Serbs Try to Attack US Embassy in Vienna;
Munter Warns Serbia
Frances Trix of Indiana University and a long-time researcher in Kosovo gives the historical and cultural context of the Balkan crisis at our collective Global Affairs blog.
Kosovo independence from Serbia continues to provoke Serbian protests, including a rally of 6,000 in Vienna on Sunday that turned violent when 600 hooligans tried to move toward the US embassy, found that Austrian police had sealed it off, and then vented their rage on local shops and restaurants.
Isn't that actually a form of terrorism?
Angry protesters had attacked the US embassy in Belgrade on Thursday, setting fires and forcing an evacuation. US ambassador to Serbia Cameron Munter demanded better security for embassies in Belgrade on Sunday, saying, "I'm very angry at what happened . . . It had better not happen again."
For anyone who can't quite get the nuance here, I think Munter is saying that the Serbian government will be held accountable for any further attacks on the United States embassy in Belgrade. And, indeed, Sunday's events raise the question of why Austria can protect its US embassy but Serbia can't protect its.
Kosovo's emergence as a country in its own right raises the question of why Palestine should not also just declare its own independence.
On another crisis, don't miss Farideh Farhi's essay on the implications of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran.
At the Napoleon's Egypt blog, a new letter from Gen. Berthier about the siege of Acre in Palestine.
posted by Juan Cole @ 2/24/2008 08:33:00 AM
|
Facebook
6 Comments:
Kosovo's emergence as a country in its own right raises the question of why Palestine should not also just declare its own independence.
Very funny, Cole. Very funny!
And if they did that, the "right of return" turns into a "military invasion" and gives the Israelis the right to kill them all.
You have to laugh (NOT) at the USA's loud insistence that Serbia MUST protect US embassies, when the USA has been so woefully incapable of providing security for Iraqis.
US ambassador to Serbia Cameron Munter . . . "It had better not happen again."
Or else what? America will help dismember the country? Devastate it's infrastructure through bombing? Kill lot's of journalists and media technicians? Help KLA terrorists gain independence? Build a huge military base in Kosova?
Oh, wait, they already did all that.
Remind me, did the Chinese publicly make mafia-like threats when Washington bombed its Belgrade embassy?
In retrospect, the US operation in Serbia under Clinton looks less like a humanitarian mission and more like a precedent for unilateral action (Nato is not the UN), and part of a larger pattern of trying to leverage former Soviet-dominated Repubics away from the Soviet sphere of influence.
The US ambassador is right to call for better protection, but his open-ended threat is the kind of bullying that has become standard US 'diplomacy'. And he seems to forget that the US has some responsiblity for protecting its own embassy.
As for Palestine, no doubt Hamas would do exactly that and most likely most Palestinians would agree with such an action, which is no more than what Israel did in 1948. But, of course, Israel would never allow that and the Palestinians wouldn't be able to make it stick, due to Israel's extreme military superiority. And then, what of the settlers? A reverse Nakba? Another crime against humanity to make up for Israel's initial crime against humanity?
The only real solution would be for the US to start acting as a genuinely honest arbiter, but - of course - we continue to elect into office reprentatives to continue to toe the "Israel is always right and the Palestinians deserve whatever Israel does to them" line.
But wait!!! OUR SAVIOR, Obama, will return the US to sane foreign policy!! Only Obama has not budged signifigantly from the formula and is at least as likely to embroil us in further Middle East wars as the other two would-be Warmongers In Chief.
Let's face it; the US population sees war as the ultimate football game. But it's better, because your team never loses.
Until it does. Then - as goes the saying - sow the wind...
As John Lennon said, we can have peace, if we WANT it. The issues to be negotiated between Israel and Palestine are tough, but not impossible. A fair negotiation process could resolve them.
' As expected, Kosovo has issued its unilateral declaration of independence, the United States and most European Union countries, with whom this declaration was coordinated, rushing to extend diplomatic recognition to this "new country". '
The Palestinians declared independence in 1988. "The United States and most European Union countries" did not "rush to extend diplomatic recognition" to the "new" country.
Since everyone seems to have forgotten the 1988 declaration the Palestinians ought to consider it a "soft" declaration and work toward lining up some states to recognize its new, "hard" recognition. Hmmm... Iran, Venezuela, Cuba... can anyone think of an Arab country that might recognize Palestine? I thought not.
Russian and China are not interested in human rights and there's no oil in Palestine.
And it's got to be Hamas that does the declaring... not Elliot Abrams' boy in the West Bank.
Kosovo's emergence as a country in its own right raises the question of why Palestine should not also just declare its own independence.
Well Palestine did declare its independence in 1988, and was recognized by over 100 countries, but where did that get them?
The relevance of Kosovo is not that it declared UDI, but that it declared UDI, and was subsequently recognized as independent by major countries who carry enough weight for that declaration to mean something in the real world.
Palestine certainly has a right to independence, and seems a much more compelling case than Kosovo, but bearing in mind that the US acts more than a roadblock than a facilitator to peace negotiations, what is the mechanism for turning a declaration of independence into real independence on the ground?
1. declare independence
2. ?
3. be independent!
Doesn't seem like much of a plan.
I know the Whitbeck article fills in step 2 with something like "declare independence and if the US withholds recognition, dissolve the PA and opt for the single state", but I think that raises more questions than it answers. I don't think multi-ethnic democracy is necessarily the outcome of a campaign for a single state; genocide and ethnic cleansing seem at least as likely.
I think the most practical approach for achieving independence lies in convincing the US that supporting Palestinian independence serves everyone's interests (including the US') better than upholding the status quo.
Post a Comment
<< Home