![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Catalonia
2017-10-04 09:48Serbia accuses world of double standards over Catalonia and Kosovo
See, two principles have reigned over international politics ever since the end of WW2.
1) Territorial integrity is sacrosanct.
2) Peoples have the right of self-identification.
These two ideas were supposed to keep international peace. And to a large extent, they did. For a time. But there's a significant problem here. As you can see, these two principles are in direct conflict with each other. Various sides have often referred to either #1 or #2 in their political endeavors, particularly when the ethnic, religious and hence territorial identification of certain groups, nations and countries is in question.
When the Kosovo Albanians (a majority in Kosovo) decided to self-identify as a separate territorial entity, they cited principle #2. We have the right to be whoever we want to be. Naturally, Serbia cited the other principle, #1. Our territorial integrity is sacrosanct. The international community decided to take a side in this conflict, seemingly because they were horrified by Milosevic's atrocities, but in Realpolitik terms, because Serbia was Russia's last remaining geopolitical proxy in the Balkan region, and they had to be brought out of the big game.
When the Crimean Russians (a majority in Crimea) decided to self-identify and split away from Ukraine, then join Russia, they also cited principle #2. We have the right to be whoever we want to be, and join whomever we want. Naturally, Ukraine cited the other principle, #1. Our territorial integrity is sacrosanct. The international community decided to take a side here as well, seemingly because the Russian separatists were doing Putin's bidding, and he wanted to teach Ukraine a lesson for wanting to join the West. But in Realpolitik terms, because Crimea is a key strategic area that grants control over the Black Sea region, and Russia had to be denied that.
( Read more... )
See, two principles have reigned over international politics ever since the end of WW2.
1) Territorial integrity is sacrosanct.
2) Peoples have the right of self-identification.
These two ideas were supposed to keep international peace. And to a large extent, they did. For a time. But there's a significant problem here. As you can see, these two principles are in direct conflict with each other. Various sides have often referred to either #1 or #2 in their political endeavors, particularly when the ethnic, religious and hence territorial identification of certain groups, nations and countries is in question.
When the Kosovo Albanians (a majority in Kosovo) decided to self-identify as a separate territorial entity, they cited principle #2. We have the right to be whoever we want to be. Naturally, Serbia cited the other principle, #1. Our territorial integrity is sacrosanct. The international community decided to take a side in this conflict, seemingly because they were horrified by Milosevic's atrocities, but in Realpolitik terms, because Serbia was Russia's last remaining geopolitical proxy in the Balkan region, and they had to be brought out of the big game.
When the Crimean Russians (a majority in Crimea) decided to self-identify and split away from Ukraine, then join Russia, they also cited principle #2. We have the right to be whoever we want to be, and join whomever we want. Naturally, Ukraine cited the other principle, #1. Our territorial integrity is sacrosanct. The international community decided to take a side here as well, seemingly because the Russian separatists were doing Putin's bidding, and he wanted to teach Ukraine a lesson for wanting to join the West. But in Realpolitik terms, because Crimea is a key strategic area that grants control over the Black Sea region, and Russia had to be denied that.
( Read more... )
