| Difference between Kosovo and South Ossetia. Should they be independent. |
|
Difference between Kosovo and South Ossetia. Should they be independent.
Click to vote
|
|
||||
|
|
Ask500
|
Login
United States
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyBoth of them should. I wonder why the world was willing to back up Kosovo against Serbia but sees Russia's actions as unacceptable. South Ossetians deserve the same support as the Kosovans, as should any region that feels it is oppressed by it's central government or not represented properly by it.
None of them. Its very simply: the nation should have only one state. Example Kosovo: Albanians have two independent states, they both are neighbour states (Kosovo, Albania). Example S.Ossetia: why should Russians from this area have their own NEW state. Only few miles to the north they have russian state - Russian federation. I think it was bad idea to agree with the Kosovian independence, because with this step should agree Serbia. Example 3: I come from Slovakia, but there are many minorities in my country. Do you think it would be ok if Hungarians, who have their own state (Hungary), would establish a new Hungarian state in the teritory of the Slovak republic? Also when this new state would be a neighbour state of Hungary? So I think it´s nonsense to do this. From my point of view, the one-nationality states can´t understand that it´s the wrong way to help these "states" to be independent. Because all these examples are only damaging the peace in states where more nationalities live (especially in Europe) and make Europe less powerful and compact.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyBasically I agree with you. Kosovo case is the precedent that opened door for multiple national conflicts. Not only at Europe, maybe Taiwan now will require official breaking away from China, etc around the world. What can happen at India that is multi-national country?
Still let me give an example of two countries for one nationality: Germany and Austria. One guy (his name's Hitler) thought there should be only one state. We all know the result.
Basically I don't dispute your formula "one nationality - one state", but just say that finding balance between nationals' and states' interests is very difficult problem. Your formula looks too simple. I have no universal formula myself. Now, after the Kosovo the problem became even more difficult.
I can give also the example of Israel. This is one state for one nation. However this is hot area during all its existance, and there is no solution seen.
Suppose Gipsies require land for their state. What are you going to do? Will you give them part of your country or refuse? If refuse they will ask why Jewish got land but we don't.
Yes, you are right, my principle can´t be used generally. So, I suppose you are German, so, let me ask you, do you think that Austrians consider themselves to be Germans? As an inhabitant of the neighbour state of Austria I can see some differences between Germans and Austrians. Sorry, if you think I´m wrong it can be possible, I am not German or Austrian. You know, there was Mr. Hitler and his crazy ideas of the leading nation etc. I strongly disagree with his planes and ideas. Thats true that for exmaple Switzerland is specific state, but on the other side, you know that the existence of such state like Switzerland or Austria is strongly connected with long history, ´cause there were long periods of history when Austria was a part of Austrian-Hungarian state, Switzerland was independent also for longer time. As a European you certainly know that there are so many nations, nationalities and ethnic groups so its impossible to let every such group of people create its own state. I think for Europe would be better not to support creating of new states but supporting peace in multicultural states by creating low, school systems and other forms of services and infrastructure for minorities in these states and making policy which would give a signal to all inhabitants that they are equal and that the state can profit from its multiculturality (f.e. Slovakia). Trying to create a Hungarian autonomy or even new republic we would risk a really big international conflict (I dont tink the same like in Georgia but I´m sure there would be a big Slovak-Hungarian international hatred). Now about 10% of population are Hungarians and I´m personally convinced relations are on a high level. And my second point: maby such a big country as Canada can accept that some group of people would like to live in independent separate state but in my country and other small countries (Serbia, Georgia)I think its impossible because such small areas and nations are very weak and the next dividing of them means a loss of their identity. But you´re right about my principle, it can´t be used generally, maby when I wrote this I was influenced by the situation in my country and in the whole central and eastern Europe.
I cannot answer you right now, but will definitely write tomorrow morning to discuss on. For me, this topic is very interesting because I have no definite opinion on this problem.
Briefly, I'd say that I like very much Singapore who built new nationality of so different nations lived there initially.
Good morning, tim100.
To be truely I shoud say that I am not German, but Russian. German flag is seen here because I use connection via German IP that is our corporative. Still I belive this fact is not much important.
As far as I see, Austrians and Germans identify themselves as different nations, however history of this split is not very deep, I guess about 200 years or like so. Earlier they were one nation. There is one more interesting thing I note now at Germany: Germans split themselved onto Western and Eastern. To my opinion, this is one of the current problems at nowdays Germany, still it can be resolved. Maybe in next generation there will not be this split.
Let's discuss problem of nationals and states. I think this is the most difficult problem of all other social (like religion, political parties, etc). Normaly people of different nationals can normaly contact and live together. I know this very good of my USSR living. What is "national problem"? My definition of this term is that it is situation when majority of the both nation people become intolerant to each other.
I see one reason for this intolerance, it is dispute for land. Maybe there can be other reasons too, however Kosovo and Ossetia issues are raised because of the land. The trouble is that not only political leaders, but majority of people are intolerant. That's why the problem cannot be resolved simply by re-election.
No nation will agree to leave the land for another. Any decision will make at least one nation unhappy. South Ossetia is territory where lived both Ossetians and Georgians. Each nation think this land is their. That's why I agree with practice of foreign force intervention to such dispute territories, in spite of this practice is illegal on international law basis. Hopefully the intervention can save lives.
I don't agree with the practice of forced sectioning of a state into independend states, because this is not the solution of the problem. This will only increase hostility.
What to do? Both nations don't want to live with each other, however both want to live on the same land.
One solution could be fusion them into one nation. As I said yesterday, good example is Singapore. One more good example is USA. But this needs time. There were special conditions in these cases that resulted in making new nations.
That's why, my understanding for Kosovo and Ossetia issues is that they should get some special status, not as independent states, but something special. Maybe something like Cyprus. After 50 years of living in that status try to negotiate the problem. If negotiation is unsuccessful, then add 50 years more. And so on. Maybe this approach is not good, however it hopefuly can save the lives.
There is one more problem that interferes the issues. At Kosovo I seen that USA and EU leadres DON'T WANT to search a solution. They simply applied the force without any analysis. Unfortunately I am not in believe that Russian leaders will go another way at Ossetia.
What do you think of my ideas?
Good afternoon. At a lot of points I agree with You. But I personally can´t agree with you in the point of making the common nation in this state. The identity of every nation and nationality should be saved. Because from making one nation could profit the biggest nationality, majority and culture, traditions and typical life of minorities could be endangered. But very good is status of citizen of particular state. So for example, Hungarian in SLovakia is inhabitant of the Slovak republic but so called Slovak Hungarian. Hungarians in Slovakia can use their own language, all transparents, commercials, their newspapers are written in Hungarian language, in these areas is Hungarian used as business and teaching language, Slovak television broadcasts some Hungarians programmes. Maybe you won´t believe but also in Slovakia (and also Czechoslovakia) were problems which were similar to the problems in Giorgia. Finally we managed to save our land and areas in the south and to build a new school and social system and good relations with Hungarians in SK (CS before). BUT: there was no state which would accept the declaration of independence of these regions where Hungarians lived (but Hungary sometimes really didn´t accept the independence of the Slovak/Czechoslovak republic, very similar to the reactions of Russia!!!). Unlike the situation in Slovakia, Russia made a wrong step: Russia accepted the act of declaring independence of S.Ossetia and Abchasia! It was wrong decission, because it started a wave of anxiety in Georgia. The same wrong step made EU by accepting of independence of Kosovo. Although the aims of EU weren´t bad: they only wanted to have peace in two will-be-member states of EU. Good aims, bad way. And only one note: Russia doesn´t reduse the same rules in two Georgian regions and in Chechnya. Maby that´s the reason why Russia is often considered to be an agressor although its not true. And, I would say, the intervention of foreign force is needed, but so said, why Russian army? Why not official forces of OSN? Wouldn´t be it all more objective?? Its only a question... And, have you ever been to Cyprus? I think no one inhabitant of Cyprus would agree with you the Cypreese solution was good. No, it was the same like in Georgia. One big state accepted new "state" in the north (Turkey in this case). And this North-cypreese Turkish Republic started its existence. But from my point of view there is only one Cyprus, two biggest nationalities and a big Green line between them which doesnt solve this problem. It only wants to save status quo.
Good afternoon.
Ok, I understand your main idea that national minorities should not mix with majorities, instead keep their identity. To my opinion it is good only if the nationals are tolerant to each other. Otherwise it can lead to hostility. Let us believe in our own opinions.
It is new information for me that there were tensions between CS / SK and Hungarians. I really didn’t expect so. I have experience in dealing with Hungarians at Western Ukraine (there are many Hungarian nationals live at area of Uzhgorod city), and this experience is quite positive. I think it is very good luck for Slovakia that you could resolve issues with Checks and Hungarians. Thank for so to political leaders of that time. Keeping Hungarian schools and mass media will, of course, support the Hungarian minority at Slovakia, and make them feel comfortable. Basically USSR also divided onto 15 independent states in peaceful manner, however some tensions still exist.
It is also new for me that locals of Cyprus feel unhappy with the situation. I really never been at Cyprus, but got feeling of quiet situation there because there are no daily reports of explosions and murders at Cyprus. Sad to know that this is one more potential bomb.
I guess I will share some new information to you. Russia actually doesn’t accept independence of S.Ossetia and Abkhasia, as well as of Kosovo. I am not sure for next actions of Russian government, but just believe they will not do this. Up to now approach of Russian government to Kosovo, SO, Abkhasia and Chechnya is one the same – no separatism. Unfortunately approach of USA/NATO to Kosovo is different from approach to Ossetia – this is double standard.
Stay of Russian soldiers as peace-keeping force in SO and Abkhasia was approved by Georgia after previous war in 1992-94. That’s why I am in strong understanding that this military action was initiated by Georgia. That’s why I think that guilty in escalation is Saakashvili.
I don’t think that change Russian peace-keepers in Ossetia onto NATO militaries is adequate action because NATO (I mean USA and EU states) is involved in the conflict as the party who trained Georgian army and supplied it with weapons. Better idea would be call of really independent force, maybe like China or Indonesia (just example). If I am Russian president I would try to call an independent state (no-USA, no-Europe).
Anywhere, this our discussion makes me stronger in opinion that problem of nationalities, and problem of minority independence vs state integration is very difficult.
Have good week-end! I will be off-line till Monday anywhere. Maybe we will discuss more questions at ask500people.com later, a?
Good evening, actually the solving of problems (or no-problems) with Hungarians in western Ukraine was maby very similar to the referendum in this region, which declared that Zakarpatská Ukrajina was not eastern part of the Slovak land (region of the Czechoslovak republic) from that moment and that it became a part of the USSR (1945). Well, it was maby more than a quarter of area of Slovak land. After the export of Slovaks and Rutherians from this territory to Czechoslovakia the referendum was rreally clear :). One point why the EU and its member states (Czech republic, Slovakia, Poland etc.) support Georgia in this conflict. So or so, you are right, there shouldn´t be soldiers of Russia and of NATO. I wrote there should operate the forces of OSN. And who is more competent to solve international conflicts? It´s very sad that in a lot of countries OSN = NATO. And it would be irresponsible to invite Chineese forces, because the state which has problems with keeping the human rights in its own regions should not be responsible for democratic and peaceful solving of foreign conflicts. I´m sorry YOU as an European and Slavic, a member of brother-nation, would accept Chineese help rather than European :(. I´m surprised that Russia doesn´t except these regions as independent states in this moment, although our media are saying that Russia is the only one state which accepted these regions as independent states...and that its still supporting them in their fight for independence. But as you wrote, we can´t solve this problem. I want to say I was very pleased to discuss with you and I look forward to writing with you later at ask500people.com. Have a nice week.
Hi, tim100. Dobre ranok :)
The situation is developing quite fast. When I wrote the previous message, Russia didn't yet recognise independence of SO and Abkhasia, but did yesterday. So, now Russia is the only state who recognised the two republics as independent.
To my opinion, it is not the best idea. If I am president of Russia, I would rather try to freeze the conflict down than to develop it. I mean that "no action" now is better than any activity.
Well, well, well... I can only believe that the fighting there will not get escalated.
I'll try to explain my suggestion for China. I have been there many times and dealed with Chinese a lot. To my opinion, China is not just another county - it is another civilization with another psyhology and thinking. Human rights is not major value for them, that's why I don't condemn their internal politics. Because of their another thinking, they are TRUELY independent. SO and Abkhasia are out of China's geopolitical area, that's why I can imagine that they will not use the conflict for their national goals.
Also I given China only as example. I think any outer force (India, or Brazil, for example) is more preferable than any involved country because each of them (Russia, EU, USA) is trying to follow its policy.
I agree with you that it would the best to resolve to situation within European discussion, however I don't believe that this is realistic.
My answer: our example is different. Firstly: we were federation, it means two states in one alliance, our two nations had the same number of MP in Federal Parliament and the act Czechoslovakia split was agreed by both nationalities. Secondly: we split in peace!!! Unique example for other countries, we split only after we knew that it would be better for us ALL, not only for Slovaks or only for Czechs! Next: our relations are better than in Czech and Slovak Federative Republic. And, finally, no one of our two nations had any other state, it means there aren´t two Slovak or two Czech states now. So, it is similar to the federation of Serbia and Montenegro. They also split, but in peace, it was decision of two dominant nationalities and as you can see relations are very good and there is no war between Serbs and Montenegrians. Why do Serbs accept Montenegro but do not accept Kosovo?
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyEthnic group and nationality are two different things in our country. Nationality is a group of people (part of nation or the whole nation) which has its own state and lives in its own state or abroad (in foreign country). Ethnic group is group of people (but it can´t be called NATION) banded together by culture and language, but WITHOUT its own state (Kurds, Romanies-Gipsies). For example, Slovaks who live in Serbia, Hungary, Switzerland, USA but also in the Slovak republic are a nationality there. But Kurds in Turkey are only an ethnic group. That´s the difference between these two concepts in my country and I think a lot of countries in the EU. And why such an objection to the states which share nationality with other states? Because of the principle. Europe is not very large. The borders which were created after the WWI. and II. weren´t good, but in some cases they were tool which make possible to nations or nationalities to live in peace. For example borders between Slovakia and Hungary were faked (1919) because there was no idea how to make borders between two nations which lived in one state for more than 1000 years. And that´s the reason why today there is a big minority of Hungarians in Slovakia and minority of Slovaks in Hungary. And this situation is common for a lot of european countries. And now, as you wrote, Hungarians in Slovakia could declare their independence from the Slovak republic, Slovaks in Hungary could declare independence from Hungary, Polish minority could declare independence from the USA, French minority could declare independence from Canada atc. All these nationalities declared an independence by creating their own states (Slovakia, Hunghary, France, Albania, Russia etc) and there is no reason to create new states. Because there is a danger of international conflicts. I can imagine that also so developed countries like Slovakia and Hungary could start maby international conflict if their suverenity would be broken by trying to create a new state on their territory, especially by Hungarian minority in Slovakia or Slovak minority in Hungary. BTW: The standard european constitutions contain also the sentence, that its possible to create an alliance with other state(s) but also that its impossible to divide state into more states (apart from some federations). So, from my point of view there must be some rules: if any nationality has its own state, there is no reason to support creating of new state of this nationality. Why? Because of the complicated history, settlement and relations of nationalities in Europe. Because if we would accept second state of one nationality, there would be a danger of never ending process of dividing Europe into smaller and smaller areas, and of a big international and interreligious conflicts in Europe (and not only in Europe). There is a big danger of destabilisation of Europe. Well, would you accept if some minority would declare an independence in your country? Especially, when this nationality has its own state???
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user Reply