<< Rocked by Rape Warning: An Anti-America Coalition >>
Kosovo Calamity
Kosovo a mostly Muslim land on the door step of European Union member states Greece and Italy. In the very heart of continental Europe, with seemingly no petroleum reserves is center stage in the latest global power struggle.
The province, a virtual vessel of the United Nations is seeking independence from the Republic of Serbia as opposed to independence from the International community at large. Serbia, the present day successor to both the Yugoslav Federation and the Serbia-Montenegro fusion state has been attempting to cling on to this historic province in light of a demographic tidal wave against it.
The champions of a free Kosovo, namely the United States of America and select occidental countries should remember a day will come when the Palestinians, another mostly Muslim group will present a demographic tsunami for the State of Israel.
The politics of population and self-determination go hand in hand. After all, it is illogical to presuppose that the British could have held onto India or Hong Kong in the face of hundreds of millions of people. Ethno-Minority rule is seldom permitted for the long haul. One only needs to examine the plight of the Franco-Quebecois in the mid-1900’s and their rise to prominence in central Canada. The struggle of Americans of African heritage in many urban areas. Sadly, there are stark examples such as Mr. Mugabe in the former Rhodesia.
Granted, one can reason that while the faces of the rulers may change, the power structure seldom changes and organized force continues to reign unabated. So why care about Kosovo? Because this is yet another clearcut case of interference from the outside.
Great discussion following the events of September 11th, 2001 have concentrated around so called “blow back.” However, our foreign policy remains as entangled as ever. President Bush’s policy toward Muslims in Europe is very simple. Kosovo should become independent, Turkey should join the European Union and Muslims should integrate themselves into Europe as Mexicans are assimilating into the United States.
This begs the question, are Mexicans truly assimilating? The jury is still out. As for Muslims in Europe, the riots in France and the Netherlands speak for themselves. It is noteworthy that the peoples of both countries rejected the European Constitution. Why then is President Bush championing the Islamic cause in Europe while seemingly smashing it in the Middle East?
Quite simple, first it’s an attempt to tank the European Union and to weaken it for the benefit of the United States. On paper this may appear to be a Pro-American move and even a patriotic move. Again, we forget the words of another President George, that being Washington and his caution against entanglements.
Other motivations the President may have are simple, to win favor in at least some quarters of the Muslim world and to use American support for Muslims in Europe to enhance propaganda abroad. Cynics would contend that the so called “Terrorists” which are waging “War” upon the United States are often savvy Euro-Muslims. Surely, President Bush isn’t an appeaser, but could he actually be a collaborator?
Next subject. Do we really need strong allies across the Atlantic? Conventional wisdom tells us yes. President Washington and Jefferson tell us, yes in limited circumstances but NO on a permanent basis. Therefore, this is yet another strategic blunder on the part of President Bush that some other President will have to remedy many decades from now.
The Swiss Confederation seems to hold absolutely no position on any of the above issues. The business of Switzerland appears to be business. While they may be tightening their own immigration laws, this is a cyclical function in their system and is not a foreign policy measure. Switzerland is wise enough not to have joined the European Union, although they were not sober enough to resist the temptation to join the United Nations roughly five years ago.
As a result if and when Kosovo becomes independent, Switzerland will have no quarrel with the Russian Federation or any natural opponents to a free Kosovo. The Swiss will have no official position on whether such a state should merge with neighboring Albania. Instead, the Swiss will continue making money and concentrating on trade.
Does this mean that Switzerland is opposed to self-determination or freedom? Hardly. However, is it truly the role of the United States to prejudge the outcome of a possible referendum or parliamentary vote in Kosovo-Serbia? To his credit President Clinton did not prejudge the outcome of the failed 1995 Quebec independence referendum. Although, privately it was rumored that Clinton was a supporter of keeping Canada intact. At least he didn’t go to the same length as French President Chirac in voicing direct support for the pro-Sovereignty side of the vote versus the Federalist-Nationalist faction.
Non-interference is a virtue lost on world powers. Politicians love to play favorites, but timeless Statesmen stay dedicated to principals. Human temptation seduces us into making bold pronouncements. A greater discipline is needed in remaining silent and exercising that duty until a direct cause of action is brought forth.
As unlikely as it may be that Vermont or New Hampshire would hold a referendum on secession from the United States, how exactly would Washington feel if the Republic of Serbia unilaterally stated that: “if the good people of Vermont or New Hampshire vote to break away from America, we will recognize their independence” prior to the vote actually taking place. Granted, it is unlikely that many voters in those states would be rallied to vote YES on account of little old Serbia. But what about if Russia a long time supporter of Serbia stepped up to the plate, followed by a disenfranchised China and perhaps others.
Again, unlikely given that both Russia and China contain legions of restless ethnic minorities looking to slip out of both countries. The slide into further disintegration could become endless. In the eyes of an advocate of decentralization this may not be negative. In the eyes of a non-interventionist this is highly problematic.
Usage of a referendum to achieve political independence is preferable to usage of a war for independence. Even if we accept the above to be true, we must ask, what about those individuals that vote against independence? How can their rights be protected? Such people are then automatically subscribed to a government that they explicitly rejected. While a majority may have become “free.” A new minority has now been placed under a new tyranny. Do those same individuals then have the right to a referendum to break away as well?
Even if the answer is an emphatic YES. Common sense should tell us to stay out of each other’s way. Non-interventionism is critical in all of these cases. Today’s Kosovo freedom fighters may easily become tomorrow’s Terrorists. Today’s Serbians oppressors may become tomorrow’s heroes and vice-versa. Why must we set ourselves up for future clashes with people thousands of miles away?
Remember the next time negotiations are held in the Middle East on the Palestinian question, Kosovo will invariably come up as a precedent. What then will the supporters of Zionism say? They could quote the Bible and Serbs could quote their Orthodox clergy which holds religious reverence for Kosovo.
Are not all peoples entitled to self-determination? The United Nations says YES. The United States declaration of independence could construe the same answer. The Montevideo Treaty that the United States is a party to and a principal behind stipulates that states can exist independent of international recognition. The historical context of the Treaty signed in Uruguay was shortly before the onset of World War II.
Why would the United States hold such a position? Simple. It was a way of stating that the countries of the Americas needn’t go out of their way to recognize a Kosovo over a Serbia, an Israel over a Palestine or vice-versa, that those countries exist independent of a piece of parchment. While a multitude of reasons existed for the Treaty, it is still law.
The United States currently does not recognize the Republic of China yet we continue to do billions in trade with that Republic situated on the island we call Taiwan. Surely, Taiwan exists on its own without the approval of Beijing, yet in the face of such opposition we and the world continue to trade with it. Likewise, prior to our recognition of the People’s Republic, we knew that mainland China existed. In these circumstances politics followed trade and not the other way around. The backdrop of the Cold War and Sino-Soviet split did have a role to play.
Again, even more entanglement, the likes of which we still mitigate to this day with the Taiwan Relations Act which pledges American defense of Taiwan in the face of invasion from the People’s Republic. The favoritism never ends nor do the politics.
The citizens have been led to believe that we must continue to support Israel, to defend Taiwan and now we must recognize Kosovo’s independence. Yes, it may be popular and politically expedient or even correct, but are any of these areas in America’s strategic interest? The short answer is YES. Why? Because we’ve made it so. Some would call that a non-sequitur.
Does Israel deserve to exist? Does Taiwan deserve it’s independence? Kosovo? Quebec? Vermont? In all of those cases our founding fathers were quite clear. NOT OUR BUSINESS. Cruel and even a synonym for benign neglect but again adopting such a policy of pure neutrality will ensure that America will create less enemies and act less like an Empire.
For those that wish an American Empire, why not run the full gamut? Let’s just start annexing places left and right. Let’s triple our military. Let’s suspend the free convertibility of the Federal Reserve Note. Let’s cancel our national debt. Let’s impose protectionist tariffs. America doesn’t have to play fair or nice. So why play favorites?
Our own personal political perspectives are to be the providence of parlor chats around a fireplace and not the dominion of the dummies in D.C. Among friends we can debate the merits of Israel or Taiwan. Those with strong feelings can even move to those countries and donate money if they wish, but to compel other Americans to do so is un-American.
Especially, in consideration of the high degree of foreign policy illiteracy that permeates in America, it is unconscionable. This does mean hands off of Iraq, Iran and dozens of other engagements. Would we truly want such people to interfere in the American political process? I would imagine there is a clear consensus against such involvement of foreign governments in our internal affairs. Does this mean we are to be passive? NO. We surely can have peace through strength as Ronald Reagan said, but that strength can come from resolve, discipline and non-interference.
Why must we be held hostage to special interest that plunge us into war and pits people across the globe against each other? It doesn’t have to be this way. Once upon a time, it wasn’t this way and in some countries it isn’t this way.
Some would contend that America is too big and diverse to be neutral like tiny Switzerland. Others may call such bold proclamations isolationist. There is no evidence to suggest that Americans would be prohibited from smoking Cuban cigars, purchasing Persian rugs or that selling American corn to Belarus would imperil a neutral America’s safety. Only a country that plays favorites or that is deeply entrenched in the affairs of others would shudder in fear at such free commerce.
Lastly, while in Congress, Cheney was a proponent of lifting sanctions against many regimes deemed to be unsavory by Washington and even the International community in general. Could it be that the Vice-President was right all along? The question should now be, how did he get so wrong and why did we continue to follow such a failed model, in light of a model that has worked and continues to work!
Hungry for more?
