Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The Kosovo Question
At any given day in the world, there is some rebel group, some where that is fighting for its cause - usually clothed in phrases of Peace and Justice (incompatible attributes).
Unless and until one's vital interests are at stake and there is a clear understanding of the peace to follow, one should not tamper with the Principles of Peace of Westphalia - inside and outside of Europe. This policy of the powerful states breaking a smaller state (out if whim , in this case) is perceived as a direct threat to territorial integrity and sovereignty of Belgium, Italy, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Thailand, China, Romania, South Africa, and others. Such policies do not make the world safer only more unsafe – they do not help ethno-religious or ethno-linguistic minorities since they will be considered as fifth-columnist within their own states.
Holbrooke, like Wes Clark, has got too much invested in the Kosovo War to be dispassionate about that illegal war, waged on behalf of Muslim terrorists by the West against a former ally.
And why does he have to put everything in the context of Russia? What is the point of this in-your-face policy towards Russia? Why provoke or humiliate Russia? They will establish their sphere of influence in the Eastern Europe and FSU anyway and the Western countries cannot do anything to stop it.
Holbrooke and Clinton followed a Jacobin policy – madness is what I call it.
"Visit Kosovo, your call already has."
Because Russia is the enemy.
"What is the point of this in-your-face policy towards Russia?"
To attack, humiliate, and hopefully provoke Russia into sme counterproductive concessions.