Kosova update

It probably goes without saying that Kosova's secession from Serbia has caused great excitement within the secessionist blogosphere; as we try to determine what effect this event will have on the future. Following are some stories that may be of interest.

• The Associated Press reports that the Serbian government under nationalist Vojuslav Kostunica is dissolving, finding itself unable to work with liberal President Boris Tadic. There is some disagreement over whether the real issue is Kosova or Serbia's application to eventually join the European Union. Prime Minister Konstunica has tied the two issues together, while President Tadic argues that they should be dealt with separately. Failure to find common ground was the reason the government collapsed.
• The Palmetto Patriot in the Republic of South Carolina blog tries to explain Kosova in terms Americans can understand by putting the shoe on our foot with a parable about Tejanos (Hispanic Texans) declaring independence from the United States with the support of China.
• The Second Vermont Republic figures in another Associated Press story asking, if Kosova, why not Vermont? One of the interviewees is Thomas Naylor, of that organization, for what that is worth.

I have also observed considerable confusion between the breakup of nations, as the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia experienced (and the United States may soon experience) with balkanization, which has a specific reference to the breakup of nations into warring states. (See "Kosovo succeeds and secedes!" below; and especially, the comments to that post).

Secession and International Relations

If you’re not a pointy-headed intellectual, you might want to skip this post.

The international intellectual community is struggling to fit the secession of Kosova into the framework of international relations theory – and struggle is the correct word. One example is this article by Sumantra Bose on the International Relations and Security Network (ISN) site out of Zürich, Switzerland.

In “Kosovo to Kashmir: Self-determination Dilemma”, the author compares the role of the United States and other great powers in dealing with the attempted secession of Kashmir from India and Pakistan, and that of Kosovo from Serbia. Why did the powers help move Kosovo out, while insisting on leaving Kashmir in?

The author's arguments are inconsistent. On the one hand, Prof. Bose states that Kashmir is a polyglot mix between pro-Pakistani, pro-Indian, and pro-independence factions, justifying American insistence on working out a compromise between India and Pakistan. On the other hand, we read that Kosovo’s independence is justified by a 90% Albanian majority, despite the fact that the country is dotted with heavily-Serbian enclaves. The conflict between Israel and Palestine “can indeed be ended only by an equitable two-state solution,” but Kurdistan’s independence would be “regionally destabilizing.”

Prof. Bose ends with wishful thinking:

“the vast majority of confrontations between states and self-determination movements in the contemporary world can be assuaged without creating new states. Kashmir, again, is a prime example: there, territorial autonomy combined with internal power-sharing and cross-border institutions linking Indian and Pakistani-administered Kashmir constitutes a necessary and sufficient solution. If only such compromises were to come to pass, the world would be a much more democratic and much more peaceful place.”

A question comes to mind: how will cross-border institutions with two nations that maintain nuclear arsenals to defend themselves from the other contribute to peace? More likely, they would contribute to the growth of terrorist movements operating in both directions.

In other words, Prof. Bose wants to maintain the status quo of relatively large nation-states on the grounds that the world would be a “much more democratic and much more peaceful place.”
However, the reverse is true. While organizations such as the European Communities may prove helpful in securing the peace and building economic cooperation, the European Community is not a nation-state, much as European idealists would like for it to become one.

“Peace and democracy” will only come from nations small enough to be accountable to their people, and which respect and promote the culture (note singular) of their people. This is true self-determination. The necessary means for achieving it will usually be secession.

Secession and international law

Professor Valerie Epps has written an interesting article for the Korea Times discussing the evolution of international law as it relates to state sovereignty, then applying it to the secession in Kosova and the recent conflict in Tibet. She stresses that the United Nations has generally walked a fine line between favoring the right of self-determination and opposition to secessionist movements, undoubtedly reflecting the desires of the existing member-states.

One point bears repeating: Small states are not inherently unstable. Prof. Epps cites Liechtenstein and Luxembourg as examples, but there are any number of small countries throughout the world that exist peacefully -- consider the small Caribbean and South Pacific island nations, the Arab sheikdoms, and African countries like Gambia, Lesotho, and Swaziland.

Bloodshed occurs, not because territories want to secede; but because the ruling élites in the larger nation do not want to give them up, and are willing to use force to keep them. It's as simple as that.

South Ossetia: the price of U.S. hypocrisy

I know -- so what else is new?

After bucking the Russians to secure the independence of Kosova, the United States now finds itself in an awkward position: defend the rights of the South Ossetians against Georgia, its close ally in Iraq, or do the right thing by the South Ossetians even though it promotes Russian foreign policy?

We could avoid this kind of problem if we pursued a morally consistent foreign policy. With respect to secession, the only stand a nation that is itself the product of secession can take is to promote the self-determination of all peoples. As the Liberty or Death article linked above explains, Ossetia is an area that has been divided between Russia and Georgia. The South Ossetians simply want to reunite with their North Ossetian brethren. The Russians have given them a high degree of autonomy, which seems to satisfy them.

If the American government were morally credible, the United States might offer its good offices as a neutral mediator between the three parties to this dispute to work out a settlement most satisfactory to the South Ossetians.

However, the American government is not morally credible, and isn't likely to get any more so...

The path to independence

Attorney Wilton Strickland writes in the Liberty Defense League site, how a state can gradually achieve de facto independence without getting creamed by the feds; at the same time chipping away at the legitimacy of the federal government. The method is quite similar to the one successfully used by Kosova to break away from Serbia. (Summary below by Bill Miller at Secession and Nullification News and Information).

[S]ecession will have to become a de facto reality before it graduates into a de jure status of full legal sovereignty, since the federal tendrils run far too broad and deep in modern life to expect an immediate break. … With a good governor and/or legislature in place, the state can begin to resist unlawful federal programs and thereby impress upon the public mind that the federal government is a hostile and disruptive force. This requires a thoughtful strategy of challenging federal power in those particular areas where public opinion already clashes with it. By siding with the public on these “hot button” issues, the state will have increased its legitimacy at the expense of the federal government’s own and paved the way for greater independence in the future. … If a state indeed nullifies an unpopular federal law, it will have crossed the Rubicon and dared the federal government to enforce its will against that of the people. If the federal government does so, it will lose legitimacy and alienate the people even further; if it does not, it will lose face and encourage people to seek even more of the self-governance being denied them. … Apart from outright resistance, state governments should wean themselves from federal funds as soon as possible.

Fresh thinking on secession

From Rebellion comes some excellent thinking about why secession is necessary in our country in our time:

A commenter to that blog wrote:

"I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone who believes empire and imperialism aren't problematic. It is the conclusion that secession/rebellion, for all its violence and bloodletting, is somehow a sufficient and even desirable way to deal with centralized government that is bothersome."

As Mike Tuggle, who maintains Rebellion, writes: "It's good to be challenged -- it forces you to re-think and re-state your reasons for blogging and for advocating a particular point of view."

The problem with all consolidated government in large nations is this: They tend over time to become dictatorial. The District of Coercion can fail, and fail miserably; spending us into hyperinflation (coming soon to a store near you), but (as Mr. Tuggle writes):

"Thanks to the rigorous indoctrination of the government schools, folks think Lincoln's counter-revolution, which substituted the sovereignty of the central government for the sovereignty of the people, is somehow sacred. So they are unable to conceive of human-scaled government -- all the important decisions must be made by the Wise Ones in DC, no matter how often they screw up. We're stuck playing musical chairs, switching names and positions in DC, in the illogical belief the system is good and noble, and only needs different people to make the system work. Meanwhile, things mysteriously get only worse."

Either we, the people, force DC to return the power it seized (the old word was usurped) from us, or we should fire them. And firing means secession. Perhaps total withdrawal from the Union isn't necessary, but it must be available as an option to provide us with the necessary leverage to ensure that Washington listens to us and honors our rights as States and people. We have the reserved right to withdraw from the Union.

To those who see local culture as romantic and unattainable, we argue that, on the contrary, it is quite necessary. Mr. Tuggle notes that no political unit can be born or survive without the affection and loyalty of its people, and no voluntary political unit can be established without a cultural foundation uniting the people.

Quoting professor Ghia Nodia of the University of Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia:

"Democracy has always emerged in distinct communities; there is no record anywhere of free, unconnected, and calculating individuals coming together spontaneously to form a democratic social contract ex nihilo. Whether we like it or not, nationalism is the historical force that has provided the political units for democratic government. 'Nation' is another name for 'we the people'."

For local sovereignty to return as a counterweight to the present centralized system, local loyalty must be nourished. And the creatures who feed off the cancerous growth of Big Government know that, which is why both leftists and Neocons are afraid of our little secessionist movement; and in their fear, they want to persuade us of its impracticability, of the "inevitability" of war, and even that secessionism is inherently racist* (a point The Ohio Republic has repeately refuted).

War is not inevitable following a secession, and it is not inherently impractical; and we have plenty of history to prove it! Holland seceded from the old Netherlands (creating Belgium), Norway from Sweden, the 15 Soviet Socialist Republics from the USSR, the five Yugoslav republics and Kosova from what is now Serbia, the Slovak Republic from Czechoslovakia. All were peaceful, except Bosnia-Herzegovina.

All it takes is the ability to think like an independent nation, and the determination to act.

* with the patently absurd charge that the Alaskan Independence Party is somehow "neo-Confederate" in its thinking.

Kosovo succeeds and secedes!

Having backed Kosovan secession (new Kosova flag at right), how will the United States and the European Union justify resistance to secession within their own boundaries without appearing hypocritical? More on D.C. hypocrisy, from Rebellion.

This is a particularly difficult question for Europe, with the imminent possibility of Belgium dividing into Flemish and Wallonian states, and Scotland breaking from the United Kingdom, being the most prominent among many others.

America preaches unity at home, division abroad

The SPLC has "Hatewatch." I think we need a "Hypocrisy Watch." My latest reason for suggesting that is an article by Danny Schechter in the Pacific Free Press.

I will refer you to his article for the details, but here are some examples of what I mean. While most Americans insist that the United States is "one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" (the "liberty and justice for all" a false statement to anyone who can understand what is going on), American foreign policy has sought to divide in many parts of the world:

• We fought two wars, at the expense of over 100,000 American lives, to keep Korea and Vietnam divided.
• American pundits are looking for a way to split the European Community by encouraging Greece's moves to re-establish their own currency.
• American troops helped split Bosnia into two hostile factions, the "Republika Srpska" and the Muslim-Croatian government.
• We encouraged Kosova to split off from Serbia.
• We separated Kurdistan from the rest of Iraq during Saddam Hussein's rule, and there are many who feel that Iraq would be better off if split into three states, for the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites.
• We have always supported the partition of Palestine -- and not just into Israel and the Arabs; but into Israel, the West Bank (under Fatah) and Gaza (under Hamas).
• Africa's boundaries have never made much geographic or ethnographic sense; but while we support them generally, we were more than happy to see Southern Sudan split off from Sudan, and would be ecstatic if Darfur would follow suit; and there are proposals to split Libya into two or three nations.

So, please explain to me again, why is it such a good thing for 300 million Americans to be forced to remain "one nation, indivisible," but for all of these smaller nations to be decimated, and why what other nations do with themselves is any of our business?