Countdown to Kosovo Indepedence Crisis

[igyman]

Well, last night in his address to the Security Council our president emphasized that Serbia will not be using force to accomplish our goals, but our government apparently has a plan involving diplomatic measures against the countries who've acknowledged Kosovo's independence.

Tensions are pretty high, even here in Belgrade. I can't imagine what it's like for the Serbs in Kosovo. Judging by the demolished car of our national television's reporter team in Priština (this happened on Sunday, when the Kosovo Albanians celebrated their independence, it was the only vehicle that was trashed), I'm not inclined to believe that the Albanians there are as friendly, democratic and tolerant as they claim.

There have also been some minor disturbances in Kosovo, but fortunately nobody was hurt. I have a very bad feeling about all this.

[SilentScope001]

Those in the US that think this is ok to do: Sooooo you think that the Confederates were right? No, not the slavery issue, the secession from the Union. You feel that they should have been allowed to break away from the United States?

 

Strangely, yeah, for Succession. But against the Kosovo indepedence. Don't ask, I'm still trying to figure out myself.

[Web Rider]

I'm guessing you missed the term "nation states". I agree with most of the essence of what you're talking about, but was guessing that DI had a problem with your liberal use of the notion of nations. Otherwise, we're probably not as far apart as you'd suspect on the notion that Europe has a long history of fractious relationships, both "within" and "without".

The term was just "states". If that meant to imply "nation" on the front there, well, I didn't get that implication.

 

If people can call the native tribes of the Americas "First Nations". Which they aren't, never were, and never intended to be, I think I can use "nation" to liberally define the rough border determined by where most skirmishes with the enemy take place or simply where people of that "nation" don't go past.

 

On topic however: I still don't know really, I don't think separating yourself from others and formng your own little "pure" community is going to help anything other than yourself. But I suppose that's all they're interested in. I don't know much of Serbia's particular history(save for the whole involvment in WWI), to be able to say that Kosovo is justified in their declaration.

[Totenkopf]

In reading your first post the real problem I see with it is the notion that somehow you can move forward by ignoring the past (pastly ignorance?). That may seem axiomatic, except that you're dealing with people and not data. It seems easy to say that Greece and Turkey should only focus on the future, or that the Turkish genocide of Armenians should be left in the past. Unfortunately, human psychology doesn't work that way. If you look too far into the future you often find yourself tripping all over the past and present. To be able to move forward implies a certain amount of trust. Attempting to run roughshod over the past to get to that vision of the future only throws up increased mistrust and maybe hostility.

[Tommycat]

In reading your first post the real problem I see with it is the notion that somehow you can move forward by ignoring the past (pastly ignorance?). That may seem axiomatic, except that you're dealing with people and not data. It seems easy to say that Greece and Turkey should only focus on the future, or that the Turkish genocide of Armenians should be left in the past. Unfortunately, human psychology doesn't work that way. If you look too far into the future you often find yourself tripping all over the past and present. To be able to move forward implies a certain amount of trust. Attempting to run roughshod over the past to get to that vision of the future only throws up increased mistrust and maybe hostility.

I think what he's saying is not being completely ignorant of the past, but more don't spend so much time looking back that it impedes forward progress.

 

Sure those who are ignorant of the past are doomed to repeat it. But a man running while looking backwards may not see that tree ahead of him.

[SilentScope001]

You need to look at the past to get an anchor to see the future. Otherwise, for lack of a better word, you'll just be screaming hope and change, but not know how to bring about hope or change.

[Totenkopf]

I don't necessarily disagree. If you can move forward, great. Sometimes you have to fix things first before you can move on, though.

[Tommycat]

The problem is they are trying to fix some of these things with a sledgehammer. Sometimes it is best to walk away from what's broken in favor of something new that works.

[Totenkopf]

Unfortunately, to do that, you have to get enough people on the same page. That is NEVER easy and sometimes impossible. Sometimes you also have to walk away and look at different opportunities unless you're willing and able to use that sledghammer to get your way in the end, with minimally "acceptable" damage to yourself.

[Web Rider]

In reading your first post the real problem I see with it is the notion that somehow you can move forward by ignoring the past (pastly ignorance?). That may seem axiomatic, except that you're dealing with people and not data. It seems easy to say that Greece and Turkey should only focus on the future, or that the Turkish genocide of Armenians should be left in the past. Unfortunately, human psychology doesn't work that way. If you look too far into the future you often find yourself tripping all over the past and present. To be able to move forward implies a certain amount of trust. Attempting to run roughshod over the past to get to that vision of the future only throws up increased mistrust and maybe hostility.

That was not what I said. I said knowing the past is good, focusing on it is bad.

 

I don't necessarily disagree. If you can move forward, great. Sometimes you have to fix things first before you can move on, though.

Somethings simply cannot be "fixed". You cannot undo genocide, you cannot simply give currently living people's land away, nor can you force those people to admit guilt for a crime they didn't commit and then since they admitted guilt they are therefore admitted to responsibility and then have them force to give up their homes.

 

Yes, something should be done, like reconciliation NOW. Giving away land will neither undo the horrors of the past nor solve the problems of the present, it will simply create a new set of people who are angry about events that are now in the past.

 

Unfortunately, to do that, you have to get enough people on the same page. That is NEVER easy and sometimes impossible. Sometimes you also have to walk away and look at different opportunities unless you're willing and able to use that sledghammer to get your way in the end, with minimally "acceptable" damage to yourself.

In the case of Turkey and Armenia, the choice is: try to work together, make your own people upset, or make their people upset. Since the latter two are going to simply reset the countdown to trouble, the only viable solution is to work together.

 

Which gives a very dim outlook on the view that one should use the idea of aways looking back on the past while "walking backward" into the future.

 

You have to compromise, you don't have eyes in the back of your head, and that will cause you to run into problems in the future. To assume that one can ONLY look at the past to determine their future is not true. Nor can ignoring the past completly solve anything.

[Totenkopf]

That was not what I said. I said knowing the past is good, focusing on it is bad.

Then it was somewhat inarticulately expressed. Problem is still that knowing the past means you often have to deal with it first before you can move on to any future.

 

Somethings simply cannot be "fixed". You cannot undo genocide, you cannot simply give currently living people's land away, nor can you force those people to admit guilt for a crime they didn't commit and then since they admitted guilt they are therefore admitted to responsibility and then have them force to give up their homes.

 

Neither can you move forward if one party is convinced that the other is totally untrustworthy or insincere. It's just a misfortunate aspect of human psychology. It's always easier to say things than to actually accomplish anything, a principle that much of diplomacy is often rooted in it seems.

 

 

Yes, something should be done, like reconciliation NOW. Giving away land will neither undo the horrors of the past nor solve the problems of the present, it will simply create a new set of people who are angry about events that are now in the past.

 

Yes, the redistribution of finite assets is imperfect at best (often workably unrealistic at worst). Which is what makes blithe pronouncements that people must work together appear empty. Your unlikely to want to work with someone you simply can't or won't trust. Tricky thing, human relations.

 

In the case of Turkey and Armenia, the choice is: try to work together, make your own people upset, or make their people upset. Since the latter two are going to simply reset the countdown to trouble, the only viable solution is to work together. Which gives a very dim outlook on the view that one should use the idea of aways looking back on the past while "walking backward" into the future.

 

May seem dim, but you still have the problem of trust issues. If someone rapes you or a family member (etc..), you're unlikely to want to work together with that person to accomplish anything in the future. All the more so if they merely wish to paper over past indiscretions b/c it's uncomfortable or inconvenient to deal with them now.

 

You have to compromise, you don't have eyes in the back of your head, and that will cause you to run into problems in the future. To assume that one can ONLY look at the past to determine their future is not true. Nor can ignoring the past completly solve anything.

 

I'm not aware of anyone here having said that you ONLY look at the past to move forward, just that you can't minimize its importance in the process of moving forward.

[Web Rider]

Then it was somewhat inarticulately expressed. Problem is still that knowing the past means you often have to deal with it first before you can move on to any future.

I was trying to express a system I don't fully understand at the same time, so that's part of the problem. Sometimes I think there are issues in the past that the only way to "deal with" them are to just let them go.

 

Neither can you move forward if one party is convinced that the other is totally untrustworthy or insincere. It's just a misfortunate aspect of human psychology. It's always easier to say things than to actually accomplish anything, a principle that much of diplomacy is often rooted in it seems.

They say it's harder to do than to say. I disagree. It's very hard to say something and get people to sit down and talk. It's much easier to just blow **** up and kill people.

 

Yes, the redistribution of finite assets is imperfect at best (often workably unrealistic at worst). Which is what makes blithe pronouncements that people must work together appear empty. Your unlikely to want to work with someone you simply can't or won't trust. Tricky thing, human relations.

Land distribution can work if it's very minimal. Of course, you can't ever trust somebody if you keep holding on to the wrongs they did in the past. You have to give new people a new chance. And not simply a new chance to do what you say.

 

May seem dim, but you still have the problem of trust issues. If someone rapes you or a family member (etc..), you're unlikely to want to work together with that person to accomplish anything in the future. All the more so if they merely wish to paper over past indiscretions b/c it's uncomfortable or inconvenient to deal with them now/

True, but in the cases of the Turks and the Armenians, it's a matter of the nation is not made up of the same people in anything other than name.

 

I'm not aware of anyone here having said that you ONLY look at the past to move forward, just that you can't minimize its importance in the process of moving forward.

here? no. In the stuff I was reading regarding the "moving forward backwards" they were.