Should Canada Recognize Kosovo Independence?

capricorn · February 19, 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.

Geez, Dion must have read your post and followed your advice. :lol:

Dion said Monday in Quebec City that the best way for Canada to deal with the issue is to follow the lead of the other countries.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...fBmju3mQXYLS1DQ

What a novel way to craft foreign policy...follow the crowd. :rolleyes:

bush_cheney2004 · February 19, 2008

....What a novel way to craft foreign policy...follow the crowd.

Omigod...is this the same guy who preached global leadership on climate change!

Canada does not follow...Canada leads! :lol:

seabee · February 19, 2008

... and before Wolfe had died the French had already surrendered.

Totally false. The French made a strategic retreat to their côte de Beauport camp. They did not surrender in any way or manner.

Leafless · February 19, 2008

Totally false. The French made a strategic retreat to their côte de Beauport camp. They did not surrender in any way or manner.

Then why the 'Treaty of Paris'?

August1991 · February 19, 2008

Totally false. The French made a strategic retreat to their côte de Beauport camp. They did not surrender in any way or manner.

Actually, they did. In September 1759, the Fench retreated to Montreal and left the English in control of Quebec City.

In spring 1760, the French returned to Quebec and defeated the remnants of the English invasionary army (Bataille de Ste-Foy) and hence taking back Quebec.

The first ships to arrive in Spring 1760 were British and they then put New France back into English hands.

Finally, in the Treaty of Paris of 1763 ending the Seven Years War, France gave New France to Britain in exchange for a smal part of Belgium. This truly sealed the fate of New France and made it a British colony.

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...

That's nonsense.

The British were "generous" to the French in New France (the English respected the Catholic Church) simply because there were too many to deport. The English feared another revolt as in the American colonies.

Nevertheless, the English were typical colonialists. Between 1760 and 1850, not one single French ship was allowed to enter Canadian waters. The people of New France were entirely cut off from France. At the same time, the English encouraged anglophone immigration into what is now Canada. The intention was clearly to drown the 60,000 French colonists in a sea of English immigrants.

Edited February 19, 2008 by August1991

seabee · February 19, 2008

... , France gave New France to Britain in exchange for a smal part of Belgium.

More important to France, however, were the Antilles, with the islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe, which produced a lot of sugar at very low prices because of slaves. At the time, sugar was almost as important a commodity as gas is today. The profits from the Antilles were enormous, whereas Canada was seen as a colony that cost more than it produced, a net loss. It is said that Mme de Pompadour, the French king's mistress, said, upon learning that Canada has surrendered at Montréal on September 8, 1760; "At last, the King will be able to rest". At best, France's support to its colony was no more than lukewarm.

I dont't believe that the English respected very much the Catholic church. But Mgr Briand had negociated an understanding with general Murray that the Catholic church would preach submission the the King of England, in return for a guarantee that the Catholic Church would be allowed to remain. This deal was too good to be refused; the Brits would need very few military to keep the Canadiens into submission, as the Catholic Church would do it for them. This,however, inflammed the colonists in the British Colonists in America, who were resolutely "anti-papist", which was the initial spark for the separatist movement that eventually led to the creation of the U.S. of A.

Leafless · February 19, 2008

More important to France, however, were the Antilles, with the islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe, which produced a lot of sugar at very low prices because of slaves. At the time, sugar was almost as important a commodity as gas is today. The profits from the Antilles were enormous, whereas Canada was seen as a colony that cost more than it produced, a net loss. It is said that Mme de Pompadour, the French king's mistress, said, upon learning that Canada has surrendered at Montréal on September 8, 1760; "At last, the King will be able to rest". At best, France's support to its colony was no more than lukewarm.
I dont't believe that the English respected very much the Catholic church. But Mgr Briand had negociated an understanding with general Murray that the Catholic church would preach submission the the King of England, in return for a guarantee that the Catholic Church would be allowed to remain. This deal was too good to be refused; the Brits would need very few military to keep the Canadiens into submission, as the Catholic Church would do it for them. This,however, inflammed the colonists in the British Colonists in America, who were resolutely "anti-papist", which was the initial spark for the separatist movement that eventually led to the creation of the U.S. of A.

Do you by any chance work for the Ottawa Citizens Quebec propaganda department?

runningdog · February 19, 2008

Vast oil reserves found in northern Albania

Friday, 11 January 2008

New Kosova Report

QUOTE

Tirana - Vast and untouched reserves of oil and gas have been discovered in northern Albania, one of Central Asia's and Eastern Europe's leading petroleum corporations announced Thursday.

The report was compiled by Gustavson Associates LLC on behalf of Manas Petroleum Corporation, which has been awarded a contact by the Albanian government to explore the north of the country for oil and gas reserves.

According to their findings, the unproven reserve holds up to 2.987 billion barrels of oil and 3.014 trillion cubic feet of natural gas...

http://www.newkosovareport.com/20080110426...rn-Albania.html

hmm, the usa does it again. Not that we'll ever hear about this story from the MSM... :rolleyes:

Bin Laden, Iran, and the KLA

How Islamic Terrorism Took Root in Albania

by Christopher Deliso

AntiWar, September 19, 2001

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/deliso5.html

The only thing messier than Kosovo is trying to understand WTF happened there ...

Or as this article puts it,

"For the unhappy few who know the complicated truth about Kosovo, the words of Aldous Huxley seem most appropriate: 'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall drive you mad.'"

Independence in the Brave New World Order

NATO's Kosovo Colony

DIANA JOHNSTONE

Uruknet, February 18, 2008

http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m41261&hd=&size=1&l=e

Hydraboss · February 19, 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.

You forget that the major difference between Kwebek separation and Alberta separation is that Alberta would survive quite nicely. We don't rely on the federal government for anything except making sure our bank accounts get emptied regularly.

If Kosovo separation was initiated by a referendum, then Canada should acknowledge it. It is not our place to decide whether or not they should have separated, only that they did.

M.Dancer · February 19, 2008

You forget that the major difference between Kwebek separation and Alberta separation is that Alberta would survive quite nicely. We don't rely on the federal government for anything except making sure our bank accounts get emptied regularly.
If Kosovo separation was initiated by a referendum, then Canada should acknowledge it. It is not our place to decide whether or not they should have separated, only that they did.

referendum or no referendum. recognizing a unilateral split sets a dangerous precedent. We should not recognise it.

eyeball · February 20, 2008

Not recognizing a people's democratically supported aspirations can also set a dangerous precedent.

To me this issue underscores how concretized the notion of sovereign permanace has become. I think that might be more dangerous. Things change, country's and cultures evolve and rise and go extinct like everything else over time. Change does not always happens in the tiny little increments that most politicians and governments prefer. They need to be a little more Zen-like when it comes to accepting this. I think most people can simply shrug and take this in stride so why can't national governments do the same? Who made them the end all and be all of everything?

Speaking of concrete, where do people actually think Quebec is going to separate to, another planet or something?

I think if we can learn to accept the formation of new countries through democratic processes, notwithstanding electing to absorb a neighbor by invading it, we might one day evolve towards a single planetary government, that is countries may decide to phase themselves out by merging like they seem to be doing in Europe. Unity is after all a desirable thing isn't it? It certainly doesn't look like forcing unity through imperialism will ever get us there so how else do we do it?

Edited February 20, 2008 by eyeball

M.Dancer · February 20, 2008

Not recognizing a people's democratically supported aspirations can also set a dangerous precedent.

How can it be considered democratic if serbia hasn't had a place at the negotiating table nor a vote. In effect, Kosovo sill be stealing the infrastructure investment that FYR has made in it without any form of compensation agreed upon and precious few gaurentees for the Kosovo serb minority.

Oleg Bach · February 20, 2008

How can it be considered democratic if serbia hasn't had a place at the negotiating table nor a vote. In effect, Kosovo sill be stealing the infrastructure investment that FYR has made in it without any form of compensation agreed upon and precious few gaurentees for the Kosovo serb minority.

Good point - who ever takes authorship of the region will be able to write their own ticket. Those less agressive or orgainized politically will get the short end of the stick..that being the Serbs..It's kind of like winning the war or feud by simple declaration..in effect it will be a fiat governance and oppression of the Serbs will be legitimized and condoned by the global community - so I say yes to the oppression seeing that it is trend all over the world - may as well go with the flow, not to mention that - the globalist who hate family and nation - will get their way seeing that it will now be a formally devided area. This plays right into the hands of internationalist nation destroyers - one nation at a time...Serbia down - now Russia does not like it because they want nationhood and empire and this declaration of independence sets the stage for the opposite - There must have been some globalist support to creat a nation non-nation...very clever.

eyeball · February 21, 2008

Speaking of internationalist nation destroyers I wonder why was the US so quick to recognize a province that's run by war criminals with ties to drug dealing?

capricorn · February 22, 2008

Speaking of internationalist nation destroyers I wonder why was the US so quick to recognize a province that's run by war criminals with ties to drug dealing?

Because it doesn't have oil?

geoffrey · February 22, 2008

referendum or no referendum. recognizing a unilateral split sets a dangerous precedent. We should not recognise it.

Of course it should be recognized. The majority of people want to leave. So they do.

The details can be worked out later. The bottom line is that Kosovo decided it wanted to be independant, so there it is.

August1991 · February 22, 2008

Of course it should be recognized. The majority of people want to leave. So they do.
The details can be worked out later. The bottom line is that Kosovo decided it wanted to be independant, so there it is.

There was no referendum in Kosovo but if there had been, I don't think that the result would be hard to predict.

Rice (an many others) were at pains to say that Kosovo was a special case. Well, each place in the world is a special case.

I think the main lesson in all this is that a country exists or is sovereign if the outside world recognizes it so. If Quebec one day obtains international recognition as a sovereign state, then there is precious little the ROC will be able to say or do about it.

jdobbin · February 22, 2008

If Quebec one day obtains international recognition as a sovereign state, then there is precious little the ROC will be able to say or do about it.

If 51% say they want a separate Quebec, I don't think the rest of the world will leap to recognize it, especially if First Nations and several municipalities want to separate from Quebec if Quebec separates.

Would the world recognize First Nations if they split from a separate Quebec? There would be very little Quebec would be able to say or do about it, right?

capricorn · February 22, 2008

If 51% say they want a separate Quebec, I don't think the rest of the world will leap to recognize it,

I'm speculating here. The rest of the World wouldn't care and it would not even cause a ripple in the grand scheme of things.

especially if First Nations and several municipalities want to separate from Quebec if Quebec separates.

That remains to be seen. Maybe there would be no objection to separation from any party within Quebec, who knows.

Would the world recognize First Nations if they split from a separate Quebec? There would be very little Quebec would be able to say or do about it, right?

Again, the World would not care and it would come down to an internal matter to be resolved locally. I can't see this causing a World crisis or preoccupation. As far as the World goes, Canada is but a speck on the world stage. At times, it sucks to be irrelevant.

myata · February 22, 2008

I agree that once the majority has clearly expressed their will, neither former metropolia, nor the rest of the world should dictate them what to do. That's the presumption of freedom and self determination as they'll teach us. And I'm OK with that part.

Now the devil is in applying the standard consistently, and most importantly, to them (i.e. our) selves. Here, let's consider another example: Kurds in Turkey. There's no question they're oppressed (prohibition to use native language, etc); unlike Albanians, they have no country of their own; they have been fighting for independence for years; and lo - you'll have to go with a microscope to look for supporters of their right for self determination in the high offices of the West. Why so? Different case? Freedom, etc, has no application here? Or maybe because Turkey is a strong ally of USA and has plans on joining Europe?

Let's see: armed intervention in one case; and complete silence in the other. Doesn't sound like the same standard to me. So yes, while I support self determination, I don't think the case of Kosovo has anything to do with the lofty slogans. It's a matter of expediency, and again one standard is applied to "them" while a different set of rules is left for "us".

bush_cheney2004 · February 22, 2008

...Let's see: armed intervention in one case; and complete silence in the other. Doesn't sound like the same standard to me. So yes, while I support self determination, I don't think the case of Kosovo has anything to do with the lofty slogans. It's a matter of expediency, and again one standard is applied to "them" while a different set of rules is left for "us".

Not sure what you mean here...Canada has chosen complete silence on this specific issue, being paralyzed by domestic considerations. France, UK, USA, Germany, etc. have made a decision.

PM Chretien, who helped bomb the Serbs in 1999, should know better:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

myata · February 23, 2008

No I meant silence by the major supporters of self determination and democracy on this planet on the situation of Kurds in Turkey. It looks like self determination, democracy, freedom yada yada only apply when it works for us. When we've got something of value to get from it. And if and when it's not interesting we simply forget. Ignore. Dont' notice. As if it doesn't exist.

Edited February 23, 2008 by myata

bush_cheney2004 · February 23, 2008

No I meant silence by the major supporters of self determination and democracy on this planet on the situation of Kurds in Turkey. It looks like self determination, democracy, freedom yada yada only apply when it works for us. When we've got something of value to get from it. And if and when it's not interesting we simply forget. Ignore. Dont' notice. As if it doesn't exist.

Of course....that is exactly how it should work....nation state self interest. There is no "standard" and certainly no relevance for "fairness" consideration for circumstances that are neither standard or typical in such matters.

Even Turkey has recognized Kosovo....and we certainly know why.

Canada is paralyzed on this matter even though it has little skin in the game. The Clarity Act formalized the process for Quebec (does it apply to other provinces?). Kosovo doesn't have that luxury with Serbia.

Edited February 23, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

Keepitsimple · February 23, 2008

I think the Federal Government should give only "conditional" recognition to Kosovar. Full recognition should only come after a referendum that expresses a clear majority. That would be consistant with Canada's own guidelines. I know that Kosovar is a different situation but to the best of my knowledge, the Kosovan government was only elected with 46% of the popular vote. A referendum would be an awkward and probably violent undertaking but keeping in mind that this may happen elsewhere in the world, I think it's important that such actions clearly represent the free expression of the people - not just the ruling party.

BC_chick · February 23, 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.

British Canada tried its utmost to assimilate the French. The only reason they failed was their own elitist policies which resulted in a class collaboration of progressive French politicians with their English counterparts.

The Brits were as "benevolent" toward French-Canadians as GWB was toward Iraqi liberation.

IOW you're reiterating nothing short of romantic revision an otherwise self-serving historical policy.