Living in a true multi-polar (or non-polar) world

In 1993, Christopher Layne wrote a fantastic article in International Security journal called "The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers will Rise".

While his predictions for what new powers would rise and how they would rise were influenced by conditions in the early 1990s and are therefore somewhat proven incorrect, his theories for why the world was destined for a multipolar world in the wake of the Cold War was, in hindsight, more correct than even he might have guessed.

The reasons for multipolarity are obvious: the end of the Cold War spelled the end of a bi-polar balance of power between the United States and the Soviet Union. Each power had their own client states and allies giving support (un)willingly to each power. With the collapse of the USSR, the US emerged as the victor in the Cold War, but over the next few years two inevitable things began to happen.

First, client states of the US no longer felt the need to tow the line of submission and subservience to US foreign policy. We begin to see an increasingly restless Western Europe eager to formulate their own foreign polices which have been in contrast to US goals almost as much as they have been in tandem. The Trans-Atlantic decay over Iraq (augmented by the Bush Administration's shear stupidity) is only the latest example.

Second, the United States, with no clear "enemy" in sight anymore now felt it could push its own policies unobstructed, which, in the grand scheme of IR theory, gives the image of one superpower with the ability to (re)shape the world. No matter how benevolent said power may be, other states, as proven in history, will inevitable "balance" against the ruling hegemon to ensure that no one state, or no one cluster of states assumes uncontested power.

The decay in US foreign policy has largely been due to these factors: US unipolarity that is being contested by powers even from friendly regimes, an unwillingness by the US to recognize that they cannot police, regulate, and shape the entire planet, and most importantly, the realization that US foreign policy is not for the betterment of the world at large, but still falls within the geostrategic interests of the US. This last factor alone has been one of the biggest reasons for the erosion of America's image throughout the world.

What we have, are attempts by Washington to try to assert its self-perceived role of importance and superiority in many placed, but net deficits in every international entanglement: Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Serbia (Kosovo).

The decay in America's credibility will continue unabated unless the next administration realizes it can no longer shape the world in its own image. It cannot speak on behalf of international law, human rights, and the spreading of democracy while openly pushing its own geostrategic agendas. Washington may not like the reality that it's time as King of the Hill has now come to an end and that it has to share that hill with Brussels, Moscow, Beijing, Bangalore, Tokyo, and yes, Tehran. For every action the US takes, there is now a credible counteraction that any of the other powers can, and will, make. This is why Iran's nuclear program will continue. This is why American crafted democracy is failing in Iraq. This is why Kosovo will never be anything more than a glorified colony unless negotiations with Belgrade (and Moscow) are undertaken.

To be perfectly honest, I welcome the new multipolarity of the world. Challenges to US foreign policy have often produced more pragmatic ways of approaching international relations and solving international crises. Washington needs to learn to cooperate with others if it wants to regain the respect and admiration it had 20 years ago. It also needs to recognize the limits of its power and authority, and the need to work with other powers if it wants authority to be extended.

Mr. Montgomery,

Wow! You have a remarkably keen sense of the obvious! But can you tell us why the United States has been instrumental in creating the chaos seen around the world? Is there an ulterior motive, such as the saving grace of Neo Liberal / Conservative (take your pick) Imperialist Globalization or are you just apart of the 20% of the American population that believes that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

Cheers

once again B92 serves as a platform for the unnecessary thoughts of a man who really wanted to make us believe that "unique case"-nonsense...

well, Soros is paying, so that ´s the only place to spread this nonsense...

by the way: great picture, it shows one of those China-bashing-animals throwing up all hate he got...

that´s what happens wenn western propaganda hits weaker brains...

Mr Montgomery - I sense that slowly but surely you are coming to the conclusion that America can't run everything and make all the decisions... congratulations, you are correct.

In line with this, I eventually look forward to a new page being turned over with the Serbs... here is what is needed:-

Scrap the Kosovo UDI and conduct real negotiations that respect the rules that all other countries have to play by (absolutely no chance that Serbs will EVER accept being "unique").

OR

Push for a change to the rule book (at least with respect to ex-Jugoslavia). That means independence for (Albanian part of) Kosovo but also Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina.

The Croatians probably will want their bit of BiH too.

Until one of these 2 happens - no peace in the balkans.

What do you prefer? I think it has to be one of these 2.

If any of you want to read and listen to real news and not churned out American garbage about boogie men in Iran or weapons of mass distraction in Iraq you have to stop believing everything you read on CNN or BBC and do a little research below the surface (Not too far below). How so called intelligent educated people can debate Chinas human rights record or Serbia’s abuse of Albanians yet not mention Israel, America, fake terrorists or greedy banks and bankers getting richer and richer is beyond me not to mention Latin America, Africa the list goes on…………. Go to YouTube type in 'Deek Jackson' and enlighten yourselves. You may even get a laugh (Or cry) Once you realise what the truth about all these issues really is. Money controls everything, and I do applaud an American journalist for actually writing a piece for us stupid Serbs, but writing on subjects based on garbage is still garbage. Maybe everyone should go back to watching big brother or American Idol while the politicians trade Vojvodina, for some other hypocritical organisations approval.

Thank you Bill Richardson for finally admiting what many people on these forums have been telling you.

While my 'name' may scare you, it's part of a wider world in which new ideas are interacting and alliances being made.

Let the rest of the world relieve the Anglo-Americans of their self-declared 'white-man's burden' -- who knows maybe you stand to learn something anyways?

Euro-American supremacy is only a blip on the time scale of world history. Eventually, the freedom and independence of indigenous peoples in Britain's settler-colonies will be attained.

It's not only Tibetans that can hold demonstrations: http://www.no2010.com/ as the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver will show. International solidarity against US empire is growing. And I do think it was the Serbian daily Politika that was the only paper to run a front-page story on the Lakota Declaration of Independence from the USA a few months back.

Yes, the world is changing. Let's talk again when a former Serbian ambassador to the US is writing articles in the NYT about the need for American settlers to accept the imposition of the UN Mission in Lakota Territory (UNMILT) and abandon the long-tradition of racist xenophobia that is a hallmark of your national construction....

Is it any wonder that with such a history the world is repudiating the USA?

I personally welcome the decrease of the relative power and influence of the United States. During this period the World have not become better place, which showed the true face of United States and its need for domination. I hope you learned something as well: that your country and its administration are not suited to be leaders of the world. The task of the next President should be to strive to bring peace and prosperity for as many countries around the globe as possible.

WOW - no pro Kosovo independent supporters here - I wonder why? HA HA...

"The decrease of the relative power and influence of the United States was inevitable, but not the speed of the fall or the depth."

The implosion of the Soviet Union in the 1990s made the US feel impervious and consequently arrogant. This conceit led it to overspend and overstretch itself everywhere. It is now paying the price for its folly.

Thank goodness the indications are that the rising powers (particularly in Moscow and Beijing) aren't stupid enough to imitate the Yankees to spend, spend, spend as if money grow on trees. They just save up their money and let their BOP balances do the tallking.

Mr. Montgomery, we don't need the US becoming more influencial in world affair.
Look what they have accomplished with "limited" influence they have.

More chaos this world doesn't need. What we need is America to stay absent from "bringing democracy" to the rest of the world.

You were right on one thing. The next American president should concentrate on establishing better relations with America's foremer allies instead of doing just the opposite.

A good article, Mr. Montgomery, and a realistic one too. We are certainly headed in multi-polar world direction. Unfortunatelly, it will come with a lot of instability as competing powers try to carve out their own zones of influence that will be overlapping at the times.
Unlike some posters here, I don't think that we have much to be glad about because US is currently loosing some of its power and influence. What makes anyone think that Russia or China or India (or posiblly Brazil) will be any better? Will they abide by international laws? If they do so it will be their own free will to do so, not because there is some kind of law inforcement in place. I doubt that they will, it's not in a nature of great powers to do so.
Now to say few words to Nik.

"I am amazed of the fact that the Serb nationalists always believe in double standarts. During the war in Ex Yugoslavia they were insisting that there was a profound difference between the cases of Krajna and Kosovo! The Croats, they used to say were an Yugoslav nation and had the right to secede, but not within their constitutional borders. The territories where the Serbs were present "in sagnificant numbers?!" has supposedly the right to "remain' in Yugoslavia. No part of Kosovo in their minds had the right to secede, because the "Albanians" already had a country, the "Internationaly recognized borders" could not be changed etc. "

And what is wrong with any of it?
Perhaps you should read international law a bit. Yugoslavian constitution was completely in sinc with it.
And in that constitution there were six constituing nations (Slovenians, Croats, Bosnian Muslims today called Bosniaks, Serbs, Montenegrins, and Macedonians). Constituing nations meanins ethnic groups to whom Yugoslavia is domicile country. Sure, there are others and there are national minorities as in any other country, and there were entitled to all the rights given to minorities. Like Hungarians or Albanians, or let's say Italians in Istra penninsula. But, you see Nik "domicile" country of Italians is Italy, and in Yugoslavia they had a status of "minority".
The main difference between two is in their right to self-determination. Constituing nations had one, minorities didn't.
Pay attention here. NATIONS had a right, not REPUBLICS.
But, what is right of self-determination? It predates UN and was advocated throught 19th century, to gain major support from US president Woodrow Willson. It is meant to serve as a tool to allow ethnic groups to form their own countries, to build their own destinies, if you will. And it's been used several times. Perhaps you should take a look at what happened to India after the WW2. Indian Muslim population used it's right of self-determination to split from Hindu-dominated India. New country was formed in two parts, Western and Eastern Pakistan (later Eastern Pakistan bacame independant from the Western part and bacame Bangladesh). You should probably read few UN documents related to the matter, and you would realise that during this separation of Pakistan from India, rules were followed and INTERNAL borders disregarded. Internal meaning borders of Indian provinces, borders of regions and municipalities, etc.
Not that those international laws are widely used, otherwise Chechnia would we independant now (again powers don't respect the law) or Tibet.
To Tibetans, China is a "domicile" country (as there is no Tibetan state elswhere). They too should have a right to use self-determination and choose their own destiny. And if Chineese authorities try to prevent that by dividing Tibet among neighbouring Han Chineese provinces making that minority in each of those, legally, it shouldn't matter. They should still have a right to self-determination and to form their own country on their ethnic territory, while internal borders between Chineese provinces shouldn't matter.
But, what about international borders?
"...the "Internationaly recognized borders" could not be changed etc."
You are saying all this as if Serbs made up those rules.
Internationally recognized borders are guaranteed and should not be changed.
What if say, Kurds in Turkey (same case as Tibetans) should be allowed to use self-dtermination to separate from Turkey and form their own Kurdistan? Are they entitled to include their kin in Iraq and Iran? Legally, they are not. They would not be able to form their country ignoring internationally recognized borders and Kurds in both Iraq and Iran, would not be entitled to join "Kurdistan". They should still have a status of minority with the rights that go with it.
Perhaps, the best answer to your dillemas will be given if you examine Aaland Islands case (google it and you'll find it).
Population of those islands is almost entirely Swedish (92.4% Swedish speaking, 5% Finnish speaking), but islands are in Finland.
In 1920 they tried to use self-determination to either join Sweden of form their own independent coutnry.
In 1921 League of Nations ruled that Swedes as a minority in Finland are not entitled to right of self-determination. Islands are to remaind under Finland's sovereignty. Finland was obliged to ensure the residents of the Aaland Islands the right to maintain the Swedish language, as well as their own culture and local traditions (as it was customary right of minorites at that time, later to become one of international laws). One small note here, Albanians had schools and University in Albanian language (but boycotted because they did not agree with the curriculum). Croatia banned Cyrrilic letters or "Serbian" language (use of "Serbian" words) when Tudjman came to power. But, nevermind that now.
So, Swedes, unlike Albanians accepted that they are in Finland and live there ever since, enjoying rights of the minority, along with wide autonomy for the islands. But, wait, Ahtisaari is in a good mood to give parts of the country away and allow for self-determination of minorities. Perhaps, he will give away part of his own country.
So, yes, Nik, international borders are not to be changed. How many wars happened in Europe over borders? And what European country's borders would not change now, should we simply disregard those rules and laws? What would you say about South Tyrol? It was always Austrian, and it's populated by 90% german-spaking population. It was given to Italy by victorious powers, as a reward for joining the WW1 on their side. Should they be allowed to re-join Austria? They certainly don't have a legal right to do that, as they are today minority in Italy. And where would all that lead anyway? And how many borders would change?
So, yes, Nik, interantional borders are not to be violated. And no, minorities don't have a right to self-determination othervise we would have Algeria 2 in suburban Paris today.
Now, all this doesn't matter and it was ignored by Badinter who declared Yugoslavia "dissolved"? and therefor Yu-constitution invalid. It was only logical (to this guy) to transfer sovereignty to next level of government - the REPUBLICS.

"When the lost the wars and all subjects of the fromer federation except Vojvodina (because it did not desire so) became independent whitin their constitutional borders."

Well, Nik, Kosovo was represented directly on federal level, as autonomy WITHIN Serbia. And it's true that this was not given neither to Serbs in Krajina nor in Bosnia. That doesn't , appearantly, stop you from claiming that Serbs ruled Yugoslavia, while Albanians were oppresed. (and since Albanians had wide autonomy in Serbia, and were even represented directly on federal level, they should get even independence, while those who had less right should get nothting? Nice way to bring about equallity, Nik.) Or, what about West Macedonia, that was not a federally represented, but you started the war anyway?
Well, Nik Kosovo was still autonomy within Serbia, part of republic of Serbia.
And Badinter said that sovereignty should be transferred to the next level of government- the republics, not autonomus provinces, municipalities or any other lower level of government.
And he added that nobody should have a right to seccede from the republics too. (he was talking about Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia, I guess)
Alas, today we see that Western leaders go against decisions of their own legal experts.
Funny, you don't see a double standard.
"I am amazed of the fact that the Serb nationalists always believe in double standarts."



But, that's only law and nobody cares right?
When Dayton Agreement was made, Rugova wanted question of Kosovo to be on the agenda. Guess what, Nik? Milosevic agreed. He was probably thinking that solution for Kosovo should be somewhat simmilar to Bosnia - no seccesion but wide autonomy.
Guess what? Clinton refused to talk about Kosovo. He wanted to stay "focused" on Bosnia and bringing the peace there. Kosovo will be resolved at later date, he said. Today, we see why, don't we?
Unfortunatelly, to you it seems perfectly logical that Ceku went to Croatia to fight for principal of unity of the Yugoslavian republic, and then went to Kosovo to fight for the opposite.
But, don't think that the world will be happier place by ignoring the laws and rules created in order to prevent wars.

Sreten,

Apparently you are somewhat knowledgeable about the breakup of Yugoslavia, but rather long winded, if you'll forgive me for saying so. However, you appear more clever with your words than your knowledge. Is it your intent to deceive rather than inform?
What I am driving at is your remark about Milosevic agreeing to include Kosova in the discussions at Dayton. Yes, the U.S. did not agree to include Kosova in the "Talks" at Dayton, but it was not Clinton who objected but Milosevic. Forgive me if I am wrong about this, but could you please state your source about the Dayton Agreement so that the readers will not feel misinformed. BTW, were you present at Dayton as you seem to want us to believe.

"The time to LET GO has come.
(nik, 2 May 2008 21:15)"

nik, I can guarantee you your advice will fall on deaf ears north of the Ibar. They won't let go. And Kosovo will not join the UN. The UN is the real international community, not the one expoused by the West which is largely made up of themselves. These are the realities today.

comentator wrote: Scrap the Kosovo UDI and conduct real negotiations that respect the rules that all other countries have to play by (absolutely no chance that Serbs will EVER accept being "unique").

OR

Push for a change to the rule book (at least with respect to ex-Jugoslavia). That means independence for (Albanian part of) Kosovo but also Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina.
I am amazed of the fact that the Serb nationalists always believe in double standarts. During the war in Ex Yugoslavia they were insisting that there was a profound difference between the cases of Krajna and Kosovo! The Croats, they used to say were an Yugoslav nation and had the right to secede, but not within their constitutional borders. The territories where the Serbs were present "in sagnificant numbers?!" has supposedly the right to "remain' in Yugoslavia. No part of Kosovo in their minds had the right to secede, because the "Albanians" already had a country, the "Internationaly recognized borders" could not be changed etc. When the lost the wars and all subjects of the fromer federation except Vojvodina (because it did not desire so) became independent whitin their constitutional borders. That is atleast some standart! Now the Serb nationalists start proposing change of the ruls, which by the way if proposed in 1992 had a chance of succeding! But now they talk of secession of the "Albanian part" of Kosovo! Are they ready the same "Change of Rules" even to be considered about the Albanian populated Preshevo valley, the Hungarian part of Vojvodina, the Macedonian Prohor Pchinski, the Bulgarian Dimitrovgrad and Bosilegrad?
NO OF Course Not. "Everithing that is under our control is ours, fullstop! Yet whatever is beyond it must be contested!"
Until that attitude changes, Serbia is to face hostilities and future defeats!

You can find many documents about India, for example, on the UN web site, Nik. I'll give you one link from Wikipedia about Aaland Islands decision by League of Nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_crisis

Opening sentence summarize the matter.

"The Åland Crisis was one of the first issues the new League of Nations had to arbitrate. The Åland Islands' population's demand for self-determination was not met and sovereignty over the islands was retained by Finland, but international guarantees were given to allow the population to pursue its own culture, relieving the threat of assimilation by Finnish culture, perceived by the islanders."

"...population's demand for self-determination was not met..." because they were minority. Having Sweden as their "domicile" country their right to self-determination was considered "consumed" (term used by League of Nations).
Swedes out of Sweden are minority, and changing international borders to include Islands into Sweden was out of the question. How about independence? Creation of another Sweden was also out of the question. As a minority (outside of Sweden) Swedes did not have right of self-determination, islands were to remain in Finland.
But, you are right, Nik to think that those rules and laws were not always used, particularly when it comes to great powers.
After unsucessful "peaciful resistance" (does it sound familiar?) and incouraged by growing power of neighbouring Germany leader of Sudetendeutsche Party In Czeschoslovakia, Konrad Henlein, demanded incorporation of region known as "Sudetenland" into Germany. This Czeschoslovakian region was, after all predominantly populated by Germans.
Edvard Beneš, president of Czeschoslovakia refused to give in, and ordered mobilisation of the troops. It was obvious that they will not be able to fend off any German attack by themselves. He also, adressed League of Nations, asking for legal protection - minorities don't have a right of self-determination!
As negotiations were underway between Benes and his government on one side and Henlein on the side of Sudeten German side, Henlein's party held violant demonstrations and attacked the police in Ostrava on September 7th 1938. As government troops moved in to restore order, with some resistance, of course, Hitler demanded takeover of Sudetenland. The Czechs, Hitler claimed, were slaughtering the Sudeten Germans (it turned out later that more Czechs were killed by nationalistic Germans, then other way around).
On September 28th 1938, Chemberlain met with Hitler and other leading European leaders in Munich, Germany to prevent the war (Czechs were not even invited!).
Munich Agreement was signed by Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom.
Sudetenland was given to Germany. In the text they even included that "all other borders will remain unchangable, and no right of self-determination is to be given to any other minority".
I guess, Germans in Sudetenland were "unique case".
They called upon the Czechs to "accept this decision of European powers, for the sake of good neighbourly relations in Europe. "
On September 30 1938 Czechsoslovakians agreed to abide by this agreement (in witch they did not even participate) and cede terrotory to Germany.
And world lived happily ever after...

Sreten, The biggest change of the world map was carried out after the Second World War under the presumption of the inviolability of the borders! The unwritten principle states: The rights of the territory goes before the rights of the peoples. Every territory, presumed to be a "country', no matter how small was given the right of independence (because the opposite was presumed to be IMPERiALISM), but no people, no matter how big had that right. (with two exceptions that I shall mention later), because the opposite was considered seperatism, or worse, apartheid) So first that principle was tried with the overseas colonies, where the administrative borders, often drawn with blunt disregard of the wishes of the local people, became internationaly recognized borders! French West Africa became Senegal, Mali, Niger, Uper Volta etc. After the collaps of the communist federations - USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, it was presumed thet the republics were countries. Their constitutional borders became internationaly recognized! Kosovo is presumed to be a special case, because it had de facto a status of a Republic and was a subject of the Yugoslav Federation.
There were two cases when the international comunity tried to recognize divisions on ethnic/religious lines of 2 "countries": The Indian Raj and the Mandate of Palestine. The result was series of wars! The seperation of Bangladesh was easily accepted because of its phisical separation from (the rest of) Pakistan.

Okey, Nik.
But, I'll have to disagree with you one more time.
Soviet Union is a different story as it was taken into account that in their constitution member republics of the Union were sovereign.
But, principle of ethnic partition in disregard of internal borders and administrative units is nothing new. That's how former province of Punjab was divided and how we got Punjab in India, and Punjab in Pakistan today.
I disagree that there was no such thing as ethnic division in the West. Story of Ireland is somewhat complicated, but I'll put it in simple terms. In 1921 as Irish people declared their independence from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, island was divaded along ethnic lines. Where Irish and catholics were in majority Republic of Ireland was formed. However, English protestants were regarded as "people" with right to choose their own destiny. Notice here that they were not regarded as "people living under one government" (existing Irish) or something like that. English north choose to STAY in UK, and it's still part of it. And island was partitioned (regardless of integrity of existing administrative units, or county "borders" etc.) And the new international border was drawn.
Today 53.1% of population of Northern Ireland is protestant, and 43.8% catholic.
What if this should change to be other way around?
Would Irish right to self-determination apply to allow for reunification with Republic of Ireland? Legally no.
This is the only instance where principle of inviolability of the borders is in conflict with self-determination principle. And you are right when you wrote "...inviolability of the borders! The unwritten principle states: The rights of the territory goes before the rights of the peoples. "
Meaning that Irish cannot use self-determination to change existing international border and join Republic of Ireland.
So, they can't join, but could they then use it to gain independence from UK? Again, legally no. By existance of Republic of Ireland Irish right to self-determination is considered "consumed", and Irish outside it are national minority (with all the rights that go with it).
In all other cases, above mentioned principles are not exclusive or conflicting.
Same was stated in Yugoslavian constitution. But, let's forget about constitution as Badinter declared Yugoslavia "dissolved" and subsequently its constitution was disregarded (this decision is, to put it mildly - questionable at the very least).
But, shouldn't this dissovled state still resolve its disputes by use of valid international laws, such is Helsinki Final Act, UN Charter etc. ? Not according to Badinter who simply transferred sovereignty to next level of government, the republics. And the great "political sin" of Krajina Serbs was that they wanted same rules and laws that allowed partition of Ireland to allow for partition of Croatia, and to allow English population in the north of the island to remain in UK, to allow to Serbian population to remain in Yugoslavia. Even if we disregard Yu-constitution, this, you will agree, is not legally groundless aspiration.
But, Badinter neglected Helsinki Final Act and several other international laws and turned internal borders of the republics into international not-to-be-changed borders. And then it was "inviolability of the borders! The unwritten principle states: The rights of the territory goes before the rights of the peoples."
Your interpretation I guess.
While international law pretty clearly defines self-determination, you offer another look at it.

"True in the communist federations there was a concept of "nations" and peoples, but in the West nation means group of people under a common government! "

Any common government? And if not where it is specified? Then I don't see the problem at all. If Srpska Repbublic cannot separate from Bosnia because it was specified so in Dayton agreement, nothing can stop for example City of Bijeljina to, as group of people under a common government (municipal) go to a referendum and declare independence! Same can be done by all municipalities in Serbian part of Bosnia and also in northern Kosovo. No problem. The only sensible thing to do is to ask people on referendum!
"The basic principle of democracy states that the minority has to accept the decision of the majority"

They wouldn't even secede from Bosnia. Bosnia would simply dissolve.

But, this simply isn't how things are legally done, Nik. This is not some right given to governments. And Soviet Union did not have to fall apart at all, in your view.
Russians simply should have gone to the referendum to save it. Baltic republics would vote against but "The basic principle of democracy states that the minority has to accept the decision of the majority"
If only English knew about this Irealan would still be part of UK, they would overvote them.
Self-determination is preciselly given to the "people" so that Latvians as a people could not be overvoted by Russians, or Irish by Brits.
It's meant to allow to Tibetans to choose their destiny, regardless of what all other people under a common government (Chineese) think about it (or vote about it).

Another problem with Badinter's decision that it also recognized Serbia within its borders (including Kosovo). And since Albanian claim to self-determination would not hold, the most unbeilivable and proposterous legal construction begins.
It's based on "partial" recognition of things. Like Badinter decision. Yes, we can accept part that Yugoslavia dissolved, and that Croatia and Bosnia cannot be divided (and everybody insisted and held onto it as if it's a Holly Graal). The part of the same decision where Serbia cannot be divided either we'll simply ignore. And also, when it comes to Yugoslavian constitution. Kosovo was represented on Federal level, and although it wasn't a republic, it was de facto a republic. We should take that into account.
Wait! Wasn't the outcome of Badinter's decision that Yugoslavia dissolved one that Yugoslavian constitution should not be taken into account? All that should matter is Badinter's decision, and the fact that Serbia is a UN member, most recently confirmed at that, after the split with Montenegro.
Partially, again. Only parts giving right to constituing nations to self-determination should not be taken into account, or any other part that could stand in a way of Kosovo's independence.
Okey, let's then take only that into account!
Legally, even international representation does not somehow cancel existing sovereignty. (not to even mention national)

"Kosovo is presumed to be a special case, because it had de facto a status of a Republic and was a subject of the Yugoslav Federation. "

You presume a lot here! The fact that was a subject of the Yugoslav Federation means nothing in terms of sovereignty.
Nor de facto automatically translates into de jure.
Just recently I read a study about status of women in developed world. While they are equal legally, they are still lagging in terms of political representation, income when working same jobs as men, etc. De jure equal, de facto still some work to be done.
Following the "automation" of de facto situation recognition we could resolve the problem easyily. Men that are de facto privilledged should be made legally privilledged too, I guess. Problem solved. We would even be able to claim that we are in the same time "oppressed" by women. (justice has very little to do with how history unfolds)
No, my friend. None of the above leads to any legality of Kosovo's independence. It's a very bizzare legal construction.
But, should we for some reason, accept this Mickey Mouse legality as a base, and disregard number of unimportant legal considerations such as UN Charter, Helsinki Final Act, Montevideo Agreement, (and yes - Badinter's decision), UN 1244 Resolution, and about half of dozen of other international laws and treaties, then yes, everything is up side down and we could say that Serb are separatists!

"...because the opposite was considered seperatism, or worse, apartheid) "

As they should try to leave Kosovo.

And yes in that case we could say that your first message was entirelly correct.

One simple observation: it is the overriding duty of nation state leaders to act in the best interests of their state; the reality is that these leaders are politicians and only ever act in their own interests (and I mean all states). This is the fundamental problem with US/UK foreign policy towards Serbia (including Kosovo), Iraq, Iran, Israel and any other nation state you care to mention - it was not in the US/UK national interest to support the KLA (except perhaps to create Bondsteel); it was not in the US/UK national interest to invade Iraq ... the list continues. Mr Montgomery's article simply observes the equal and opposite reaction to the actions taken by US politicians.

Americans should be (and many are) aggrieved by the actions taken by politicians; the US national interest (strategic, political and economic) has been significantly damaged and nothing has been gained in return.

Serbia is a natural and historic ally of the US/UK when US/UK interests have been at stake and I would suggest that it was the financial excess and bravado of the US/UK between 1990 - 2007 that contributed to the amnesia of Serbia's value as a friend rather than a mocked-up foe. 1999 was a parlour game for the US/UK, but that game set a precedent for ostracising friends, engaging in wanton military action and believing that the adulation of Kosovo Albanians was value for money.

I understand "inat" and this, in my view, is a defensive mentality, and necessary when under attack. Americans have no such word or recent experience, however that will change with the onset of financial hardship and political disillusionment. Now Serbia is on the offensive and inat has no place in that game - Serbian national interest lies in restoring the ability for Serbs to travel when and where they like, to do business with whom they choose and to shed the false image as the Balkan pugilists.

The upside of financial problems in the US/UK is that the voting public is more likely to pay attention to where their taxes are going - this was not the case in 1999 or 2003, but now the political leaders have to demonstrate value for money in order to stay in power - therefore recognising Kosovo is free, but actually supporting that decision through financial/military assistance is not and the voters/politicians will be watching.

As a genuine friend of Serbia I would only say to play chess with the US/UK/EU - NATO has moved beyond J Shea rhetoric; the US cannot afford to make the 1999 mistake again and the UK needs an overt ally in the Balkans, and Croatia simply cannot deliver on any relevant issues (forget the rest for the time being).

Criticism of my post welcome from all sides - I stand by my comments, but look forward to debate.

Well done Bill, you just identified a new world order. You should maybe call it something. How about "After-the-modern-era?" Hang on, I've got it - "Postmodernity!" This is sure to catch on. I haven't read anything from France for the past forty years.

I will have to respond to you ones more, Nik.
Perhaps you should read this article published in New Delhi, India, written by retired general Satish Nambiar, former Force Commander and Head of Mission of the United Nations Forces deployed in the former Yugoslavia.

http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/features/fatalflaws.html

In second point it sais:

"(2) It was obvious to me that if Slovenians, Croatians and Bosniaks had the right to secede from Yugoslavia, then the Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia had an equal right to secede. "
and
"It made little sense to me that if multiethnic Yugoslavia was not tenable that multiethnic Bosnia could be made tenable."
and then,
"The former internal boundaries of Yugoslavia which had no validity under international law should have been redrawn when it was taken apart by the West, just as it was in the case of Ireland in 1921 and Punjab and Bengal in India in 1947. Failure to acknowledge this has led to the problem of Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia. "

Absolutelly right.
"The former internal boundaries of Yugoslavia which had no validity under international law ..."
There is absolutelly nothing that guarantees internal, non-international borders.

"The biggest change of the world map was carried out after the Second World War under the presumption of the inviolability of the borders! The unwritten principle states: The rights of the territory goes before the rights of the peoples."

I've heard those arguments before, and I'm not even sure where is this comming from. Oh, yes, the "unwritten principle states". Well, there are plenty of written principles that state othewise.
The arguments I've heard before was that right of self-determination is meant as a colonial right only, and the other one that inviolability of the borders somehow canceled right to self-determination of the people after the WW2. Neither is true.
Those two principles are not conflicted. Inviolability of the borders means that no state should annex part of the neighbouring state (kind of Germany and Sudetenland that I mentioned above). International borders cannot be changed. (yet, in your first posting you have no problem with that appearantlly. You are mentioning Hungarians in Vojvodina "Bulgarian Dimitrovgrad and Bosilegrad?" etc. forgeting that there are internationally recognized borders in place)
No such guarantee for internal borders, though.
This does not mean that "peoples" (not minorities) can't use their right of self-determination, still. This two principles are not in conflict.

Take a look at this document from Conference on Security and Coopeartion in Europe and it will become clear to you.
Dated on August 1st 1975.
(it's very clear that self-determination is not canceled after WW2, nor it is conflicting with Inviolability of the borders principle. (besides, it's 1975, post-colonial period)

http://www.hri.org/docs/Helsinki75.html

Have adopted the following:

"III. Inviolability of frontiers
The participating States regard as inviolable all one another's frontiers as well as the frontiers of all States in Europe and therefore they will refrain now and in the future from assaulting these frontiers.

Accordingly, they will also refrain from any demand for, or act of, seizure and usurpation of part or all of the territory of any participating State."

and

"VIII. Equal rights and self-determination of peoples
The participating States will respect the equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination, acting at all times in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the relevant norms of international law, including those relating to territorial integrity of States.

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self- determination of peoples, all peoples always have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish their political, economic, social and cultural development.

The participating States reaffirm the universal significance of respect for and effective exercise of equal rights and self- determination of peoples for the development of friendly relations among themselves as among all States; they also recall the importance of the elimination of any form of violation of this principle."

Why do you think that article 3 and article 8 in Helsiki Final Act are conflicting?
Try reading the annexes of it and definition of "people" (as opposed to "minority" becomes clear). This is further expanded later in Montevideo Agreement.

It was signed by "by the High Representatives of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, the German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, the Holy See, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Yugoslavia."
One look at the last two will tell you that both US and Yugoslavia recognized this right. (of self-determination).


And yes, Nik, Yugoslavian constitution was in sinc with international laws. There were six "peoples" (Slovenians, Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins, Macedonians, and since 1974 Muslims in Bosnia were recognized as "people") and they carried sovereignty. To point the difference to you Bosnia and Herzegovian was a republic, not "people" or nation. It actually had 3 constituing nations ("peoples") in it - Serbs, Croats and Muslims, today called Bosniaks.
What do you actually think that attempt by Croatia and Slovenia to change Yugoslavian constitution and remodel the country into Confederation was all about?
To put it in simple language, Federation is sovereign state union, Confederation is union of sovereign states. The main difference is that in Confederation laws of each sovereign part of it are above the confederal constitution or laws.
But, when that didn't work, there was Badinter to change that for them.
Ignoring UN Charter, etc. he declared Yugoslavia "dissolved" and Yugoslavian constitution invalid.
Then declered Republics as "natural, next level of government" to become sovereign, ignoring Yu-constitution, and numerous international laws such as Helsinki Final Act, Montevideo Agreement, etc.
Thus, internal borders of the Republics became international, not-to-be-changed borders.
Why the repubics and not municipalities or regions? I don't know. It must have been one of those "unwritten principles" that you mentioned. And guess what, Serbs did accept this ruling. Karadzic signed EU Lisbon Plan, that stated that Bosnia is independent country, but gave wide autonomy to constituing nations. Izetbegovic signed too, but then decided not to allow for any autonomy in Bosnia. And then the war started...
But, let's put this issue of self-determination aside. I can see that you are not claiming this right for Albanians, anyway.
Here it is where you are making Kosovo case.
"...it was presumed thet the republics were countries. Their constitutional borders became internationaly recognized!"
Why it was presumed that republics are countries? but never mind that now.
"Their constitutional borders" were recognized. Constitutional, as in Yu-constitution, already invalid? Ambiguity. But, nevermind that now, either.
And here comes Kosovo.
"Kosovo is presumed to be a special case, because it had de facto a status of a Republic and was a subject of the Yugoslav Federation."
I'm glad that you mentioned de facto status of a Republic and direct representation on Federal level. How were you "opressed" then in comparison to Serbs in Bosnia or Croatia who had neither de facto status of the republic, nor direct representation on federal level?
But, does this give you the right to be "presumed to be a special case" as you claim?
In Yugoslavian constitution there was indeed direct Kosovo's representation on national level (really, is Yu-constitution invalid or not? I'm confused here). And Kosovo was de facto a republic. But, it was represented on federal level as autonomy inside Serbia. Kosovo was never "de jure" a republic, you are not disputing that?
We've seen those claims before too. In 1991 Rugova claimed that reduction in Kosovo's autonomy was illegal, althought it was decision made by Yugoslavian presidency (yes, including Slovenia and Croatia) and there was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it. Then after Badinter's decision, he ignored that it refers to REPUBLICS, and not to "de facto republics" or "those directly represented on federal level" etc. He called for referendum on independence and declared it afterwards, establishing parallel institutions, etc.
In 1998 he refused to negotiate with Serbian authorities about autonomy. He insisted that he only wants to talk to Yugoslavian autorities, as Kosovo has nothing to do with Serbia, and that he only wants to talk about independence, given to other "federal units".
But, does representation on national level seperatly from Serbia means that Kosovo was separated from Serbia?
Not even on international level, Nik.
As you can see from this article from German "Speigel", Aaland Islands that I mentioned in previous comment is represented aside from Finland even internationally, at the EU level.

"But the spat between the group of 6,500 Baltic Sea islands and Brussels could conceivably result in this tiny part of the EU opting out of the treaty completely."
Besides they joined EU separatelly from Finland.

"The islands voted separately from Finland on joining the EU in 1995 and managed to secure an exemption from the EU's VAT rules, allowing tax-free shopping ships sailing between Finland and Sweden. "

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,541281,00.html

In some way Aaland Islans were represented separatelly from Finland on International level (EU) and is de facto like the one of any other independent country. Should they be "presumed to be a special case" being de facto independent and directly represented on international level. Not at all. International laws are clear on this matter. Even international representation does not cancel existing sovereignty of Finland. Rest assured, if there is any kind of legal dispute, over fishing rights, or oil-drilling, etc. Territory of the islands and the waters around them are sovereign Finnish territory and will be treated as such (including oil revenue, etc.)
Or, forget the islands. Have you ever seen FIFA of UEFA qualifying games? There is no UK team there. There is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Sure, when Wales plays against Italy for example, there is a flag and national anthem, etc. It's de facto a country, represented on international level equal to other independent countries. Does this somehow cancels UK sovereignty over Wales?
Not at all.
This argument would not stand in any court.

Oh, yes, and to Michael John. I was writting about Dayton and Milosevic from the memory, and I'm pretty sure that I'm right. But, don't take my world for it, I might be wrong, too. I just wrote a long comment to Nik and I'm too tired to search for it on the internet. But, if I'm wrong on that one, I apologize to all. It ceirtanly was not my intent to deceive.

Sreten wrote: "How were you "opressed" then in comparison..." Sreten, I am not an Albanian and I have never been to Kosovo. So please do not get personal!
But it is un interesting line. It evokes the concept of justice. I am afraid to say it but jautice has little to do with the way history unfolds. In the Balkan wars Serbia doubled in size, but there were few Serbs among its new subjects. It is well known fact that history is a step mother, not a mother of the peoples. Mentioning peoples, the international law does not deal with them. It deals with institutions. True in the communist federations there was a concept of "nations" and peoples, but in the West nation means group of people under a common government! Minorities are presumed to be part of the respective nations, not fifth colums of other nations! The affinity towards one culture or another is rather a personal decision, and the peoples are often an euphimerical things, new ones "get being recognized" on the Balkans almoste all the time!
Slovenia and Croatia did not secede from Yugoslavia! The Slovenians indeed tried, but their attempt was not recognized. They de jure became independent when Yugoslavia seased to exist.
Why were they recognized within their constitutional borders when the Yugoslavia has seased to exist? It did, but the republics continued to exist. And every republic had a constitution that stated that its borders could not be changed without its concent! The same thing happened in the former Soviet Union. Tens of millions of Russians were left outside Russia! Some changes of the internal borders in USSR were quite questionable. Crimea for instance was transfered in the 50's from Russia to Ukraine by a simple decision of Politburo! The majority of the population there was Russian, or prorussian. Yet in 1991 it became part of independent Ukraine! The Russians were wise enough to understand that they could not say to the Ukranie: If you want to secede, let those areas that are populated by Russians "stay" in some demminished Soviet Union! There was hardly a Russian that did not suffer the "loss" of Sevastopol, but the majority were sensible enough not to go to war for it! Look at Bosnia! The war was raging in Croatia for months while Bosnia had peace. Serbs participated in the government. When it became clear that Serbia and Croatia will not return to a common federation, the Government did the only sensible thing. Asked the people by a Referendum to decide what to do next! A clear majority voted for independence. The basic principle of democracy states that the minority has to accept the decision of the majority, but the majority must respect the rights of the minority. What basic rights of the Serbs in Bosnia were thretened? The answer "if Yugoslavia was not tenable why should Bosnia be tenable?" is sensless! Greece and Turkey once were in one state, the Ottoman Empire, Today they are in two. But The international community recognizes one Cyprus, were Greeks and Turks must find a modus vivendi. By the way, when Cyprus decame independent in the 60s, nobody protested that there could be no Greece 2. Cyprus was deemed "a country". The Turkish Cypriots were not given right of secession, even when the Turkish army occupied almost half of the island! Neither was the Turkish minority given tha right to veto the adheasion of Cyprus to the EU!Sooner of later Cyprus will be reunified.
Back to Bosnia. There was absolutly no sensible reason for the Serbs to go on rebelion. None at all!
Kosovo was never a de jure Republic. You are absolutely right! But that was due to the tottal stuburness of the Serbs. Stuburness sometimes is a formidable quality. Sometimes it pays off. But this time it will not! The time to LET GO has come.

I like discussing with you Sreten. You ara obviously a knowageble person. But please take into account that Irland was partitioned BEFORE WW2, in an age when borders were frequently changed. To this very day Irland has not recognized the partition. UK, on the other side as Mragaret Thatcher liked saing, will keep troops there "until the majority of the people desires so". When the majority changes? First let us see the statistics. The catholics are almost half of the population. Apparently no ethnic clensing was carried out when Irland was divided. Let us recall how was Republic of Srbska Krajna established? (Serb irregulars attack Croatian police, Croat irregulars try to reimpose control, then JNA interferes and somehow there were no more Croats in the area for the next 5 years) I believe when the population ratio in Norther Irland changes, due to higher birth rate of the Catholics, it will rejoin Irland is some way. It already has, being in EU. Irland has not joined the Schengen zone, because it has a similar agrement with the UK, and if it joins Schengen the UK may impose pasport control on a border that Irland does not recognise. Nowadays we witness the ris of pure English seperatism, because Scotland has its own parliament, England doesn't but the Scots are presented in the Westminster parliament. Asimetrical federations are unworkable and UK may one day disintegrate!
"It the Soviet union republics were presumed to be sovereign". Well so were in Yugoslavia. To be a republic one had to touch the outer borders or the sea so incase it leaves the Federation it will not turn into an anclave. That was the reason why Bosnia was given the little port of Noam. Yugoslav republics had more historical right then the Soviet ones. All of the Soviet Union was before that the Russian Empire. It could be claimed that the power was delagated from the center to the republics. More than half of the territory of Yugoslavia was never part of Serbia. Croats and Slevenians at least joined volontery, although the Croats experienced a desire for "divorce in the wedding night"( acording to Paul Garde)
At least in theory , after 1945 the power of the central government was delegated to it by the republics!
The Soviet Union did hold a referendum for its preservation in 1987! The Baltic states boycotted it, but in the rest of the union a substantial majority supported the union! Yet it proved ungovernable in democratic conditions and fell appart. Of course the Republics, not the nations achieved independence. Their borders did not coinside with the ethnic lines and when an atempt to change them was made, as in Nagorno Karabah, there were wars, ethnic clensing etc.
Sure enough under those procedures Kosovo was to remaim part of Serbia. If Yugoslavia had disintegrated peacefully, if the authonomy of the region was never suspended, I can asure you that NO country would have recognised its UDI! But as you know history had a much sadder course. That is what made Kosovo a "special case". I believe that Kosovo should be independent because it could not be absorbed in the Serbian political system. It could be part of a dictatorial Serbia, but not of a democratic one. If the Serbs try to split it, that will open the seperatice cascade I mentioned before. Lets say the Hungarians and the Bulgarians do not come with seperatist claims. All they want is Serbia to join the EU ant the borders with Hungary and Bulgaria to become only a road sign. But I'd love to hear your argument against the seperation of the Muslims of Sandzhak? (Serbia and BiH - two republics - equal status. Serbs and Muslims - two recognized Nations - equal status. Serbs in BiH, Muslims in Serbia - mirror image!) Greetings!

"Let us recall how was Republic of Srbska Krajna established? (Serb irregulars attack Croatian police, Croat irregulars try to reimpose control, then JNA interferes and somehow there were no more Croats in the area for the next 5 years)"

Nik,
As a former Krajinian, I must correct you, Croatia's neo-fascist government started this by firing Serbs from their jobs and changing Croatia's constitution to downgrade our status in the republic against our will. No consultations, no negotiations, just diktat from Zagreb.

Serbs have always formed the majority of the population in what was Krajina (check any census, Yugoslav, Austrian etc), and around Knin (my village was about 10kms away), Krajinians were 90% of the population at least.

If the Croats can unilaterally change the politics of the coutry then we absolutely had a right to do our UDI too.

Let me remind you we have been been subjected to the most evil possible killing and genocide during the WW2 NDH (the Nazis themselves were appalled) and the Tudjman years saw our people decimated again - and now we are the criminals????

Have pity for the hundreds of thousands of people buried at Jasenovac or expelled in this last war.

WOW - no pro Kosovo independent supporters here - I wonder why? HA HA...

If any of you want to read and listen to real news and not churned out American garbage about boogie men in Iran or weapons of mass distraction in Iraq you have to stop believing everything you read on CNN or BBC and do a little research below the surface (Not too far below). How so called intelligent educated people can debate Chinas human rights record or Serbia’s abuse of Albanians yet not mention Israel, America, fake terrorists or greedy banks and bankers getting richer and richer is beyond me not to mention Latin America, Africa the list goes on…………. Go to YouTube type in 'Deek Jackson' and enlighten yourselves. You may even get a laugh (Or cry) Once you realise what the truth about all these issues really is. Money controls everything, and I do applaud an American journalist for actually writing a piece for us stupid Serbs, but writing on subjects based on garbage is still garbage. Maybe everyone should go back to watching big brother or American Idol while the politicians trade Vojvodina, for some other hypocritical organisations approval.

"The decrease of the relative power and influence of the United States was inevitable, but not the speed of the fall or the depth."

The implosion of the Soviet Union in the 1990s made the US feel impervious and consequently arrogant. This conceit led it to overspend and overstretch itself everywhere. It is now paying the price for its folly.

Thank goodness the indications are that the rising powers (particularly in Moscow and Beijing) aren't stupid enough to imitate the Yankees to spend, spend, spend as if money grow on trees. They just save up their money and let their BOP balances do the tallking.

Well done Bill, you just identified a new world order. You should maybe call it something. How about "After-the-modern-era?" Hang on, I've got it - "Postmodernity!" This is sure to catch on. I haven't read anything from France for the past forty years.

A good article, Mr. Montgomery, and a realistic one too. We are certainly headed in multi-polar world direction. Unfortunatelly, it will come with a lot of instability as competing powers try to carve out their own zones of influence that will be overlapping at the times.
Unlike some posters here, I don't think that we have much to be glad about because US is currently loosing some of its power and influence. What makes anyone think that Russia or China or India (or posiblly Brazil) will be any better? Will they abide by international laws? If they do so it will be their own free will to do so, not because there is some kind of law inforcement in place. I doubt that they will, it's not in a nature of great powers to do so.
Now to say few words to Nik.

"I am amazed of the fact that the Serb nationalists always believe in double standarts. During the war in Ex Yugoslavia they were insisting that there was a profound difference between the cases of Krajna and Kosovo! The Croats, they used to say were an Yugoslav nation and had the right to secede, but not within their constitutional borders. The territories where the Serbs were present "in sagnificant numbers?!" has supposedly the right to "remain' in Yugoslavia. No part of Kosovo in their minds had the right to secede, because the "Albanians" already had a country, the "Internationaly recognized borders" could not be changed etc. "

And what is wrong with any of it?
Perhaps you should read international law a bit. Yugoslavian constitution was completely in sinc with it.
And in that constitution there were six constituing nations (Slovenians, Croats, Bosnian Muslims today called Bosniaks, Serbs, Montenegrins, and Macedonians). Constituing nations meanins ethnic groups to whom Yugoslavia is domicile country. Sure, there are others and there are national minorities as in any other country, and there were entitled to all the rights given to minorities. Like Hungarians or Albanians, or let's say Italians in Istra penninsula. But, you see Nik "domicile" country of Italians is Italy, and in Yugoslavia they had a status of "minority".
The main difference between two is in their right to self-determination. Constituing nations had one, minorities didn't.
Pay attention here. NATIONS had a right, not REPUBLICS.
But, what is right of self-determination? It predates UN and was advocated throught 19th century, to gain major support from US president Woodrow Willson. It is meant to serve as a tool to allow ethnic groups to form their own countries, to build their own destinies, if you will. And it's been used several times. Perhaps you should take a look at what happened to India after the WW2. Indian Muslim population used it's right of self-determination to split from Hindu-dominated India. New country was formed in two parts, Western and Eastern Pakistan (later Eastern Pakistan bacame independant from the Western part and bacame Bangladesh). You should probably read few UN documents related to the matter, and you would realise that during this separation of Pakistan from India, rules were followed and INTERNAL borders disregarded. Internal meaning borders of Indian provinces, borders of regions and municipalities, etc.
Not that those international laws are widely used, otherwise Chechnia would we independant now (again powers don't respect the law) or Tibet.
To Tibetans, China is a "domicile" country (as there is no Tibetan state elswhere). They too should have a right to use self-determination and choose their own destiny. And if Chineese authorities try to prevent that by dividing Tibet among neighbouring Han Chineese provinces making that minority in each of those, legally, it shouldn't matter. They should still have a right to self-determination and to form their own country on their ethnic territory, while internal borders between Chineese provinces shouldn't matter.
But, what about international borders?
"...the "Internationaly recognized borders" could not be changed etc."
You are saying all this as if Serbs made up those rules.
Internationally recognized borders are guaranteed and should not be changed.
What if say, Kurds in Turkey (same case as Tibetans) should be allowed to use self-dtermination to separate from Turkey and form their own Kurdistan? Are they entitled to include their kin in Iraq and Iran? Legally, they are not. They would not be able to form their country ignoring internationally recognized borders and Kurds in both Iraq and Iran, would not be entitled to join "Kurdistan". They should still have a status of minority with the rights that go with it.
Perhaps, the best answer to your dillemas will be given if you examine Aaland Islands case (google it and you'll find it).
Population of those islands is almost entirely Swedish (92.4% Swedish speaking, 5% Finnish speaking), but islands are in Finland.
In 1920 they tried to use self-determination to either join Sweden of form their own independent coutnry.
In 1921 League of Nations ruled that Swedes as a minority in Finland are not entitled to right of self-determination. Islands are to remaind under Finland's sovereignty. Finland was obliged to ensure the residents of the Aaland Islands the right to maintain the Swedish language, as well as their own culture and local traditions (as it was customary right of minorites at that time, later to become one of international laws). One small note here, Albanians had schools and University in Albanian language (but boycotted because they did not agree with the curriculum). Croatia banned Cyrrilic letters or "Serbian" language (use of "Serbian" words) when Tudjman came to power. But, nevermind that now.
So, Swedes, unlike Albanians accepted that they are in Finland and live there ever since, enjoying rights of the minority, along with wide autonomy for the islands. But, wait, Ahtisaari is in a good mood to give parts of the country away and allow for self-determination of minorities. Perhaps, he will give away part of his own country.
So, yes, Nik, international borders are not to be changed. How many wars happened in Europe over borders? And what European country's borders would not change now, should we simply disregard those rules and laws? What would you say about South Tyrol? It was always Austrian, and it's populated by 90% german-spaking population. It was given to Italy by victorious powers, as a reward for joining the WW1 on their side. Should they be allowed to re-join Austria? They certainly don't have a legal right to do that, as they are today minority in Italy. And where would all that lead anyway? And how many borders would change?
So, yes, Nik, interantional borders are not to be violated. And no, minorities don't have a right to self-determination othervise we would have Algeria 2 in suburban Paris today.
Now, all this doesn't matter and it was ignored by Badinter who declared Yugoslavia "dissolved"? and therefor Yu-constitution invalid. It was only logical (to this guy) to transfer sovereignty to next level of government - the REPUBLICS.

"When the lost the wars and all subjects of the fromer federation except Vojvodina (because it did not desire so) became independent whitin their constitutional borders."

Well, Nik, Kosovo was represented directly on federal level, as autonomy WITHIN Serbia. And it's true that this was not given neither to Serbs in Krajina nor in Bosnia. That doesn't , appearantly, stop you from claiming that Serbs ruled Yugoslavia, while Albanians were oppresed. (and since Albanians had wide autonomy in Serbia, and were even represented directly on federal level, they should get even independence, while those who had less right should get nothting? Nice way to bring about equallity, Nik.) Or, what about West Macedonia, that was not a federally represented, but you started the war anyway?
Well, Nik Kosovo was still autonomy within Serbia, part of republic of Serbia.
And Badinter said that sovereignty should be transferred to the next level of government- the republics, not autonomus provinces, municipalities or any other lower level of government.
And he added that nobody should have a right to seccede from the republics too. (he was talking about Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia, I guess)
Alas, today we see that Western leaders go against decisions of their own legal experts.
Funny, you don't see a double standard.
"I am amazed of the fact that the Serb nationalists always believe in double standarts."



But, that's only law and nobody cares right?
When Dayton Agreement was made, Rugova wanted question of Kosovo to be on the agenda. Guess what, Nik? Milosevic agreed. He was probably thinking that solution for Kosovo should be somewhat simmilar to Bosnia - no seccesion but wide autonomy.
Guess what? Clinton refused to talk about Kosovo. He wanted to stay "focused" on Bosnia and bringing the peace there. Kosovo will be resolved at later date, he said. Today, we see why, don't we?
Unfortunatelly, to you it seems perfectly logical that Ceku went to Croatia to fight for principal of unity of the Yugoslavian republic, and then went to Kosovo to fight for the opposite.
But, don't think that the world will be happier place by ignoring the laws and rules created in order to prevent wars.

You can find many documents about India, for example, on the UN web site, Nik. I'll give you one link from Wikipedia about Aaland Islands decision by League of Nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_crisis

Opening sentence summarize the matter.

"The Åland Crisis was one of the first issues the new League of Nations had to arbitrate. The Åland Islands' population's demand for self-determination was not met and sovereignty over the islands was retained by Finland, but international guarantees were given to allow the population to pursue its own culture, relieving the threat of assimilation by Finnish culture, perceived by the islanders."

"...population's demand for self-determination was not met..." because they were minority. Having Sweden as their "domicile" country their right to self-determination was considered "consumed" (term used by League of Nations).
Swedes out of Sweden are minority, and changing international borders to include Islands into Sweden was out of the question. How about independence? Creation of another Sweden was also out of the question. As a minority (outside of Sweden) Swedes did not have right of self-determination, islands were to remain in Finland.
But, you are right, Nik to think that those rules and laws were not always used, particularly when it comes to great powers.
After unsucessful "peaciful resistance" (does it sound familiar?) and incouraged by growing power of neighbouring Germany leader of Sudetendeutsche Party In Czeschoslovakia, Konrad Henlein, demanded incorporation of region known as "Sudetenland" into Germany. This Czeschoslovakian region was, after all predominantly populated by Germans.
Edvard Beneš, president of Czeschoslovakia refused to give in, and ordered mobilisation of the troops. It was obvious that they will not be able to fend off any German attack by themselves. He also, adressed League of Nations, asking for legal protection - minorities don't have a right of self-determination!
As negotiations were underway between Benes and his government on one side and Henlein on the side of Sudeten German side, Henlein's party held violant demonstrations and attacked the police in Ostrava on September 7th 1938. As government troops moved in to restore order, with some resistance, of course, Hitler demanded takeover of Sudetenland. The Czechs, Hitler claimed, were slaughtering the Sudeten Germans (it turned out later that more Czechs were killed by nationalistic Germans, then other way around).
On September 28th 1938, Chemberlain met with Hitler and other leading European leaders in Munich, Germany to prevent the war (Czechs were not even invited!).
Munich Agreement was signed by Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom.
Sudetenland was given to Germany. In the text they even included that "all other borders will remain unchangable, and no right of self-determination is to be given to any other minority".
I guess, Germans in Sudetenland were "unique case".
They called upon the Czechs to "accept this decision of European powers, for the sake of good neighbourly relations in Europe. "
On September 30 1938 Czechsoslovakians agreed to abide by this agreement (in witch they did not even participate) and cede terrotory to Germany.
And world lived happily ever after...

Oh, yes, and to Michael John. I was writting about Dayton and Milosevic from the memory, and I'm pretty sure that I'm right. But, don't take my world for it, I might be wrong, too. I just wrote a long comment to Nik and I'm too tired to search for it on the internet. But, if I'm wrong on that one, I apologize to all. It ceirtanly was not my intent to deceive.

Sreten,

Apparently you are somewhat knowledgeable about the breakup of Yugoslavia, but rather long winded, if you'll forgive me for saying so. However, you appear more clever with your words than your knowledge. Is it your intent to deceive rather than inform?
What I am driving at is your remark about Milosevic agreeing to include Kosova in the discussions at Dayton. Yes, the U.S. did not agree to include Kosova in the "Talks" at Dayton, but it was not Clinton who objected but Milosevic. Forgive me if I am wrong about this, but could you please state your source about the Dayton Agreement so that the readers will not feel misinformed. BTW, were you present at Dayton as you seem to want us to believe.

Sreten wrote: "How were you "opressed" then in comparison..." Sreten, I am not an Albanian and I have never been to Kosovo. So please do not get personal!
But it is un interesting line. It evokes the concept of justice. I am afraid to say it but jautice has little to do with the way history unfolds. In the Balkan wars Serbia doubled in size, but there were few Serbs among its new subjects. It is well known fact that history is a step mother, not a mother of the peoples. Mentioning peoples, the international law does not deal with them. It deals with institutions. True in the communist federations there was a concept of "nations" and peoples, but in the West nation means group of people under a common government! Minorities are presumed to be part of the respective nations, not fifth colums of other nations! The affinity towards one culture or another is rather a personal decision, and the peoples are often an euphimerical things, new ones "get being recognized" on the Balkans almoste all the time!
Slovenia and Croatia did not secede from Yugoslavia! The Slovenians indeed tried, but their attempt was not recognized. They de jure became independent when Yugoslavia seased to exist.
Why were they recognized within their constitutional borders when the Yugoslavia has seased to exist? It did, but the republics continued to exist. And every republic had a constitution that stated that its borders could not be changed without its concent! The same thing happened in the former Soviet Union. Tens of millions of Russians were left outside Russia! Some changes of the internal borders in USSR were quite questionable. Crimea for instance was transfered in the 50's from Russia to Ukraine by a simple decision of Politburo! The majority of the population there was Russian, or prorussian. Yet in 1991 it became part of independent Ukraine! The Russians were wise enough to understand that they could not say to the Ukranie: If you want to secede, let those areas that are populated by Russians "stay" in some demminished Soviet Union! There was hardly a Russian that did not suffer the "loss" of Sevastopol, but the majority were sensible enough not to go to war for it! Look at Bosnia! The war was raging in Croatia for months while Bosnia had peace. Serbs participated in the government. When it became clear that Serbia and Croatia will not return to a common federation, the Government did the only sensible thing. Asked the people by a Referendum to decide what to do next! A clear majority voted for independence. The basic principle of democracy states that the minority has to accept the decision of the majority, but the majority must respect the rights of the minority. What basic rights of the Serbs in Bosnia were thretened? The answer "if Yugoslavia was not tenable why should Bosnia be tenable?" is sensless! Greece and Turkey once were in one state, the Ottoman Empire, Today they are in two. But The international community recognizes one Cyprus, were Greeks and Turks must find a modus vivendi. By the way, when Cyprus decame independent in the 60s, nobody protested that there could be no Greece 2. Cyprus was deemed "a country". The Turkish Cypriots were not given right of secession, even when the Turkish army occupied almost half of the island! Neither was the Turkish minority given tha right to veto the adheasion of Cyprus to the EU!Sooner of later Cyprus will be reunified.
Back to Bosnia. There was absolutly no sensible reason for the Serbs to go on rebelion. None at all!
Kosovo was never a de jure Republic. You are absolutely right! But that was due to the tottal stuburness of the Serbs. Stuburness sometimes is a formidable quality. Sometimes it pays off. But this time it will not! The time to LET GO has come.

Mr. Montgomery,

Wow! You have a remarkably keen sense of the obvious! But can you tell us why the United States has been instrumental in creating the chaos seen around the world? Is there an ulterior motive, such as the saving grace of Neo Liberal / Conservative (take your pick) Imperialist Globalization or are you just apart of the 20% of the American population that believes that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

Cheers

once again B92 serves as a platform for the unnecessary thoughts of a man who really wanted to make us believe that "unique case"-nonsense...

well, Soros is paying, so that ´s the only place to spread this nonsense...

by the way: great picture, it shows one of those China-bashing-animals throwing up all hate he got...

that´s what happens wenn western propaganda hits weaker brains...

Mr. Montgomery, we don't need the US becoming more influencial in world affair.
Look what they have accomplished with "limited" influence they have.

More chaos this world doesn't need. What we need is America to stay absent from "bringing democracy" to the rest of the world.

You were right on one thing. The next American president should concentrate on establishing better relations with America's foremer allies instead of doing just the opposite.

Mr Montgomery - I sense that slowly but surely you are coming to the conclusion that America can't run everything and make all the decisions... congratulations, you are correct.

In line with this, I eventually look forward to a new page being turned over with the Serbs... here is what is needed:-

Scrap the Kosovo UDI and conduct real negotiations that respect the rules that all other countries have to play by (absolutely no chance that Serbs will EVER accept being "unique").

OR

Push for a change to the rule book (at least with respect to ex-Jugoslavia). That means independence for (Albanian part of) Kosovo but also Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina.

The Croatians probably will want their bit of BiH too.

Until one of these 2 happens - no peace in the balkans.

What do you prefer? I think it has to be one of these 2.

In 1993, Christopher Layne wrote a fantastic article in International Security journal called "The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers will Rise".

While his predictions for what new powers would rise and how they would rise were influenced by conditions in the early 1990s and are therefore somewhat proven incorrect, his theories for why the world was destined for a multipolar world in the wake of the Cold War was, in hindsight, more correct than even he might have guessed.

The reasons for multipolarity are obvious: the end of the Cold War spelled the end of a bi-polar balance of power between the United States and the Soviet Union. Each power had their own client states and allies giving support (un)willingly to each power. With the collapse of the USSR, the US emerged as the victor in the Cold War, but over the next few years two inevitable things began to happen.

First, client states of the US no longer felt the need to tow the line of submission and subservience to US foreign policy. We begin to see an increasingly restless Western Europe eager to formulate their own foreign polices which have been in contrast to US goals almost as much as they have been in tandem. The Trans-Atlantic decay over Iraq (augmented by the Bush Administration's shear stupidity) is only the latest example.

Second, the United States, with no clear "enemy" in sight anymore now felt it could push its own policies unobstructed, which, in the grand scheme of IR theory, gives the image of one superpower with the ability to (re)shape the world. No matter how benevolent said power may be, other states, as proven in history, will inevitable "balance" against the ruling hegemon to ensure that no one state, or no one cluster of states assumes uncontested power.

The decay in US foreign policy has largely been due to these factors: US unipolarity that is being contested by powers even from friendly regimes, an unwillingness by the US to recognize that they cannot police, regulate, and shape the entire planet, and most importantly, the realization that US foreign policy is not for the betterment of the world at large, but still falls within the geostrategic interests of the US. This last factor alone has been one of the biggest reasons for the erosion of America's image throughout the world.

What we have, are attempts by Washington to try to assert its self-perceived role of importance and superiority in many placed, but net deficits in every international entanglement: Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Serbia (Kosovo).

The decay in America's credibility will continue unabated unless the next administration realizes it can no longer shape the world in its own image. It cannot speak on behalf of international law, human rights, and the spreading of democracy while openly pushing its own geostrategic agendas. Washington may not like the reality that it's time as King of the Hill has now come to an end and that it has to share that hill with Brussels, Moscow, Beijing, Bangalore, Tokyo, and yes, Tehran. For every action the US takes, there is now a credible counteraction that any of the other powers can, and will, make. This is why Iran's nuclear program will continue. This is why American crafted democracy is failing in Iraq. This is why Kosovo will never be anything more than a glorified colony unless negotiations with Belgrade (and Moscow) are undertaken.

To be perfectly honest, I welcome the new multipolarity of the world. Challenges to US foreign policy have often produced more pragmatic ways of approaching international relations and solving international crises. Washington needs to learn to cooperate with others if it wants to regain the respect and admiration it had 20 years ago. It also needs to recognize the limits of its power and authority, and the need to work with other powers if it wants authority to be extended.

I personally welcome the decrease of the relative power and influence of the United States. During this period the World have not become better place, which showed the true face of United States and its need for domination. I hope you learned something as well: that your country and its administration are not suited to be leaders of the world. The task of the next President should be to strive to bring peace and prosperity for as many countries around the globe as possible.

Thank you Bill Richardson for finally admiting what many people on these forums have been telling you.

While my 'name' may scare you, it's part of a wider world in which new ideas are interacting and alliances being made.

Let the rest of the world relieve the Anglo-Americans of their self-declared 'white-man's burden' -- who knows maybe you stand to learn something anyways?

Euro-American supremacy is only a blip on the time scale of world history. Eventually, the freedom and independence of indigenous peoples in Britain's settler-colonies will be attained.

It's not only Tibetans that can hold demonstrations: http://www.no2010.com/ as the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver will show. International solidarity against US empire is growing. And I do think it was the Serbian daily Politika that was the only paper to run a front-page story on the Lakota Declaration of Independence from the USA a few months back.

Yes, the world is changing. Let's talk again when a former Serbian ambassador to the US is writing articles in the NYT about the need for American settlers to accept the imposition of the UN Mission in Lakota Territory (UNMILT) and abandon the long-tradition of racist xenophobia that is a hallmark of your national construction....

Is it any wonder that with such a history the world is repudiating the USA?

comentator wrote: Scrap the Kosovo UDI and conduct real negotiations that respect the rules that all other countries have to play by (absolutely no chance that Serbs will EVER accept being "unique").

OR

Push for a change to the rule book (at least with respect to ex-Jugoslavia). That means independence for (Albanian part of) Kosovo but also Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina.
I am amazed of the fact that the Serb nationalists always believe in double standarts. During the war in Ex Yugoslavia they were insisting that there was a profound difference between the cases of Krajna and Kosovo! The Croats, they used to say were an Yugoslav nation and had the right to secede, but not within their constitutional borders. The territories where the Serbs were present "in sagnificant numbers?!" has supposedly the right to "remain' in Yugoslavia. No part of Kosovo in their minds had the right to secede, because the "Albanians" already had a country, the "Internationaly recognized borders" could not be changed etc. When the lost the wars and all subjects of the fromer federation except Vojvodina (because it did not desire so) became independent whitin their constitutional borders. That is atleast some standart! Now the Serb nationalists start proposing change of the ruls, which by the way if proposed in 1992 had a chance of succeding! But now they talk of secession of the "Albanian part" of Kosovo! Are they ready the same "Change of Rules" even to be considered about the Albanian populated Preshevo valley, the Hungarian part of Vojvodina, the Macedonian Prohor Pchinski, the Bulgarian Dimitrovgrad and Bosilegrad?
NO OF Course Not. "Everithing that is under our control is ours, fullstop! Yet whatever is beyond it must be contested!"
Until that attitude changes, Serbia is to face hostilities and future defeats!

Sreten, The biggest change of the world map was carried out after the Second World War under the presumption of the inviolability of the borders! The unwritten principle states: The rights of the territory goes before the rights of the peoples. Every territory, presumed to be a "country', no matter how small was given the right of independence (because the opposite was presumed to be IMPERiALISM), but no people, no matter how big had that right. (with two exceptions that I shall mention later), because the opposite was considered seperatism, or worse, apartheid) So first that principle was tried with the overseas colonies, where the administrative borders, often drawn with blunt disregard of the wishes of the local people, became internationaly recognized borders! French West Africa became Senegal, Mali, Niger, Uper Volta etc. After the collaps of the communist federations - USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, it was presumed thet the republics were countries. Their constitutional borders became internationaly recognized! Kosovo is presumed to be a special case, because it had de facto a status of a Republic and was a subject of the Yugoslav Federation.
There were two cases when the international comunity tried to recognize divisions on ethnic/religious lines of 2 "countries": The Indian Raj and the Mandate of Palestine. The result was series of wars! The seperation of Bangladesh was easily accepted because of its phisical separation from (the rest of) Pakistan.

One simple observation: it is the overriding duty of nation state leaders to act in the best interests of their state; the reality is that these leaders are politicians and only ever act in their own interests (and I mean all states). This is the fundamental problem with US/UK foreign policy towards Serbia (including Kosovo), Iraq, Iran, Israel and any other nation state you care to mention - it was not in the US/UK national interest to support the KLA (except perhaps to create Bondsteel); it was not in the US/UK national interest to invade Iraq ... the list continues. Mr Montgomery's article simply observes the equal and opposite reaction to the actions taken by US politicians.

Americans should be (and many are) aggrieved by the actions taken by politicians; the US national interest (strategic, political and economic) has been significantly damaged and nothing has been gained in return.

Serbia is a natural and historic ally of the US/UK when US/UK interests have been at stake and I would suggest that it was the financial excess and bravado of the US/UK between 1990 - 2007 that contributed to the amnesia of Serbia's value as a friend rather than a mocked-up foe. 1999 was a parlour game for the US/UK, but that game set a precedent for ostracising friends, engaging in wanton military action and believing that the adulation of Kosovo Albanians was value for money.

I understand "inat" and this, in my view, is a defensive mentality, and necessary when under attack. Americans have no such word or recent experience, however that will change with the onset of financial hardship and political disillusionment. Now Serbia is on the offensive and inat has no place in that game - Serbian national interest lies in restoring the ability for Serbs to travel when and where they like, to do business with whom they choose and to shed the false image as the Balkan pugilists.

The upside of financial problems in the US/UK is that the voting public is more likely to pay attention to where their taxes are going - this was not the case in 1999 or 2003, but now the political leaders have to demonstrate value for money in order to stay in power - therefore recognising Kosovo is free, but actually supporting that decision through financial/military assistance is not and the voters/politicians will be watching.

As a genuine friend of Serbia I would only say to play chess with the US/UK/EU - NATO has moved beyond J Shea rhetoric; the US cannot afford to make the 1999 mistake again and the UK needs an overt ally in the Balkans, and Croatia simply cannot deliver on any relevant issues (forget the rest for the time being).

Criticism of my post welcome from all sides - I stand by my comments, but look forward to debate.

I will have to respond to you ones more, Nik.
Perhaps you should read this article published in New Delhi, India, written by retired general Satish Nambiar, former Force Commander and Head of Mission of the United Nations Forces deployed in the former Yugoslavia.

http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/features/fatalflaws.html

In second point it sais:

"(2) It was obvious to me that if Slovenians, Croatians and Bosniaks had the right to secede from Yugoslavia, then the Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia had an equal right to secede. "
and
"It made little sense to me that if multiethnic Yugoslavia was not tenable that multiethnic Bosnia could be made tenable."
and then,
"The former internal boundaries of Yugoslavia which had no validity under international law should have been redrawn when it was taken apart by the West, just as it was in the case of Ireland in 1921 and Punjab and Bengal in India in 1947. Failure to acknowledge this has led to the problem of Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia. "

Absolutelly right.
"The former internal boundaries of Yugoslavia which had no validity under international law ..."
There is absolutelly nothing that guarantees internal, non-international borders.

"The biggest change of the world map was carried out after the Second World War under the presumption of the inviolability of the borders! The unwritten principle states: The rights of the territory goes before the rights of the peoples."

I've heard those arguments before, and I'm not even sure where is this comming from. Oh, yes, the "unwritten principle states". Well, there are plenty of written principles that state othewise.
The arguments I've heard before was that right of self-determination is meant as a colonial right only, and the other one that inviolability of the borders somehow canceled right to self-determination of the people after the WW2. Neither is true.
Those two principles are not conflicted. Inviolability of the borders means that no state should annex part of the neighbouring state (kind of Germany and Sudetenland that I mentioned above). International borders cannot be changed. (yet, in your first posting you have no problem with that appearantlly. You are mentioning Hungarians in Vojvodina "Bulgarian Dimitrovgrad and Bosilegrad?" etc. forgeting that there are internationally recognized borders in place)
No such guarantee for internal borders, though.
This does not mean that "peoples" (not minorities) can't use their right of self-determination, still. This two principles are not in conflict.

Take a look at this document from Conference on Security and Coopeartion in Europe and it will become clear to you.
Dated on August 1st 1975.
(it's very clear that self-determination is not canceled after WW2, nor it is conflicting with Inviolability of the borders principle. (besides, it's 1975, post-colonial period)

http://www.hri.org/docs/Helsinki75.html

Have adopted the following:

"III. Inviolability of frontiers
The participating States regard as inviolable all one another's frontiers as well as the frontiers of all States in Europe and therefore they will refrain now and in the future from assaulting these frontiers.

Accordingly, they will also refrain from any demand for, or act of, seizure and usurpation of part or all of the territory of any participating State."

and

"VIII. Equal rights and self-determination of peoples
The participating States will respect the equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination, acting at all times in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the relevant norms of international law, including those relating to territorial integrity of States.

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self- determination of peoples, all peoples always have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish their political, economic, social and cultural development.

The participating States reaffirm the universal significance of respect for and effective exercise of equal rights and self- determination of peoples for the development of friendly relations among themselves as among all States; they also recall the importance of the elimination of any form of violation of this principle."

Why do you think that article 3 and article 8 in Helsiki Final Act are conflicting?
Try reading the annexes of it and definition of "people" (as opposed to "minority" becomes clear). This is further expanded later in Montevideo Agreement.

It was signed by "by the High Representatives of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, the German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, the Holy See, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Yugoslavia."
One look at the last two will tell you that both US and Yugoslavia recognized this right. (of self-determination).


And yes, Nik, Yugoslavian constitution was in sinc with international laws. There were six "peoples" (Slovenians, Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins, Macedonians, and since 1974 Muslims in Bosnia were recognized as "people") and they carried sovereignty. To point the difference to you Bosnia and Herzegovian was a republic, not "people" or nation. It actually had 3 constituing nations ("peoples") in it - Serbs, Croats and Muslims, today called Bosniaks.
What do you actually think that attempt by Croatia and Slovenia to change Yugoslavian constitution and remodel the country into Confederation was all about?
To put it in simple language, Federation is sovereign state union, Confederation is union of sovereign states. The main difference is that in Confederation laws of each sovereign part of it are above the confederal constitution or laws.
But, when that didn't work, there was Badinter to change that for them.
Ignoring UN Charter, etc. he declared Yugoslavia "dissolved" and Yugoslavian constitution invalid.
Then declered Republics as "natural, next level of government" to become sovereign, ignoring Yu-constitution, and numerous international laws such as Helsinki Final Act, Montevideo Agreement, etc.
Thus, internal borders of the Republics became international, not-to-be-changed borders.
Why the repubics and not municipalities or regions? I don't know. It must have been one of those "unwritten principles" that you mentioned. And guess what, Serbs did accept this ruling. Karadzic signed EU Lisbon Plan, that stated that Bosnia is independent country, but gave wide autonomy to constituing nations. Izetbegovic signed too, but then decided not to allow for any autonomy in Bosnia. And then the war started...
But, let's put this issue of self-determination aside. I can see that you are not claiming this right for Albanians, anyway.
Here it is where you are making Kosovo case.
"...it was presumed thet the republics were countries. Their constitutional borders became internationaly recognized!"
Why it was presumed that republics are countries? but never mind that now.
"Their constitutional borders" were recognized. Constitutional, as in Yu-constitution, already invalid? Ambiguity. But, nevermind that now, either.
And here comes Kosovo.
"Kosovo is presumed to be a special case, because it had de facto a status of a Republic and was a subject of the Yugoslav Federation."
I'm glad that you mentioned de facto status of a Republic and direct representation on Federal level. How were you "opressed" then in comparison to Serbs in Bosnia or Croatia who had neither de facto status of the republic, nor direct representation on federal level?
But, does this give you the right to be "presumed to be a special case" as you claim?
In Yugoslavian constitution there was indeed direct Kosovo's representation on national level (really, is Yu-constitution invalid or not? I'm confused here). And Kosovo was de facto a republic. But, it was represented on federal level as autonomy inside Serbia. Kosovo was never "de jure" a republic, you are not disputing that?
We've seen those claims before too. In 1991 Rugova claimed that reduction in Kosovo's autonomy was illegal, althought it was decision made by Yugoslavian presidency (yes, including Slovenia and Croatia) and there was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it. Then after Badinter's decision, he ignored that it refers to REPUBLICS, and not to "de facto republics" or "those directly represented on federal level" etc. He called for referendum on independence and declared it afterwards, establishing parallel institutions, etc.
In 1998 he refused to negotiate with Serbian authorities about autonomy. He insisted that he only wants to talk to Yugoslavian autorities, as Kosovo has nothing to do with Serbia, and that he only wants to talk about independence, given to other "federal units".
But, does representation on national level seperatly from Serbia means that Kosovo was separated from Serbia?
Not even on international level, Nik.
As you can see from this article from German "Speigel", Aaland Islands that I mentioned in previous comment is represented aside from Finland even internationally, at the EU level.

"But the spat between the group of 6,500 Baltic Sea islands and Brussels could conceivably result in this tiny part of the EU opting out of the treaty completely."
Besides they joined EU separatelly from Finland.

"The islands voted separately from Finland on joining the EU in 1995 and managed to secure an exemption from the EU's VAT rules, allowing tax-free shopping ships sailing between Finland and Sweden. "

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,541281,00.html

In some way Aaland Islans were represented separatelly from Finland on International level (EU) and is de facto like the one of any other independent country. Should they be "presumed to be a special case" being de facto independent and directly represented on international level. Not at all. International laws are clear on this matter. Even international representation does not cancel existing sovereignty of Finland. Rest assured, if there is any kind of legal dispute, over fishing rights, or oil-drilling, etc. Territory of the islands and the waters around them are sovereign Finnish territory and will be treated as such (including oil revenue, etc.)
Or, forget the islands. Have you ever seen FIFA of UEFA qualifying games? There is no UK team there. There is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Sure, when Wales plays against Italy for example, there is a flag and national anthem, etc. It's de facto a country, represented on international level equal to other independent countries. Does this somehow cancels UK sovereignty over Wales?
Not at all.
This argument would not stand in any court.

"The time to LET GO has come.
(nik, 2 May 2008 21:15)"

nik, I can guarantee you your advice will fall on deaf ears north of the Ibar. They won't let go. And Kosovo will not join the UN. The UN is the real international community, not the one expoused by the West which is largely made up of themselves. These are the realities today.

Okey, Nik.
But, I'll have to disagree with you one more time.
Soviet Union is a different story as it was taken into account that in their constitution member republics of the Union were sovereign.
But, principle of ethnic partition in disregard of internal borders and administrative units is nothing new. That's how former province of Punjab was divided and how we got Punjab in India, and Punjab in Pakistan today.
I disagree that there was no such thing as ethnic division in the West. Story of Ireland is somewhat complicated, but I'll put it in simple terms. In 1921 as Irish people declared their independence from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, island was divaded along ethnic lines. Where Irish and catholics were in majority Republic of Ireland was formed. However, English protestants were regarded as "people" with right to choose their own destiny. Notice here that they were not regarded as "people living under one government" (existing Irish) or something like that. English north choose to STAY in UK, and it's still part of it. And island was partitioned (regardless of integrity of existing administrative units, or county "borders" etc.) And the new international border was drawn.
Today 53.1% of population of Northern Ireland is protestant, and 43.8% catholic.
What if this should change to be other way around?
Would Irish right to self-determination apply to allow for reunification with Republic of Ireland? Legally no.
This is the only instance where principle of inviolability of the borders is in conflict with self-determination principle. And you are right when you wrote "...inviolability of the borders! The unwritten principle states: The rights of the territory goes before the rights of the peoples. "
Meaning that Irish cannot use self-determination to change existing international border and join Republic of Ireland.
So, they can't join, but could they then use it to gain independence from UK? Again, legally no. By existance of Republic of Ireland Irish right to self-determination is considered "consumed", and Irish outside it are national minority (with all the rights that go with it).
In all other cases, above mentioned principles are not exclusive or conflicting.
Same was stated in Yugoslavian constitution. But, let's forget about constitution as Badinter declared Yugoslavia "dissolved" and subsequently its constitution was disregarded (this decision is, to put it mildly - questionable at the very least).
But, shouldn't this dissovled state still resolve its disputes by use of valid international laws, such is Helsinki Final Act, UN Charter etc. ? Not according to Badinter who simply transferred sovereignty to next level of government, the republics. And the great "political sin" of Krajina Serbs was that they wanted same rules and laws that allowed partition of Ireland to allow for partition of Croatia, and to allow English population in the north of the island to remain in UK, to allow to Serbian population to remain in Yugoslavia. Even if we disregard Yu-constitution, this, you will agree, is not legally groundless aspiration.
But, Badinter neglected Helsinki Final Act and several other international laws and turned internal borders of the republics into international not-to-be-changed borders. And then it was "inviolability of the borders! The unwritten principle states: The rights of the territory goes before the rights of the peoples."
Your interpretation I guess.
While international law pretty clearly defines self-determination, you offer another look at it.

"True in the communist federations there was a concept of "nations" and peoples, but in the West nation means group of people under a common government! "

Any common government? And if not where it is specified? Then I don't see the problem at all. If Srpska Repbublic cannot separate from Bosnia because it was specified so in Dayton agreement, nothing can stop for example City of Bijeljina to, as group of people under a common government (municipal) go to a referendum and declare independence! Same can be done by all municipalities in Serbian part of Bosnia and also in northern Kosovo. No problem. The only sensible thing to do is to ask people on referendum!
"The basic principle of democracy states that the minority has to accept the decision of the majority"

They wouldn't even secede from Bosnia. Bosnia would simply dissolve.

But, this simply isn't how things are legally done, Nik. This is not some right given to governments. And Soviet Union did not have to fall apart at all, in your view.
Russians simply should have gone to the referendum to save it. Baltic republics would vote against but "The basic principle of democracy states that the minority has to accept the decision of the majority"
If only English knew about this Irealan would still be part of UK, they would overvote them.
Self-determination is preciselly given to the "people" so that Latvians as a people could not be overvoted by Russians, or Irish by Brits.
It's meant to allow to Tibetans to choose their destiny, regardless of what all other people under a common government (Chineese) think about it (or vote about it).

Another problem with Badinter's decision that it also recognized Serbia within its borders (including Kosovo). And since Albanian claim to self-determination would not hold, the most unbeilivable and proposterous legal construction begins.
It's based on "partial" recognition of things. Like Badinter decision. Yes, we can accept part that Yugoslavia dissolved, and that Croatia and Bosnia cannot be divided (and everybody insisted and held onto it as if it's a Holly Graal). The part of the same decision where Serbia cannot be divided either we'll simply ignore. And also, when it comes to Yugoslavian constitution. Kosovo was represented on Federal level, and although it wasn't a republic, it was de facto a republic. We should take that into account.
Wait! Wasn't the outcome of Badinter's decision that Yugoslavia dissolved one that Yugoslavian constitution should not be taken into account? All that should matter is Badinter's decision, and the fact that Serbia is a UN member, most recently confirmed at that, after the split with Montenegro.
Partially, again. Only parts giving right to constituing nations to self-determination should not be taken into account, or any other part that could stand in a way of Kosovo's independence.
Okey, let's then take only that into account!
Legally, even international representation does not somehow cancel existing sovereignty. (not to even mention national)

"Kosovo is presumed to be a special case, because it had de facto a status of a Republic and was a subject of the Yugoslav Federation. "

You presume a lot here! The fact that was a subject of the Yugoslav Federation means nothing in terms of sovereignty.
Nor de facto automatically translates into de jure.
Just recently I read a study about status of women in developed world. While they are equal legally, they are still lagging in terms of political representation, income when working same jobs as men, etc. De jure equal, de facto still some work to be done.
Following the "automation" of de facto situation recognition we could resolve the problem easyily. Men that are de facto privilledged should be made legally privilledged too, I guess. Problem solved. We would even be able to claim that we are in the same time "oppressed" by women. (justice has very little to do with how history unfolds)
No, my friend. None of the above leads to any legality of Kosovo's independence. It's a very bizzare legal construction.
But, should we for some reason, accept this Mickey Mouse legality as a base, and disregard number of unimportant legal considerations such as UN Charter, Helsinki Final Act, Montevideo Agreement, (and yes - Badinter's decision), UN 1244 Resolution, and about half of dozen of other international laws and treaties, then yes, everything is up side down and we could say that Serb are separatists!

"...because the opposite was considered seperatism, or worse, apartheid) "

As they should try to leave Kosovo.

And yes in that case we could say that your first message was entirelly correct.

I like discussing with you Sreten. You ara obviously a knowageble person. But please take into account that Irland was partitioned BEFORE WW2, in an age when borders were frequently changed. To this very day Irland has not recognized the partition. UK, on the other side as Mragaret Thatcher liked saing, will keep troops there "until the majority of the people desires so". When the majority changes? First let us see the statistics. The catholics are almost half of the population. Apparently no ethnic clensing was carried out when Irland was divided. Let us recall how was Republic of Srbska Krajna established? (Serb irregulars attack Croatian police, Croat irregulars try to reimpose control, then JNA interferes and somehow there were no more Croats in the area for the next 5 years) I believe when the population ratio in Norther Irland changes, due to higher birth rate of the Catholics, it will rejoin Irland is some way. It already has, being in EU. Irland has not joined the Schengen zone, because it has a similar agrement with the UK, and if it joins Schengen the UK may impose pasport control on a border that Irland does not recognise. Nowadays we witness the ris of pure English seperatism, because Scotland has its own parliament, England doesn't but the Scots are presented in the Westminster parliament. Asimetrical federations are unworkable and UK may one day disintegrate!
"It the Soviet union republics were presumed to be sovereign". Well so were in Yugoslavia. To be a republic one had to touch the outer borders or the sea so incase it leaves the Federation it will not turn into an anclave. That was the reason why Bosnia was given the little port of Noam. Yugoslav republics had more historical right then the Soviet ones. All of the Soviet Union was before that the Russian Empire. It could be claimed that the power was delagated from the center to the republics. More than half of the territory of Yugoslavia was never part of Serbia. Croats and Slevenians at least joined volontery, although the Croats experienced a desire for "divorce in the wedding night"( acording to Paul Garde)
At least in theory , after 1945 the power of the central government was delegated to it by the republics!
The Soviet Union did hold a referendum for its preservation in 1987! The Baltic states boycotted it, but in the rest of the union a substantial majority supported the union! Yet it proved ungovernable in democratic conditions and fell appart. Of course the Republics, not the nations achieved independence. Their borders did not coinside with the ethnic lines and when an atempt to change them was made, as in Nagorno Karabah, there were wars, ethnic clensing etc.
Sure enough under those procedures Kosovo was to remaim part of Serbia. If Yugoslavia had disintegrated peacefully, if the authonomy of the region was never suspended, I can asure you that NO country would have recognised its UDI! But as you know history had a much sadder course. That is what made Kosovo a "special case". I believe that Kosovo should be independent because it could not be absorbed in the Serbian political system. It could be part of a dictatorial Serbia, but not of a democratic one. If the Serbs try to split it, that will open the seperatice cascade I mentioned before. Lets say the Hungarians and the Bulgarians do not come with seperatist claims. All they want is Serbia to join the EU ant the borders with Hungary and Bulgaria to become only a road sign. But I'd love to hear your argument against the seperation of the Muslims of Sandzhak? (Serbia and BiH - two republics - equal status. Serbs and Muslims - two recognized Nations - equal status. Serbs in BiH, Muslims in Serbia - mirror image!) Greetings!

"Let us recall how was Republic of Srbska Krajna established? (Serb irregulars attack Croatian police, Croat irregulars try to reimpose control, then JNA interferes and somehow there were no more Croats in the area for the next 5 years)"

Nik,
As a former Krajinian, I must correct you, Croatia's neo-fascist government started this by firing Serbs from their jobs and changing Croatia's constitution to downgrade our status in the republic against our will. No consultations, no negotiations, just diktat from Zagreb.

Serbs have always formed the majority of the population in what was Krajina (check any census, Yugoslav, Austrian etc), and around Knin (my village was about 10kms away), Krajinians were 90% of the population at least.

If the Croats can unilaterally change the politics of the coutry then we absolutely had a right to do our UDI too.

Let me remind you we have been been subjected to the most evil possible killing and genocide during the WW2 NDH (the Nazis themselves were appalled) and the Tudjman years saw our people decimated again - and now we are the criminals????

Have pity for the hundreds of thousands of people buried at Jasenovac or expelled in this last war.