Should Canada Recognize Kosovo Independence?

August1991 · February 15, 2008

Kosovo's Prime Minister Hashim Thaci has vowed to protect the rights of all minorities as the province prepares to declare independence from Serbia.
Reports say the declaration could come on Sunday, but Mr Thaci did not set a date at a news conference in Pristina.

The US and most EU states are expected to recognise Kosovo quickly, but Serbia and Russia strongly oppose the move.

...

Kosovo's assembly will make the declaration of independence on Sunday, he says, making clear its acceptance of the limitations on independence outlined in the UN plan drawn up by Martti Ahtisaari.

These include supervision by an international presence; limited armed forces; strong provisions for Serb minority protection; commitment to multi-ethnic democracy; neither Kosovo nor any part of it will be allowed to join another country.

BBC

One could compare this to Quebec's National Assembly declaring Quebec sovereignty over the objections of Canada's federal parliament. Parizeau envisaged such a scenario and sought international recognition much like Kosovo is doing now.

Kosovo has been under UN administration for the past several years.

I have no doubt what Pierre Trudeau would do.

Edited February 15, 2008 by August1991

August1991 · February 15, 2008

Harper and Putin are also likely discuss the Arctic, energy co-operation, Iran and North Korea, and Kosovo’s desire for independence, which Canada supports and Russia opposes.

Macleans, 8 June 2007

Kosovo´s possible unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia has been bubbling for months.
Some Western countries, notably the United States, have voiced their support. However, others, including Serbian ally Russia, have opposed the move at the United Nations. Canada has remained largely silent on the issue, in part because Kosovo could set a precedent that could some day apply to Quebec.

Now it appears the rhetoric has reached a boiling point, as Kosovo´s newly appointed prime minister, Hashim Thaci, was quoted last Saturday as saying the past weekend would be the last the province would not be independent.

Link

Clearly, there's been a change of heart in Ottawa. Trudeau (and Pearson) always took the position that whatever the international crisis, Canadian unity took absolute precedence.

Edited February 15, 2008 by August1991

maldon_road · February 15, 2008

Macleans, 8 June 2007
Link

Clearly, there's been a change of heart in Ottawa. Trudeau (and Pearson) always took the position that whatever the international crisis, Canadian unity took absolute precedence.

I expect we will diddle around. The moment of course we recognize Kosovo Duceppe will claim it as a precedent and Quebecers will hear all about in the next election.

myata · February 15, 2008

In all reasonable approaches, if the majority has expressed their will clearly and the government of the day insists on separation, there isn't much reason to deny it. That's that would happen in Quebec should it vote for independence. There's no way in the world Canada can dictate it not to. The conditions of separation is a different story. Preferrably they would be settled in a negotiated partition like that of Chekhs and Slovaks. If not, it may drag on for a long time. But in any outcome, independence cannot be denied simply because one of the parties (which is usually the more powerful one) wouldn't agree to it.

rbacon · February 16, 2008

Maybe Ottawa should recognise our own Constitutional Documents before they start running off their big mouths all over the world. The so called Canadian Constitution is based on the Statute law of a foreign country Britain, and the Charter was cobbled up by the Little Crook from Quebec Chretien. It was forced on all Canadians without our consent contrary to International Law.

August1991 · February 16, 2008

In all reasonable approaches, if the majority has expressed their will clearly and the government of the day insists on separation, there isn't much reason to deny it. That's that would happen in Quebec should it vote for independence. There's no way in the world Canada can dictate it not to. The conditions of separation is a different story. Preferrably they would be settled in a negotiated partition like that of Chekhs and Slovaks. If not, it may drag on for a long time. But in any outcome, independence cannot be denied simply because one of the parties (which is usually the more powerful one) wouldn't agree to it.

Myata, If I use your idea as a guide, the conditions are being imposed on Serbia. How would English Canadians feel if Quebec made a UDI, assumed 20% of the federal debt, took 20% of federal assets, declared the borders sacrosanct and the international community agreed?

I'm not defending the Serbian position or trying to hypothesize Canadian scenarios. I think I'm merely noting that some but not all divorces are mutual agreements. When an outside force takes one side, it's as likely to be one or the other.

I think Harper once said (after becoming PM) that the primary task of Canada's PM was to ensure the viability of Confederation. If Harper believes that, he should be on the phone to the White House and all of the EU capitals right now stating in forceful terms that they should not recognize Kosovo sovereignty. (Harper will have an ally in Vladimir Putin.) That's what Pierre Trudeau would be doing.

Lastly, I'm a little surprised how both the French and English Canadian media have been shy to approach this issue. It has been simmering in the background for some time.

Edited February 16, 2008 by August1991

myata · February 16, 2008

Correct. Except when a mutual agreement can't be worked out, it's not a reason to keep the status quo. Some states (and one doesn't have to go far for an example) would never agree for any of their parts to separate.

Strengthening confederation should mean making it meanigful and desirable for all provinces. Not making it into a prison to hold somebody / anybody against their will.

Very obviously, the lofty standard of freedom and democracy has to be applied on a univesal basis. I.e., not "case by case" as some like to see it. I.e. where we can gain, voila freedom, democracy and self determination. Where we don't like it, respecting territorial sovereignty and constitution. Every state that recognizes Kosovo also sets a standard for itself, ie. acknowledges to respect democratically expressed will of any of its minorites / parts, up to separation. Anything less would of course be a gross hypocrisy.

August1991 · February 16, 2008

Correct. Except when a mutual agreement can't be worked out, it's not a reason to keep the status quo. Some states (and one doesn't have to go far for an example) would never agree for any of their parts to separate.
Strengthening confederation should mean making it meanigful and desirable for all provinces. Not making it into a prison to hold somebody / anybody against their will.

Very obviously, the lofty standard of freedom and democracy has to be applied on a univesal basis. I.e., not "case by case" as some like to see it. I.e. where we can gain, voila freedom, democracy and self determination. Where we don't like it, respecting territorial sovereignty and constitution. Every state that recognizes Kosovo also sets a standard for itself, ie. acknowledges to respect democratically expressed will of any of its minorites / parts, up to separation. Anything less would of course be a gross hypocrisy.

Well, of course, a federation must work in general to the benefit of each of its constituents. I don't disagree.

The issue here is rather what happens if one portion decides to separate? If the separation is amicable, then I don't think anyone would object. But there's a large margin between "amicable" and "hostile".

For many reasons (history being one), Serbia objects strongly to Kosovo becoming a sovereign country. Nevertheless, the outside world is stepping in and saying in effect: "It doesn't matter what the Serbs think or say, Kosovo will be an independent country."

If I use that example in the Canadian context, what happens if Quebec votes in favour of sovereignty, ROC disagrees with the terms Quebec offers but the outside world sides with Quebec? This is exactly what Parizeau envisaged in 1995.

George Bush declared yesterday that he had made up his mind that Kosovo should be an independent country, throwing down the gauntlet to Russia and challenging President Vladimir Putin to abandon attempts to block the path to statehood at the UN security council.
On the first visit by a US president to Albania, Mr Bush focused on the fate of the majority ethnic Albanians across the border in Kosovo and voiced impatience at Russian and Serbian blocking tactics, which are holding up a vote on the issue at the security council.

The US was working hard to reach an international agreement on Kosovo, he said. "Independence is the goal. That's what the people of Kosovo need to know. If it is apparent that is not going to happen in a relatively quick period of time, in my judgment, we need to put forward the resolution. Hence, deadline."

...

Western leaders are keen to resolve the crisis but cannot agree a formula with Moscow, which backs Serbia's argument that Kosovan independence would strip it of 15% of its territory and flout international law, as well as creating a dangerous precedent for secessionists worldwide.

Guardian, 11 June 2007 Edited February 16, 2008 by August1991

HisSelf · February 16, 2008

One could compare this to Quebec's National Assembly declaring Quebec sovereignty over the objections of Canada's federal parliament. Parizeau envisaged such a scenario and sought international recognition much like Kosovo is doing now.
Kosovo has been under UN administration for the past several years.

I have no doubt what Pierre Trudeau would do.

I don't know what le Pierre would do, but we are dealing with a very different case here. Yugoslavia broke up after the disintegration of the USSR and what we are seeing here is the battle of various stakeholders to claim the bits.

With Quebec, we have yet to see stage one: the breaking up of the federation. If Quebec separates, that is where we will be, but we are not there yet, thank you very much.

Edited February 16, 2008 by HisSelf

geoffrey · February 16, 2008

I'm a little unfamiliar with the situation... is this a declaration from the legislature of Kosovo or was this based upon a referendum result?

Borg · February 17, 2008

canada needs to stay the hell out of this one.

Putin is going to get busy.

Borg

Edited February 17, 2008 by Borg

myata · February 17, 2008

I believe there's been a referendum, so there's little outside world can do. In such cases it's quite usual that bigger and more powerful player does not welcome the idea of separation, so for the outside world to insist on an "amicable resolution" wouldn't be realistic. A clear will of the majority of the permananent population expressed in a free vote should be reason enough. Of course everybody will now watch the same standard applied universally throughout, not on a case by case basis, depending on whether (and where) we like it, or not.

Speaking of Canada, in the highly hypothetical situation it happens, there isn't any interest on either side to make the process confrontational. So if I'd had to bet on what would follow, I'd pick "business as usual for the next five years (at least)". But even in the worst case, the sides would just keep whatever they have and take all the time they need to negotiate a resolution. There just isn't anybody else in the world to do it for them.

blueblood · February 17, 2008

Kosovo and Quebec is apples and oranges. The UN does not have control over Quebec, people aren't killing each other in Quebec, and Kosovo isn't dependant on Serbia.

We already had our scrap with Quebec; the Plains of Abraham, where the Quebecers got the butts handed to them. We should be having General Wolfe day.

The Southern US states declared independance, and I don't think anybody recognized them.

seabee · February 17, 2008

You conveniently omit Wolfe's defeat on 31 July 1759. We should have Montcalm's Day.

Also, months after the battle on the Heights of Abraham, whereby Wolfe died to conquer ... a 2 km by 3 1/2 km neglected field, nothing more, there was the battle of Sainte-Foy, in which the English "got the butts handed to them". We should have Lévis' day.

Topaz · February 17, 2008

IF Ontario and Quebec could come together back in 1867, why should it be so hard NOW? I don't think the Quebecer's could survive without the rest of Canada. Do you know anyone willing to give up their governement pensions, be force to speak only one language and everything else the separaists are trying to force on Quebec.??? I don't think even Alberta would be stupid enough to try it on their own.

seabee · February 17, 2008

Ontario and Quebec did not "come back together", or whatever, in 1867. Québec, as a province did not exist when the BNA act was proclaimed. Only three provinces joined the process; Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the province of Canada, which included both what is now known as Ontario and Québec. Québec, as a separate entity, had no voice in the matter. However, it accepted article 6 (from memory) which partitioned Québec from Ontario, maybe as a first step to independance.

Topaz · February 17, 2008

Ontario and Quebec did not "come back together", or whatever, in 1867. Québec, as a province did not exist when the BNA act was proclaimed. Only three provinces joined the process; Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the province of Canada, which included both what is now known as Ontario and Québec. Québec, as a separate entity, had no voice in the matter. However, it accepted article 6 (from memory) which partitioned Québec from Ontario, maybe as a first step to independance.

Unless my memory is failing me, it seems Quebec was comfortable being part of Canada until the late '60's. The separarist don't want to be part of Canada so why are they sitting in Ottawa collecting Canadian pay cheques and will sometime in the future getting Canadian pensions? Better question yet why are they there?

August1991 · February 17, 2008

Unless my memory is failing me, it seems Quebec was comfortable being part of Canada until the late '60's. The separarist don't want to be part of Canada so why are they sitting in Ottawa collecting Canadian pay cheques and will sometime in the future getting Canadian pensions? Better question yet why are they there?

Quebecers pay taxes to Ottawa like everyone else in Canada.

Thousands of jubilant Albanian-Canadians braved sub-freezing temperatures Sunday to celebrate the newly declared independence of their homeland, Kosovo, calling on the Conservative government to recognize Europe's youngest state.
Kosovo's parliament declared the territory's independence from Serbia on Sunday in a historic move backed by the United States and a number of European countries. But Serbia immediately denounced the declaration as illegal, and Russia also rejected it, demanding an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council.

Ottawa has not taken a position on the Kosovo issue and a spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs said Sunday "the government is still considering a decision."

CP

Still considering a decision?

daniel · February 18, 2008

I'm sure we don't want our Harper government repeating the mistake of the Mulroney government when they prematurely recognized the new Soviet Government in 1991.

It would be wise for Harper to wait for the US response first.

February 18, 2008

We should wait until the other western nations decide. Doing it now will spark diplomatic tensions between Canada and Russia/Serbia. If the other nations recognize, then we should as well.

blueblood · February 18, 2008

You conveniently omit Wolfe's defeat on 31 July 1759. We should have Montcalm's Day.
Also, months after the battle on the Heights of Abraham, whereby Wolfe died to conquer ... a 2 km by 3 1/2 km neglected field, nothing more, there was the battle of Sainte-Foy, in which the English "got the butts handed to them". We should have Lévis' day.

Who won that war, the French or English? as history suggests, the English won and it is by their benevolence that the Quebecer's even got to stay and got to keep their way of doing things.

bush_cheney2004 · February 18, 2008

I'm sure we don't want our Harper government repeating the mistake of the Mulroney government when they prematurely recognized the new Soviet Government in 1991.
It would be wise for Harper to wait for the US response first.

What? Wait for the US response? No....Dion says that Canada must lead! :lol:

I noticed lots of US flags in the crowd.

Edited February 18, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

Wild Bill · February 18, 2008

Who won that war, the French or English? as history suggests, the English won and it is by their benevolence that the Quebecer's even got to stay and got to keep their way of doing things.

This is a good point that rarely gets mentioned. I wonder if anyone can provide some links to show if the French forces had won if they would likely have been just as kind to the English. I suspect not. The benevolent terms of Wolfe's victory were quite progressive for the time and virtually unknown amongst other warring nations. It was an excellent way to found a new nation.

It is quite likely that if the French had won the battles for the new world they would have kicked the English off their farms, enslaved their sons, boffed their daughters and eradicated their language more completely than the English had done to the Irish and Scottish.

Come to think of it, perhaps that's where Bills 101 and such drew their inspiration...

eyeball · February 18, 2008

I'm torn, one the one hand its great to see people happily celebrating their freedom and self-determination but on the other hand more divisions are probably the last thing the world needs right now.

Leafless · February 18, 2008

You conveniently omit Wolfe's defeat on 31 July 1759. We should have Montcalm's Day.
Also, months after the battle on the Heights of Abraham, whereby Wolfe died to conquer ... a 2 km by 3 1/2 km neglected field, nothing more, there was the battle of Sainte-Foy, in which the English "got the butts handed to them". We should have Lévis' day.

Not quite as you describe it.

Wolfe had completed a series of successful military operations including this one but was mortally wounded by a musket ball.

The English did not get their butts handed to them and before Wolfe had died the French had already surrendered.

And back to the topic, Canada should steer clear of the Kosovo issue as the political ramifications are obvious and besides who needs Russia as an enemy.