Has time came for unification?

[rocket88]

This cannot compare to Kosovo, which was only ever internationally recognized as part of Yugoslavia and not of Serbia, and was recognized internally as Yugoslav by the Tito regime, therefore retaining a preexisting legal right to secede that neither South Ossetia nor Abkhazia could make a claim to. Furthermore, the Albanian Kosovars earned a moral right to break away when Milosevic attempted to implement his insane and genocidal plan for a Greater Serbia in Kosovo, which involved the ethnic cleansing - either via murder or forced deportation - of Kosovo's native Albanians. In contrast to this, it was the Ossetians and Abkhazians who tried to get rid of the ethnic Georgians residing within their "ancestral lands."

The Democratic Republic of Georgia, established after the collapse of the Russian Empire, covered South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Oddly enough, the use of Ossetian insurgents was exactly how the Soviet Union would end Georgia's independence and annex the entire country not 90 years earlier. Could it be that Moscow is exploiting Ossetian nationalism to effectively reconquer Georgia in much the same manner?


Not to romanticize Gamsakhurdia or justify his fairly chauvinistic policy towards South Ossetia, but that's not quite what he said. He was saying that they had no right to a state in Georgia, which definitely meant no right to form a breakaway republic and likely no right to a significant degree of autonomy.

However, Saakashvili, Georgia's current leader, has offered numerous times to grant autonomy within Georgia to South Ossetia and Abkhazia; these offers were, I would assume, rejected by the Ossetian irredentists.

So you're basically saying one side's irredntists are better than the other side's? The modern state of Georgia has never really held control of those areas. Those areas have been de facto independent since the breakup of the USSR.

If Russia's aim was to take over Georgia, they would have done it. Georgia was unable to stop them.

 

[MadLib]

So you're basically saying one side's irredntists are better than the other side's? The modern state of Georgia has never really held control of those areas. Those areas have been de facto independent since the breakup of the USSR.

Georgia was not engaging in irredentism in South Ossetia. Irredentism is the advocating of annexing another state or territory based on shared ethnicity or prior historical possession. South Ossetia and Abkhazia actually are part of Georgia, and are internationally recognized s such.

If Russia's aim was to take over Georgia, they would have done it. Georgia was unable to stop them.

Outright conquest is frowned upon as of late. Russia's current method of exploiting micronationalism to effectively annex almost 20% of a rival nation's territory is much more cunning and is less likely to face serious international opposition.

 

[Cyrylek]

Should we unite ...?

I understand the historical perspective, but I would say the serious question to ask is "Are we really still the same people?".

When you look at the Koreas, the answer is clear: yes, they are the same people, the disruption of natural ties is acutely felt on the most personal level - and the only thing that stands in the way of reunification is the hideous Stalinist regime in the North. It will be gone one day, and Korea will be Korea.

Now, on the other hand, I had been to Moldova ("the Moldavian SSR" back then), in my teens. Sure, they speak a dialect of Romanian, and Stalin annexed the land by brute force in 1940. But I had no impression that Moldovans are considering themselves a part of Romania. They are something else. The dislike of the Soviet rule and - to lesser, but very visible degree - of Russians was universal, but that did not transform into any calls for reunification.

Or, let's disregard for a moment all the monumental differences between the two situations, and ask: Would Quebec ever consider reuniting with France? The answer is obvious, even though the French Canadians are extremely proud of being French - perhaps more French, in their minds, than the folks in the Old Country.

I am not intimately familiar with the Kosovo/Albania situation, but my instinct is to say 'No'. The accumulated cultural and economic differences may result in a distorted, uncomfortable union. And the future integration of both entities into the EU system renders many practical considerations irrelevant.

 

[DDD]

Hey, been away for a while. What have you guys been up to?

 

[DDD]

I understand the historical perspective, but I would say the serious question to ask is "Are we really still the same people?".

Yeap, we are. We only have a century of parallel histories, the remaining millenniums have been more or less the same.

Some Americans here that I spoke with tell about concerns that Albania still behaves like communists. They may influence us whom apparently are more democratic to turn their ways. For such a reason they propose a confederacy solution at first until democracy sets root there.

So a confederacy between Albania & Dardania as single state of United Albania as a single entity entering EU?

I would like to discuss about this idea? Anyone?

When you look at the Koreas, the answer is clear: yes, they are the same people, the disruption of natural ties is acutely felt on the most personal level - and the only thing that stands in the way of reunification is the hideous Stalinist regime in the North. It will be gone one day, and Korea will be Korea.

Now, on the other hand, I had been to Moldova ("the Moldavian SSR" back then), in my teens. Sure, they speak a dialect of Romanian, and Stalin annexed the land by brute force in 1940. But I had no impression that Moldovans are considering themselves a part of Romania. They are something else. The dislike of the Soviet rule and - to lesser, but very visible degree - of Russians was universal, but that did not transform into any calls for reunification.

I think the situation is similar to those. Somewhat different ideologies of same people with ancestors of Illirians. We may be a sub-tribe of Illiria back in ancient times named Dardania (a name this country should be called). But Illirian all the same.

Or, let's disregard for a moment all the monumental differences between the two situations, and ask: Would Quebec ever consider reuniting with France? The answer is obvious, even though the French Canadians are extremely proud of being French - perhaps more French, in their minds, than the folks in the Old Country.

Do you imply that Quebec still wants to reunite with France and that it is going to?

I am not intimately familiar with the Kosovo/Albania situation, but my instinct is to say 'No'. The accumulated cultural and economic differences may result in a distorted, uncomfortable union. And the future integration of both entities into the EU system renders many practical considerations irrelevant.

The cultures at least are not different at all. The culture is the same Albanian code more or less practiced relatively from every individual. Economies are ruined and the lift of the borders may open up for a new economy to grow upon.

Also it would have less administrative borders when joined in EU as a single entity rather than as two separate entities. Would make things easier to deal with one representative of all the same people when something would be asked of us for the EU as a single nation rather than go through two representatives of the otherwise same people. Less bureaucracy, less paperwork, less meetings, more things get done, quicker, efficiently.

 

[Cyrylek]

Do you imply that Quebec still wants to reunite with France and that it is going to?

No, quite the opposite: their "being French" has evolved far past the point when reunification with France would make any sense. Same roots, same language, close cultures - but a decidedly separate identity. They don't play hockey in Paris, losers.

 

[MadLib]

In other words, you are simply completely hypocritical. The Serbs were the majority in Serbia, yet you wanted to secede from them.

This is one of the biggest myths propagated by the anti-Kosovo crowd. Kosovo did not secede from Serbia because it wasn't a part of Serbia. It was an autonomous republic within the Yugoslav federation, just like Serbia, and therefore held the right to secede unilaterally.

 

[MadLib]

What are the solutions? Should we unite and break another wall, I mean, another border, for the convenience of a EU with less administrative borders now? Or should this be done later at some point for some reason?

As said before by other members, uniting with Albania could very well cause some of the same problems that Serbian occupation did. If you were to unite with Albania, it would probably be best for everyone involved (Kosovar Albanians included) to give the Serbs in Kosovo the option of joining with Serbia so as to stave off future irredentism in Belgrade.

Alternatively, if you are going to remain independent, you might want to consider becoming an associated state of Albania. You would remain independent, thus keeping the safeguards for your Serb minority as well as the diplomatic and economic advantages of remaining independent, but Albania would provide for your defense, so you wouldn't have to worry about future Serbian aggression for a long time. It's worked for other European countries, such as Liechtenstein, and we here in the United States have done it with Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands (and possibly Puerto Rico in the near future).

 

[rocket88]

Georgia was not engaging in irredentism in South Ossetia. Irredentism is the advocating of annexing another state or territory based on shared ethnicity or prior historical possession. South Ossetia and Abkhazia actually are part of Georgia, and are internationally recognized s such.

So it is irredentism in a way. It's based on Georgia's prior historical possession of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, they have not possessed either territory except on maps.

 

[rocket88]

This is one of the biggest myths propagated by the anti-Kosovo crowd. Kosovo did not secede from Serbia because it wasn't a part of Serbia. It was an autonomous republic within the Yugoslav federation, just like Serbia, and therefore held the right to secede unilaterally.

Actually, it was an autonomous province within Serbia, much like South Ossetia and Abkhazia were autonomous regions within Georgia. Even Georgia officially refers to Abkhazia as the "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia."

Kosovo sought to assert itself when Serbia revoked their autonomy, as Georgia sought to do with South Ossetia.

 

[MadLib]

So it is irredentism in a way. It's based on Georgia's prior historical possession of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, they have not possessed either territory except on maps.

Only by a very loose definition of the word. Was the American Civil War an example of irredentism?

 

[rocket88]

Only by a very loose definition of the word. Was the American Civil War an example of irredentism?

The American Civil War was different in every possible way.

 

[MadLib]

Actually, it was an autonomous province within Serbia, much like South Ossetia and Abkhazia were autonomous regions within Georgia. Even Georgia officially refers to Abkhazia as the "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia."

Kosovo sought to assert itself when Serbia revoked their autonomy, as Georgia sought to do with South Ossetia.

From Christopher Hitchens:

[T]here was to be a new state, Yugoslavia, where they had once jostled at the borders. You might argue that Kosovo was now part of Serbia by "right" of conquest (in other words, de facto), but in fact, not even Serbia had adjusted its own laws to make it a legal province de jure...Legal instruments agreed between these two entities recognized Belgrade's sovereignty over Kosovo, but solely in the sense that they recognized Belgrade as the capital of Yugoslavia...Thus, and if we exempt some decisions made by Stalinist bureaucrats after the re-creation of Yugoslavia in 1945, Kosovo has never been treated or recognized as Serb territory within Yugoslavia and never at all by international treaties outside that former state. Even those hasty Stalinist decisions were later undone by Tito, who granted Kosovo a large measure of autonomy in 1974.

With Kosovo independent, Yugoslavia is finally dead.

Here is where he elaborates on key differences between Kosovo and South Ossetia: The comparison between South Ossetia and Kosovo is bunk.

Kosovo was an autonomous republic of Yugoslavia in the same way that the other former Yugoslav countries were. On this point, over 100 UN member states recognize Kosovo as an independent nation. Contrast this with the five UN members who recognize South Ossetia (one of whom, Russia, clearly desires to annex the territory).

And once again, Kosovo at the very least had a moral right to secede from Serbia, due to the latter's genocidal plans for the Serb-populated regions of Yugoslavia. The ethnic cleansing committed in 2008 was carried out by the "independent republics" of South Ossetia and Kosovo

 

[MadLib]

The American Civil War was different in every possible way.

Are you sure about that?

An autonomous province unilaterally declares independence from a larger republic based on iffy legal claims - check.

Poor treatment of minorities in the separatist states - check.

Aggression on the part of the separatist states - check.

Lack of international recognition of the separatists - check.

The (accurate) argument by the former power of the territory that it had no legal or moral right to secede - check.

In fact, the major difference between South Ossetia and the Confederacy is that the Confederacy wasn't such an obvious puppet state of an imperialist power designed to destroy the unity of a fairly new country and expand control into the entire region (although it almost was).

Like I said before, though, the best analogy to South Ossetia is the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the establishment of an ethnically-based client state in the northern regions.

 

[rocket88]

Are you sure about that?

An autonomous province unilaterally declares independence from a larger republic based on iffy legal claims - check.

Poor treatment of minorities in the separatist states - check.

Aggression on the part of the separatist states - check.

Lack of international recognition of the separatists - check.

The (accurate) argument by the former power of the territory that it had no legal or moral right to secede - check.

In fact, the major difference between South Ossetia and the Confederacy is that the Confederacy wasn't such an obvious puppet state of an imperialist power designed to destroy the unity of a fairly new country and expand control into the entire region (although it almost was).

Like I said before, though, the best analogy to South Ossetia is the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the establishment of an ethnically-based client state in the northern regions.

The Southern states were not a completely different ethnic group.

 

[MadLib]

The Southern states were not a completely different ethnic group.

Ah, I get it now. An assembly that vaguely represents its region can unilaterally declare independence and wage a war to such ends so long as it's on ethnic grounds.

This is great! When will the Jews and Cubans in South Florida get to secede?

 

[Coin]

How about another name such as "USA" that stands for "United States of Albania." It would just be Dardania and Albania as states there alone but it sounds cool

Sure.
As soon as we get back our lands. (1/2 of Macedonia, parts in Montenegro and parts in Greece.)
:cowboy:

 

[DDD]

Sure.
As soon as we get back our lands. (1/2 of Macedonia, parts in Montenegro and parts in Greece.)
:cowboy:

Nah, that might raise suspicion of growing at the cost of neighboring countries and go all the way back to Illirian times (i.e., take over the whole of Balkans!). They are so scared that we might try against incredible odds to do that that even joining with Albania sends heart attacks to neighboring countries.

But a simple Dardania and Albania joining in a confederacy should do. Nothing to worry about, just two countries wanting to join voluntarily, should not be much of a problem.

 

[DDD]

As said before by other members, uniting with Albania could very well cause some of the same problems that Serbian occupation did. If you were to unite with Albania, it would probably be best for everyone involved (Kosovar Albanians included) to give the Serbs in Kosovo the option of joining with Serbia so as to stave off future irredentism in Belgrade.

Alternatively, if you are going to remain independent, you might want to consider becoming an associated state of Albania. You would remain independent, thus keeping the safeguards for your Serb minority as well as the diplomatic and economic advantages of remaining independent, but Albania would provide for your defense, so you wouldn't have to worry about future Serbian aggression for a long time. It's worked for other European countries, such as Liechtenstein, and we here in the United States have done it with Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands (and possibly Puerto Rico in the near future).

The associated state includes both federacy and confederacy. It sounds as a good way to link with Albania and join the EU as a single federacy/confederacy, with one president, military, and economy, while still maintaining a grasp over each states' natural resources.

Would have less and needless EU borders (i.e., less paperwork and more things done) while Dardania would still retain some autonomy. European charts would not change and Serbian intent to earn territories with genocide would be halted for good, while we would get the backing of NATO allies through Albania. Hence Russia and RT could then bark with media campaigns to demonize and vilanize us from here on to eternity and we could feel safe through such backing even while surrounded with Slavs.

Lastly, the pesty border would go away for good! I despise it so!

 

[MadLib]

The associated state includes both federacy and confederacy. It sounds as a good way to link with Albania and join the EU as a single federacy/confederacy, with one president, military, and economy, while still maintaining a grasp over each states' natural resources.

Would have less and needless EU borders (i.e., less paperwork and more things done) while Dardania would still retain some autonomy. European charts would not change and Serbian intent to earn territories with genocide would be halted for good, while we would get the backing of NATO allies through Albania. Hence Russia and RT could then bark with media campaigns to demonize and vilanize us from here on to eternity and we could feel safe through such backing even while surrounded with Slavs.

Lastly, the pesty border would go away for good! I despise it so!

The article says that a federacy is similar to an associated state, but they're not quite the same (Palau is an associated state with the United States but is not part of it; Kurdistan is in a federacy with Iraq and is part of it). In my opinion, both these options are preferable to complete independence or outright annexation. They each have their benefits and drawbacks: being in an associated state would give you greater autonomy (giving the Serbs more room to breathe), your own representation in the EU and the United Nations, and an economy that won't be subject to taxation from Tirana; a federacy would unite the Albanians (possibly at the expense of the Serbs) and allow them to voice their thoughts as one without coming into conflict, and would eliminate the border but also any international representation. I'd prefer an associated state, but as long as you don't mistreat the Serbs I'm fine

 

[DDD]

The article says that a federacy is similar to an associated state, but they're not quite the same (Palau is an associated state with the United States but is not part of it; Kurdistan is in a federacy with Iraq and is part of it). In my opinion, both these options are preferable to complete independence or outright annexation. They each have their benefits and drawbacks: being in an associated state would give you greater autonomy (giving the Serbs more room to breathe), your own representation in the EU and the United Nations, and an economy that won't be subject to taxation from Tirana; a federacy would unite the Albanians (possibly at the expense of the Serbs) and allow them to voice their thoughts as one without coming into conflict, and would eliminate the border but also any international representation. I'd prefer an associated state, but as long as you don't mistreat the Serbs I'm fine

Compared to them we look after our minorities

You remind me of an incident just recently. There was a Serbian middle man working between the organization where I work and trainers from abroad. The languages spoken at the part of Dardania where I live apart from Albanian are: Turkish and Bosnian.

If there are those that Serbs hate more then those are Turks. So the translations that always lacked from English were in Turkish language. The minorities did not understood the schedule nor did they understood the proceedings that were not in Turkish at all. It is as if those minorities did not exist for the Serb organizer. This continued even after complaining and even warning three times.

When the international trainers came I spoke to them about these developments. I gather the Serbian middle man was really criticized for this non acknowledgment from them. At one point I reminded him that "Minorities should be watched for and not be oppressed!"

Silly how no matter how much they lose with oppression they still keep at it. Hopefully they will learn one day about equality and somewhat special care to minorities.

 

[MadLib]

Compared to them we look after our minorities

You remind me of an incident just recently. There was a Serbian middle man working between the organization where I work and trainers from abroad. The languages spoken at the part of Dardania where I live apart from Albanian are: Turkish and Bosnian.

If there are those that Serbs hate more then those are Turks. So the translations that always lacked from English were in Turkish language. The minorities did not understood the schedule nor did they understood the proceedings that were not in Turkish at all. It is as if those minorities did not exist for the Serb organizer. This continued even after complaining and even warning three times.

When the international trainers came I spoke to them about these developments. I gather the Serbian middle man was really criticized for this non acknowledgment from them. At one point I reminded him that "Minorities should be watched for and not be oppressed!"

Silly how no matter how much they lose with oppression they still keep at it. Hopefully they will learn one day about equality and somewhat special care to minorities.

Didn't the UCK expel tens of thousands of Serbs after Milosevic submitted?

 

[DDD]

Didn't the UCK expel tens of thousands of Serbs after Milosevic submitted?

The fallacy in this attribution stands on it being impractical in nature. I do not think that UCK had neither the power nor the time to organize such mass expeditions. After Milosevic submitted the Serbian armies went out after the agreement with NATO general Michael Jackson and immediately after NATO troops came in. There was no room to organize such projects.

The minority Serbs (whom came here during the mass invasion of 1878 mostly) started fearing for the worse with backing of Milosevic and his mercenaries gone and they could not trust some NATO troops such as the Deutch, Dutch, Turks, etc. Add to that that some Serbs were being taken out due to the atrocities committed during the war and you have mass spontaneous fleeing of Serbs on their own.

They did trust the French troops though and thereby they remained north of Dardania. This does not changes the fact that we still watch out all our minorities today. Serbs own our Orthodox Churches still, wave the flag that brought our demise during their rule freely, are allowed to go to school in their language (not allowed to us during their time), they have their representatives in legal, economic, and political arenas, and they are not threatened for their activities.

 

[Seculla]

Why are you spreading lies? You know exactly that there was almost no Albanians on Kosovo some 500 years ago, and that they started coming after Great migration of Serbs, which escaped Muslim atrocities and left a lot of fertile Kosovo land unattended. Medieval censuses clearly state that. If there was any different there would be at list a single Albanian monument on Kosovo, among thousands of Serbian buildings, churches and monasteries dating back 1000 years ago. Not one word, book, script or carving in Albanian, but all Slavic.

As for modern history it is well recorded that was more than 1/3 Serbs on Kosovo after the WW2, and that massive Albanian terror and pressure made Serbs move out north.
While the number of Serbs on Kosovo remained the same (a little below 200.000) the number of Albanians rose three times in just 40 years thanks to the extensive immigration from Albania, and the massive baby boom which was supported by the Federal money which poorest territories like Kosovo, Macedonia and Montenegro used abundantly thanks to the Socialistic policy of equality.




Great Serb Migrations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Demographics of Kosovo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DDD]

Well... do not hold your breath but we are just 25 recognitions short of being recognized internationally through a seat at the UN.

There are 193 countries in the UN and a newly independent country to be recognized to the UN should be recognized by 2/3'a of 193 = 129. We are 25 countries short:

Who Recognized Kosova? The Kosovar people thank you - Who Recognized Kosovo and Who Recognizes Kosovo

We have been appealing to the Muslim countries since our independent declaration in 2008:

Kosovo Appeals to Muslim Countries for Recognition - Europe - Around the globe - World - Dalje.com

During their conference in 2010:

Islamic Conference calls for recognition of Kosovo | Politics

By year 2011 the Islamic conference asked for its members to recognize us for the first time:

The Organization of the Islamic Conference calls for the first time, for Kosovo’s recognition by its member states - News - Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Kosovo

The calling was repeated from the foreign minister Enver Hoxhaj (spelled ENV-ER HOJ-AY) twice, in 2011:

Kosovo's FM Hoxhaj calls on Muslim countries to recognize Kosovo - Today's Zaman, your gateway to Turkish daily news

And now recently in 2013:

OIC Head calls Islamic countries to recognize Kosovo | KosovoToday.info

I saw it on the news that something is cooking. There are more than 25 Muslim countries. The majority of them did not recognized us yet even though we are predominantly shallow Muslim.

I think that Muslim cohesion should be shown in deed by recognition rather than just words. It has been 5 years and most have not recognized us yet.

This is why I despise the name "Muslim Brotherhood." Brotherhood cohesion has been non-responsive to our calling till now. Hopefully there is a change in that now.