[democracyforum]

Just wondering what people thought about this, doesn't seem to get as much attention as Israel/Palestine

[anarchism101]

Outside of North Kosovo, there are virtually no Serbs in Kosovo. Serbia claims it on the basis that significant stuff in Serb history happened there, but that sounds a ridiculous reason to me.

That's not to say that NATO or the US give a damn about the Kosovans, they back Kosovo to piss off Serbia and Russia.

[Aaron_xyz]

Kosovo is not recognised by the majority of UN states, and is the first of its kind where an ethnic group has two republics which aren't seperated by ideology.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Verum)
They have been ethnically cleansed by the KLA or forced to move out over the last 30 years.

If anything, over the past 30 years the rate of decline of Serbs as a proportion of the Kosovan population has got slower. The Serb population had been declining since the end of WW2.

[DorianGrayism]

Nothing much...it is a ethnic conflict. Both sides have committed war crimes and ethnically cleansed various populations.

The 1998 campaign was to destroy Serbian power in the region rather than being a humanitarian mission.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Nothing much...it is a ethnic conflict. Both sides have committed war crimes and ethnically cleansed various populations.

The 1998 campaign was to destroy Serbian power in the region rather than being a humanitarian mission.

I think even the Clinton administration said that part of the reason for the bombing was that Milosevic wasn't 'joining the consensus' - i.e. he wasn't implementing the neoliberal reforms that the rest of Europe had done.

[DorianGrayism]

(Original post by anarchism101)
I think even the Clinton administration said that part of the reason for the bombing was that Milosevic wasn't 'joining the consensus' - i.e. he wasn't implementing the neoliberal reforms that the rest of Europe had done.

Well, I wouldn't go that far simply because Serbia is really not a important country, so it makes very little difference if they implement those reforms or not.

I should say that the Kosovo mission did have a humanitarian aim ( to end the killing on both sides) but that was secondary to destroying the Serbs.

I actually think that Blair was the one who was most Hawkish and was pushing for war with Serbia largely because of what happened in the early 1990's. Since, they couldn't try Serbians like Milosevic due to a lack of evidence or since they were in hiding, they manufactured a situation where they could remove him or severely damage Serbian power.

Actually, I think Western actions in Kosovo is one of the reasons why the Russians are so antagonistic at the moment.

[No Man]

It should just let it go, since it's just a burden on Serbia really. Same with Russia and Chechnya.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Well, I wouldn't go that far simply because Serbia is really not a important country, so it makes very little difference if they implement those reforms or not.

It doesn't matter, it's an ideological thing. If any state, no matter how small, is seen to be defying the West, they become the enemy. Kissinger, referring in this case to Allende's Chile, called it a virus that had to be killed before it infected others

[ForensicShoe]

(Original post by johnnyavfc)

I'm sure the families of the thousands who have died care.

Pathetic.

[DorianGrayism]

(Original post by anarchism101)
It doesn't matter, it's an ideological thing. If any state, no matter how small, is seen to be defying the West, they become the enemy. Kissinger, referring in this case to Allende's Chile, called it a virus that had to be killed before it infected others

Well, it does matter how small it is. Serbia is not an important country.

Chile, according to Kissenger, could affect the outcome of the entire of South America. Serbia never had that power by 1998.

[AverageExcellence]

Both Russia and the US ahve double standards, claiming to desire self preservation whilst refusing to acknowledge Kosovo and South ossentia/Abkhazia respectively. Purely because both territories happen to lie in their own strategic spheres of influences.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Well, it does matter how small it is. Serbia is not an important country.

Chile, according to Kissenger, could affect the outcome of the entire of South America. Serbia never had that power by 1998.

Chile didn't have the power to do much at all itself, but the issue is that it sets a precedent and the same applies to Serbia. It's the same mentality as a Mafia boss; they will never let a small shopkeeper get away with not paying protection money, not because they need the money, but because it would set a precedent that it was OK to not pay protection money. Same with NATO.

[Zürich]

(Original post by democracyforum)
Just wondering what people thought about this, doesn't seem to get as much attention as Israel/Palestine

Kosovo is very significant in Serbian history. It has only had an Albanian majority relatively recently, because of Albanian migration. Logically, if Kosovo should be independent as it is majority non-Serbian then if the inhabitants of 'non-British majority' areas of Britain declared independence, Bradford, Leicester, large parts of London, etc, then they should also be granted it. Likewise Turkish majority areas of Germany, Arab majority areas of France and Moroccan-majority areas of the Netherlands can also become independent.

So which is it? Either none can be independent(including Kosovo), or they all can be?

This is essentially what the Serbs are saying. Just because Albanians move into a part of Serbia, doesn't make it any less Serbian.

[DorianGrayism]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Chile didn't have the power to do much at all itself, but the issue is that it sets a precedent and the same applies to Serbia. It's the same mentality as a Mafia boss; they will never let a small shopkeeper get away with not paying protection money, not because they need the money, but because it would set a precedent that it was OK to not pay protection money. Same with NATO.

Right..but Chile was in the context of the Cold War, when potential communist control of South America threatened the paranoid US. You keep on using Chile as an example even though there is relatively little evidence that the US directly participated in it or knew about it in advance.

Anyway, Serbia means absolutely nothing and is of little relevance. There is very little to gain by an intervention. If anything, it was used to justify the existence of NATO as a viable organisation when it should have been disbanded.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Right..but Chile was in the context of the Cold War, when potential communist control of South America threatened the paranoid US. You keep on using Chile as an example even though there is relatively little evidence that the US directly participated in it or knew about it in advance.

The only difference there was between the Cold War era and since then is that pretexts were a lot easier to come up with during the Cold War.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest US involvement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Ch...9tat#U.S._role

Anyway, Serbia means absolutely nothing and is of little relevance. There is very little to gain by an intervention. If anything, it was used to justify the existence of NATO as a viable organisation when it should have been disbanded.

Grenada was of little relevance. Cuba was (and is) of little relevance. Same with Vietnam, Angola, Nicaragua, etc. But they're all important to the US because they're all potential 'viruses', however small.

[DorianGrayism]

(Original post by anarchism101)
The only difference there was between the Cold War era and since then is that pretexts were a lot easier to come up with during the Cold War.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest US involvement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Ch...9tat#U.S._role
.

Actually, you click on the link about American Intervention says there is no evidence to suggest direct American involvement in the coup.

(Original post by anarchism101)
Grenada was of little relevance. Cuba was (and is) of little relevance. Same with Vietnam, Angola, Nicaragua, etc. But they're all important to the US because they're all potential 'viruses', however small.

Right.......but they were all within the Cold War.

It is the same reason why all the Soviet Union was involved in those countries.

and it is the same reason why they are not important now.

[rawkus]

(Original post by democracyforum)
Just wondering what people thought about this, doesn't seem to get as much attention as Israel/Palestine

Because they aren't really the same. The only real similarity is that both sides in both conflicts have reasons that when put the right way make others feel that one's behaviour against the other is justified.

Whereas you have a large recognition of the Palestinian side of the argument, with Serbia v Kosovo you still have the idea that the Serbs were launching some sort of Albanian holocaust ingrained on people's minds.

(Original post by anarchism101)
Outside of North Kosovo, there are virtually no Serbs in Kosovo. Serbia claims it on the basis that significant stuff in Serb history happened there, but that sounds a ridiculous reason to me.

That's not to say that NATO or the US give a damn about the Kosovans, they back Kosovo to piss off Serbia and Russia.

Thats because in the areas were there were even sizeable Serb minorities, they were forced out during and after the war, even when the country was a virtual UN protectorate. It isnt that ridiculous. The nationalists of Albania still claim large portions of surrounding areas on the grounds of history. Likewise, Croatia's claim to Bosnia was reliant on history. Israel's claim to the land there was based on a very old historical claim. The English spent centuries trying to reconquer French lands that they believed that they hand a historical right to, Spain with the moors. Whilst I also feel that it is a flimsy claim also, considering that the current trend setter of world rules based its expansion upon mexican lands upon the need for living space and the educating superiority of European Whites, there are many more ridiculous reasons that have been conveniently forgotten.

Also, you don't invest a lot of many into a country and it's insurgency just to piss off another country. There were an abundance of strategic reasons, from wrestling an American dominated corner of Europe away from the EU to the proximity of Russian pipelines to dismantling the last real and strong resistance to free market reforms in the area (Serbia).

[anarchism101]

(Original post by rawkus)
Also, you don't invest a lot of many into a country and it's insurgency just to piss off another country. There were an abundance of strategic reasons, from wrestling an American dominated corner of Europe away from the EU to the proximity of Russian pipelines to dismantling the last real and strong resistance to free market reforms in the area (Serbia).

I wholeheartedly agree that the US and NATO only got involved because Serbia was defying the West, but that doesn't make Serbia or Milosevic the 'good guys' any more than it does Saddam or Assad.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by anarchism101)
I wholeheartedly agree that the US and NATO only got involved because Serbia was defying the West, but that doesn't make Serbia or Milosevic the 'good guys' any more than it does Saddam or Assad.

Personally i'd have thought it was more because they didnt want a war going on in their back garden/sphere of influence looks very bad when they try to preach democracy, peace etc. etc. to the rest of the world if clear flagrant disregard for it is going on next door