Russia has a perfect pretext to justify its invasion of S Ossetia, Kosovo
MorgMcA said 09/01, 09:06 PM
As repugnant as is it is, that Russia invaded S Ossetia and from there Georgia proper, taking one of our allies down a notch in the process. We cannot hold ourselves blameless, after all Russia is merely using the same argument we made in 1998 for its own purposes
In 1998 we invaded a sovereign nation for dealings in its own territory. We invaded in the name of protecting an ethnic minority from an oppressive ethnic majority. Disregarding the very foundation of international law in an irresponsible, juvenile fashion. later we declared Kosovo to be an independant state, free from Serbia
In 2008 Russia invades Georgia, a sovereign nation, for dealings in its own territory. They invaded in the name of protecting an ethnic minority from an oppressive ethnic majority. Disregarding international law in an irresponsible, juvenile fashion. Later they declared S Ossetia independant, free from Georgia
Now I'm not condoning Russian action, nor agreeing w/ their assessment of the situation, and personally think that we should support Georgia in their conflict, I'm also pointing out that we have done exactly the same thing ourselves, in Kosovo, providing the Russians a perfect pretext.
Skipper04 said 09/03, 08:07 AM
Well the comparison is only perfect if the scenarios actually do match up, Morg. Otherwise, it's just a transparent attempt by the Russians to cover up their bullying and control the media portrayals. NATO interventions in Kosovo began only after the Serbian army had began mass deportation and full ethnic cleansing in an area that was legally part of Yugoslavia, not Serbia. So there is a question about soveriegnty there, plus it's tough to compare Georgia's response to conflicts within their own internationally draw borders with the criminal acts of Milosevic. The US acted with world support, sponsored democratic state in the freed territories, and had policies aimed at promoting reconciliation and cooperation amongst the ethnic groups. Russia acted unilaterally, clearly aims at creating Soviet-style satellite nations that will be consumed by the Russian Empire, promotes sectarian and ethnic warfare an never cared for these groups when they were minorities of the Soviet Union.
Also, the US has signed treaties requiring us to act in cases of genocide (which was clearly the case in Kosovo, but not Ossetia) And really Morg, there is really no such thing as international law
MorgMcA said 09/03, 06:44 PM
Kosovo actually was a part of Serbia as opposed to Yugoslavia. Yugo was made up of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Macedonia. Which broke up until only Serbia and Montenegro were left by 1998. Kosovo would be closer to the status of a county within a state (using American equivalents)
The Russians have made the claim that the Georgians did practice a measure of genocide against the S Ossetians
I find it difficult to call NATO support, world support. We could just as easily say that "going alone" had world support because our allies contributed to the troop levels going into Iraq. Also Russia condemned our operation in Kosovo and sent troops into a peacekeeping role (suprising by simply showing up in Kosovo unannounced) only to protect Serbian interests from being backwashed
Russia backs the democratic governments of Abchazia and S Ossetia
It is tough to say that we had a close relationship w/ the Kosovar people
you may be correct that there is no one to enforce international law, there is a set of understandings internationally recognized, upon which international relations are built. foremost of these is recognition of national sovereignty
Skipper04 said 09/04, 12:01 PM
I realize that by 1998 Yugoslavia was more or less a failed state with no hopes of recovery. My main point there was that it was never agreed upon that Kosovo should ever have been part of Serbia and I don't believe their authority in the region was recognized internationally, in contrast with the fact that Ossetia is internationally recognized as part of Georgia.
The Russians have made claims that the Georgians were practicing measures of genocide, but you compare this not only to the fact that the allegations in Kosovo had a lot more substance to them, but to the fact that the US and NATO did entertain debates with other world parties on the situation in Kosovo before the invasion. The Russians offered no venue for such a debate to take place in, and did not try to draw international attention to the region before invading. They neglected to do these things because they knew there was no way the international community would defend their arguments that a genocide was occurring.
National sovereignty can not be used to defend genuine acts of genocide against a minority. Govt.'s have to accept that there are some actions that they can't do even on their own soil.
MorgMcA said 09/04, 07:00 PM
Serbia did have sovereignty over Kosovo. Kosovo was never a state of Yugoslavia and was never on equal terms w/ Serbia, it was a region within the Serbian state of Yugoslavia, which is why the Serbs have no problem w/ Montenegro splitting from Yugo, but when Kosovo declared independence, it didn't declare independence from Yugo, but from Serbia. Kosovo was a part of Serbia which was a part of Yugo
Outside of the west, few did approve of our action in Kosovo, as previously mentioned the Russians even sent in their peacekeepers to act as a counter-balance to our own. The Chinese protested and the Iraqis sent intel. Our own European allies joined not because genocide was occurring but rather to keep the Serb military operation from escalating. the old Balkan tinderbox concept was forefront on their minds. Clearly the world wasn't convinced
We cannot simply disregard national sovereignty every time we see something we don't like. National sovereignty is the basic right of every country and w/o respect for it there is no diplomacy, no treaties, nor mutual understanding. It is the foundation of international relations and w/o due respect for it the whole world turns into a powder keg
Skipper04 said 09/04, 07:23 PM
No, the world wasn't convinced, but the point was that the debate took place. We didn't invade then provide our reasoning.
We can't disregard national sovereignty, but we also can not defer to it in every situation. If we do, then we are backing ourselves into a corner in future situations. What if Iran does actually develope a nuclear weapon? What if the Israelis are forced into a pre-emptive strike to protect their nation? What about future genocides?
it has always been my understanding that Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo was never internationally recognized. I will refer to Christopher Hitchin's recent article. "It was only ever recognized as part of Yugoslavia, and with the liquidation of that state, Serbia's claims upon that territory became null and void." The url for the article is as follows h ttp://www.slate.com/id/2184997/pagenum/2/. If I'm mistaken in my assumptions, I would like to know Morg. but i don't believe that i am.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Fair enough Skip. I mostly wanted to do this one, because someone once asked why I thought Kosovo was a worse move than Iraq. Based on my assessment of Russian action, I think this showcases my point, but I'll explain more up above. Should be interesting how this goes, you take tough debates, but never make it easy for your opponent.
MorgMcA | 09/03/08
Report Offensive Comment
Honestly, the article confused me. If Yugoslavia recognized it as Serbian (with some autonomy from Serbia in 1974, meaning fully Serbian for the previous half century, and for a second period of nearly a decade), and other nations recognize Yugoslav Sovereignty, wouldn't that include how they determine internal districts. The article would seem to point to a hypothetical scenario in which Canada recognizes US sovereignty but determines that there are really only 49 US states.
MorgMcA | 09/04/08
Report Offensive Comment
I don't see in the article where he says that Yugoslave recognized Sergian authority there. It was said that Kosova was once under rule by Belgrade legally, but only when Belgrade was the capital of Yugoslavia. When Yugoslavia fell, Serbia's claims were null and void. Just because they had authority over the region when both where territories of Yugoslavia, does not mean that Serbia had the right to control it after that which tied them together (Yugoslavia) disappeared. I think a fairer comparison would be Canada not recognizing the District of Columbia's rights to sovereignty over the state of New York should the US start to disintegrate. But we are getting well into the hypothetical here. And i agree it is a confusing situation.
Skipper04 | 09/05/08
Report Offensive Comment
Kosovo never was a state of Yugoslavia, that's the problem. Internal Yugoslav lines included the area of Kosovo within the state of Serbia. Kosovo was a region of the Yugoslav state of Serbia. The comparison if completely identical in all other ways would be that the Canadians decide that Northern California wasn't really a part of the state, after the US starts to disintegrate
MorgMcA | 09/05/08
Report Offensive Comment
Right of the Yugoslav state of Serbia. Not the independent state of Serbia. I can accept your scenario there. What if Northern California did not wish to break from the rest of the US as the rest of California did? Or if Northern California wanted to be independent? There would be a lot of factors that needed to be considered in recognizing sovereignty over the region. It reminds of the civil war scenario when West Virginia broke with Virginia. But i suppose we can go on all day. I certainly respect your opinion on the matter. But i do think it's a legitimate question. And why is nobody voting on this? haha. I think we bored them. Anyway good job, Morg. It was certainly challenging.
Skipper04 | 09/05/08
Report Offensive Comment
I thought this was about intervention not geography. The US has a long history of ignoring national boundaries. We helped revolutionaries in Columbia to seize enough land and power to create the nation of Panama while our navy waited off-shore. That's how the canal got built. We were ready to bomb Cuba in 1962 Remember Iran-Contra? How about Grenada. Or going into Panama to arrest Noriega? And we bombed Iraq and Libya "in retaliation" for years before we actually crossed the line in the sand. The only international law is: What are you going to do about it?
Nat Icon | 09/05/08
Report Offensive Comment
Nat Icon, we had a vested interest and a perceived threat in Colombia, Iran-Contra, Grenada and the such, the only real interest we showed in Kosovo was really an excuse for a domestic distraction. But the fundamental principle of national sovereignty remains the same.
MorgMcA | 09/05/08
Report Offensive Comment
Good job, Skipper, I think I'll make a note to self though, from here on out I don't think I'll put forth topics on very detailed and very foreign matters, my last one was a disaster voting wise as well.
MorgMcA | 09/05/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
I know you said you weren't agreeing with the Russian assessment of the situation, Morg. But you do compare the actions of both the US and Russia in the regions in question. So I thought my comparisons were relevant. I'm glad i finally get to debate you.
Skipper04 | 09/03/08
Report Offensive Comment