NATO is having enough trouble running a coherent policy in Afghanistan, let alone defending Kosovo again like in 1999. IN fact, I think if Russia forced the issue (unlikely) NATO would crack under the pressure. Bad news for Kosovo.

Hastings = battlefield that is the birthplace of modern England
Kosovo = battlefield that is the birthplace of modern Serbia

so who's claiming Hastings then? and it may or may not be the birthplace of modern England but that was the result of an invasion by Normans

if your analogy is to be appropriate it must be the Turkish invaders that we celebrate in Kosovo

the glorious revolution of 1688 would be a more appropriate marker of the birth of modern britain

Wonderful. So I guess it's only a matter of time before Howick secedes from New Zealand and joins China..?

more like south africa

On Wednesday, the Russian Foreign Ministry denied that it had reached a secret deal with Georgia over the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; Georgia had earlier said the Russians promised not to recognize the independence of the two regions in return for assurances about Tbilisi stepping back from its attempts to join NATO. The same day, Moscow held emergency meetings with Ukraine over natural gas supplies (and Kiev’s related debt). In our view, both events are linked to Kosovo.

The questions of Georgia and Ukraine are of critical importance after the events in Kosovo. The Russians regard the decision to grant Kosovo independence as a major rebuff by the West, and particularly by the United States. At a time when the Russians are trying to reassert their influence in the former Soviet Union (FSU), the credibility of Russian power is a central issue. Thus, independence for Kosovo requires a Russian response in which Moscow reasserts itself.

Ukraine and Georgia have both, at various times, expressed interest in joining NATO — and if that were to happen, the Russian position would be undermined. Both are of strategic importance and they are the two countries most at risk from the Russian point of view. If these two can be reined in, the rest of the former Soviet states will fall in line — and Eastern Europe will take notice as well.

As we said last week, that’s why the Russians called the Commonwealth of Independent States summit in Moscow. They wanted to create a platform for asserting themselves, and the targets were clear. The lever they had with Tbilisi was Abkhazia, a region that is ethnically distinct from the rest of Georgia and wants to break away. By threatening to support Abkhazian independence, the Russians are sending a message about Kosovo to the West: independence movements can cut both ways. In their statement on Wednesday, the Russians never said they hadn’t taken the Georgians to the mountain and shown them the view. They simply said they hadn’t reached an agreement, which is probably true, but is, in our view, a temporary condition.

Similarly, with Ukraine, the Russians have important levers: energy and debt. An emergency meeting between Moscow and Kiev over the flow of natural gas was followed by the transfer of more than $1 billion from Ukraine’s Naftogaz Ukrainy to the nation’s import monopoly UkrGazEnergo, and then on to its partner, RosUkrEnergo — of which Russia’s natural gas giant Gazprom controls 50 percent — marking an important step in resolving the long-standing natural gas dispute (and Kiev’s massive debt). The final terms were undoubtedly generous on Moscow’s side. Such generosity carries a price, and a pledge from Kiev to steer clear of any serious talks about NATO made that deal possible.

In drawing attention to Georgia and Ukraine, the Russians are walking a fine line. They want everyone to understand they are flexing their muscles without being overtly bullying. They don’t want to provoke an overly negative reaction, but they do want to assert themselves visibly — both to instruct the rest of the FSU and to make Europe and the United States take note of the consequences of disregarding the Russian point of view on subjects such as Kosovo. Georgia in particular is close to Washington, and the West has tried hard to move Ukraine away from Russia. Squeezing both of them puts Washington in the embarrassing position of not being able to help its friends. That will also be noted in the region.

As such, the floor may have just fallen out beneath Tbilisi, and Moscow may have succeeded in sternly reminding the rambunctious capital in the southern Caucasus of its geopolitical place.

Ultimately, despite having quite a bit on the line in Serbia, Moscow is still scrambling to secure the immediate periphery — and strategic buffer — that it lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The significance to the Russians of Belgrade and the situation in Pristina is primarily symbolic (very great though it may be). Ukraine and Georgia represent two actual buffer states of fundamental importance to Moscow’s security, and even the thought of their accession to NATO is utterly disconcerting to the Kremlin.

So long as the Russians act, they do not have to act precipitously to compensate for Kosovo. They do not want any public capitulations. It is sufficient that Ukraine and Georgia stop discussing NATO. Not that they were going to be able to join anyway, but Moscow wants them to begin to accept the fact that they are in the Russian sphere of influence and their room to maneuver is limited. And it wants the West to know that the price for ignoring Russia’s wishes in the Balkans will be exacted elsewhere. The West might have gained an independent Kosovo, but that will cost Georgia and Ukraine — both far more important than Kosovo — a great deal. The Russians are showing that there ain’t such a thing as a free lunch

question - can we take seriously a site that confuses precipitously with precipitately?