If the U.S. backs it, a declaration of independence is legitimate and sanctioned by international law. If the U.S. disapproves, a declaration of independence is illegitimate and condemned by international law.
What else did you expect? A US/Western dominated court comes up with a vaguely worded verdict, which can be interpreted both ways so as not to make a precedent, which is then touted as 'proof that we were right' by MSM. The bigger picture reads that the US has a vested interest in destabilizing international geopolitics by invalidating the very principle which has permitted Europe (and the rest of the world?) to remain at relative peace: the inviolability of international borders. Might is what makes right - and the biggest bully on the block is American. Could this contribute to salvation for the US economy? After all, American super power status was consolidated in post WWII rubble.
The bigger picture reads that the US has a vested interest in destabilizing international geopolitics by invalidating the very principle which has permitted Europe (and the rest of the world?) to remain at relative peace: the inviolability of international borders.
Washington will certainly be as supportive of the Muslims in Bosnia, or of any other Islamistan, from Macedonia to southern Bulgaria to the Caucasus.
In the region, the ICJ verdict will promote two distinct, interconnected trends: greater-Albanian aspirations in Macedonia, Montenegro, Greece, and pan-Islamic aspirations for the establishment of what is called a "Green Corridor" (an Islamic ring from Asia Minor to the Balkans and into Central Europe).
This is another big win for Islam in Europe.
this will earn the US brownie points in the Islamic world.
You're a funny guy, Lynch. The US does nothing but poke pointed sticks in the Islamic world's eyes.
Lynch:
what is called a "Green Corridor"
Who exactly calls this fantasy a "Green Corridor"?
US policy has always sought to manipulate, forge alliances with and exploit Muslims throughout the world. Note: manipulate and exploit is not the same as conquer and colonize. It implies building military alliances and trades partnerships when these are useful... or going to war when a hostile regime is in place. However, there has always been a preference for military alliances and trade partnerships.
The most obvious example of a US-Islamic alliance is that of Turkey, which has been a cornerstone of American anti-Soviet policy since the creation of NATO... and is still a geostrategic ally today. US policy in the Balkans today is largely a result of this partnership. Another example is Afghanistan, where the Americans supported Islamists in their war against the USSR (1979-1988). This same policy can be seen playing out in the Russian Caucasus today, where US agents are providing military support to Islamists in an effort to weaken a Eurasian geopolitical rival. The Chinese Uighurs (who are also Muslims) are being used in the exact same way... as are of course, the Bosnian Muslims and the Albanian Muslims.
We can mention many examples of Muslim countries which have strong economic and military ties to the United States: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia.... These countries represent more than 70% (guesstimate) of the world's Muslims.
Now, where do you see the US poking pointed sticks in the Islamic world's eye? You really need to read between the lines.
The most obvious example of a US-Islamic alliance is that of Turkey
Turkey is a secular state. There is no "Islamic" alliance there.
Afghanistan, where the Americans supported Islamists in their war against the USSR
Precisely, as part of the Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union, and for no other reason. Had the insurgents been believers in Pikkiwoki they'd have received US support just the same.
Your allegations of clandestine US support for Islamists in the Caucasus need backing up. Same for the Uighurs. And, above all, Bosnians and Albanians. But, were these allegations supported by facts, we would still be talking about tactics in a Russia-containment (or China-weakening, but that's more far-fetched) strategy.
Same for the other "friendships" - hegemonic alliances with ruling elites that, of themselves, contain no "Islamic" element.
In all, nothing to back up your claim of
the US aiding and abetting Muslim interests in the Balkans (and elsewhere, internationally) in the hope that this will earn the US brownie points in the Islamic world
As for the pointed sticks, what do you think the majority of Muslims in the world think of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and above all Israel?
Strange way to "earn brownie points".
As I said, you need to read between the lines. Erdogan and his ruling ISLAMIST party (nothing Muslim about it of course) are not only running the political show in Ankara, but have also been busy purging the Army of its secular leadership (now why would that be if Turkey is such a principled secular state) and consolidating power. Not that the US or Europeans have done much to oppose or hamper these developments.
As for the US supporting Muslims from Kosovo to Bosnia... I'm no expert on the matter, although I do know that the German Secret Service (US puppet regime) has been providing weapons and logistics support to the KLA since the 1980's. But tell me... who armed the Bosnian Muslims if not NATO members ?
Erdogan and his ruling ISLAMIST party
That would be Islamic, not Islamist. Islamist parties are unconstitutional in Turkey, and this is a prohibition that their constitutional court has not been shy in enforcing.
have also been busy purging the Army of its secular leadership (now why would that be if Turkey is such a principled secular state)
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that the army has historically had the somewhat disquieting habit of deposing reasonably democratic governments that it did not like.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
afew: "Your allegations of clandestine US support for Islamists in the Caucasus need backing up. Same for the Uighurs. And, above all, Bosnians and Albanians. But, were these allegations supported by facts, we would still be talking about tactics in a Russia-containment (or China-weakening, but that's more far-fetched) strategy."
Either you weren't around at the time or your memory is failing... But US support for the Muslims was what started the war (see Lisbon Accord torpedoed by the Americans) and what influenced the outcome (see US-NATO bombing of Serbs in 1995).
Same is true of Albanian Muslims in Kosovo - from Rambouillet to the bombing of Serbia.
What kind of "proof" are you expecting?
But I'm not denying that US strategy was to prevent Russia-friendly Serbia from dominating most of former Yugoslavia, and that it went as far as the bombing campaign (that I didn't and don't agree with). But my argument is with Lynch's assertion that the US is "trying to earn brownie points" ie to curry favour in the Islamic world.
Once again, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, are strange ways to curry favour.
Remember the support and understanding that the Muslim terrorists that killed some 120 kids in Beslan received on the front page of the NYT? That kind of political sympathy usually doesn't come without other "hard" support.
US/Turkish political and military support to Muslim Azerbaijan: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_Armed_Forces">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_Armed_Forces</a> where you can read all about US/Turkish/NATO support for this country.
U.S. Role in Chechnya - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
the United States to take a tough, principled stand on Chechnya
It's actually complaining that that support is way insufficient!
As for
Russian media accuses
what kind of evidence is that?
Sorry, in all good faith I didn't see that NYT article about Beslan. Please don't consider that I'm trying to defend the NYT's reputation (which I've attacked often enough here).
Finally, I don't doubt American support for the regime in Azerbaidjan. It's an important Central Asian country and key to Afghanistan.
My point is not that the US is not willing to make tactical and strategic alliances, or to give undercover support to insurgent movements. What I'm denying is that this is specifically a policy of linking up with "Islam". It's pure opportunism.
And I repeat that most Muslims in the world have not the slightest notion that the US is trying to be nice to them. Very much to the contrary.
In other words: international law does not make independence illegal, and national law was suspended. By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
After considering the interpretation of resolution 1244 (1999) itself, the Court concludes that "the object and purpose of [the] resolution . . . was to establish a temporary, exceptional legal régime which, save to the extent that it expressly preserved it, superseded the Serbian legal order and which aimed at the stabilization of Kosovo, and that it was designed to do so on an interim basis". The Court then turns to the question whether resolution 1244 (1999), or the measures adopted thereunder, introduces a specific prohibition on issuing a declaration of independence, applicable to those who adopted the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008. In order to answer this question, it is first necessary for the Court to determine precisely who issued that declaration. In the part of its Advisory Opinion devoted to the identity of the authors of the declaration of independence, the Court seeks to establish whether the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 was an act of the "Assembly of Kosovo", one of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, established under the Constitutional Framework, or whether those who adopted the declaration were acting in a different capacity. On this point, the Court arrives at the conclusion that "the authors of the declaration of independence . . . did not act as one of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government within the Constitutional Framework, but rather as persons who acted together in their capacity as representatives of the people of Kosovo outside the framework of the interim administration".
The Court then turns to the question whether resolution 1244 (1999), or the measures adopted thereunder, introduces a specific prohibition on issuing a declaration of independence, applicable to those who adopted the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008. In order to answer this question, it is first necessary for the Court to determine precisely who issued that declaration.
In the part of its Advisory Opinion devoted to the identity of the authors of the declaration of independence, the Court seeks to establish whether the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 was an act of the "Assembly of Kosovo", one of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, established under the Constitutional Framework, or whether those who adopted the declaration were acting in a different capacity. On this point, the Court arrives at the conclusion that "the authors of the declaration of independence . . . did not act as one of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government within the Constitutional Framework, but rather as persons who acted together in their capacity as representatives of the people of Kosovo outside the framework of the interim administration".
You will note, though, opposition to Kosovo independence comes from
The nub is consistency and there, just like the US and Russia are both inconsistent in their approach to, say, Kosovo and Ossetia, other countries such as Spain take the same position (interested, but at least consistent) position in both cases. By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
What's useful about the decision is that it is another instance of exposure of the actual role played by 'international justice' in our present-day world, to illegitimately legitimize the acts of the world's sole superpower. And we also see the critical role played by the international MSM in restricting the official story so that the exposure (even in so obvious a case as this) doesn't take place. fairleft
Now with this international court decision, you've effectively created the ruse by which to dice and cleave away parts of countries. False flag operations light the fire, and if the former sovereign responds with a counterterrorist operation, they have effectively yielded control of the territory according to this decision.
So, one can argue that all sorts of little havens for terrorists may now become viable entities, as long as those terrorists are well connected.
