From Across the Pond

Personal opinion on Kosovo's independence

I suspect like many people of around my own age the wars in the former Yugoslavia formed the major foreign affairs backdrop during the period of my life when I became aware of international politics, along with the end of the Cold War and the first Gulf War. Back in the mid-90s it was quite plain in my mind that, although crimes were committed by all sides in the Croatian and Bosnian wars, the chief culprit and worst offender were Serbs, both within Croatia and Bosnia, and without in the guise of Slobodan Milosevic and Serbia. Thus, when the conflict in Kosovo rose to the fore in 1999 there was no doubt that the Serbs were the 'bad guys'.

Following the overthrow of Milosevic in 2000 I developed a very detailed interest in affairs in the region, and became very knnowledgeable in what was going on - I followed the conflict in the Presevo valley and in Macedonia very closely, and the politics surrounding Milosevic's arrest and later extradition to The Hague. I not only followed the news - getting English translations of some local news sites - I also read a number of books on the history behind the area. This very detailed knowledge and interest lasted until towards the end of 2002. During this time my initial opinions underwent considerable refinement and revision.

Apart from anything else I came to regard the actions of the Kosovars following the NATO bombing to demonstrate that they were morally no better than their Serb opponents. Also it was fairly clear to me at the time that the UN and NATO had drafted its resolutions specifically to deny the chance of independence. Instead of working to create a situation where Kosovo would be an autonomous part of Serbia, I had the impression this entire issue was largely ignored for several years. Likewise I came to view the War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague and the pursuit of war criminals to be very unhelpful.

Mostly I started to develop a sense that, no matter what horrors they inflict on other peoples, those worst affected by a dictator are almost invariably their own people. For all the misery and suffering Milosevic has brought to Croatians, Bosniaks, and Kosovars, the group that has suffered most and longest are his own Serbs. I see the independence of Kosovo as the latest result and wound inflicted by Milosevic on his own people.

Despite that I am a subscriber to the idea of self-determination. For that reason I support Kosovan independence, even if I am not enthusiastic about it. The lack of enthusiasm is caused by the ham-fisted way the West has dealt with the region. The Great Powers have a very poor record at bringing lasting peace to the Balkans, and I would not be surprised if our latest interventions do not end up being just as fallible as our previous ones. 

As an aside, my belief in self-determination means that I would support the creation of an independent Basque-land or Catalonia, or an independent Scotland, should the majority of the people within those regions with it. Equally, should the Serbian-dominated north-west of Kosovo now wish to secede from this nascent state I would support their right to do so as well. I think trying to pretend that Kosovo does not set a precedent is both unjust and frankly stupid. But we shall see what happens.

Two consequences of Kosovo's independence

Now that a couple of days has passed since Kosovo's indepdence, the likely consequences are becoming apparent. At a meeting of the European Union foreign ministers it was agreed that Kosovo does not set a precedent. To that I have one thing to say: baloney. If it does not set a precedent then the Spain would have no problem recognising this new state, but they have refused to for good reason. If Spain recognises the right of a part of a nation to unilaterally declare its independence it loses all rights to its claims over Gibralter, not to mention its position over the question of the Basques and Catalans is considerably weakened. So Spain refuses, and will try to use this pronoucement from the EU as political cover.

I do not expect the Basques to become independent any time soon, but Spain is well aware that Kosovo's independence strengths the cause of separatism everywhere. It is a consequence that the United States and the United Kingdom have not been willing to address, and I believe it will become the greatest consequence from this decision. This BBC article states the situation quite well.

However, this will I think be a longer term affair, in the short term it is now the latest point of disagreement between Russia and the West. It is deeply unfashionable to talk to a renewed Cold War, but consider this - the first Cold War was initiated in disagreements over nation states in the wake of world war 2. There are more than a few similarities between now and then, and it does no good to blind ourselves to the possibility.

Thoughts on Kosovo's place in history

Yesterday, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. There was quite a good opinion piece in The Times today about it, which put this into something of a long-term historical perspective. On the whole though most of the commentary I have read only skirts over what led us to where we are, mostly just concentrating on the break-up of Yugoslavia. Considering how short most peoples memories are I suppose I should be happy that most of the commentary is able to go back 15-20 years, but in my opinion that is an all too short timeframe.

The independence of Kosovo is the latest echo in the collapse of the two Empires that dominated the Balkans from the 15th century to the early 20th century - namely the Ottoman Emire and the Empire of Austria (later Austro-Hungary), a process which began in the early nineteenth century when Serbia and Greece first broke away from the Ottoman Empire, became earnest after Ottoman defeat in the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-8 and the following Congress of Berlin, and went into overdrive following the defeat of both Empires in the first world war. The two multi-national states that were born from the aftermath of that war, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, have now totally broken apart.

It is also a further sign of the decentralisation of Europe. One of the great historical movements of European history from the Middle Ages to the start of the twentieth century was the centralisation of power in fewer and fewer nations, as countries expanded over their geographical areas. Thus out of Castille and Aragon came Spain, England absorbed Scotland and Ireland, Germany and Italy unified under the strongest states, Poland was partitioned, and all in all everything become superficially more orderly. But even as the last great achievements of this period of centralisation were occurring (in Italy and Germany) there were signs that the same nationalism that led to those unifications were already beginning to tear other nations apart. Austria had become Austro-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire had already lost control of Greece and Serbia, and more was to follow. The fall of the Russian Empire saw a brief independence of many of its parts, an independence supressed by a resurgent communist Russia, and then renewed again after communism collapsed. But even outside of this, Norway separated from Sweden, devolved governments now exist in parts of Spain and Britain, and Belgium as an idea is under tremendous strain from the competing needs of its two constituent parts.

This breaking down of nations is unlikely to stop in the near future. Indeed, the break away of Kosovo is likely to provide further impetus for it, as it does create a precedent. But that is a discussion for another day .

Oil for food - the tangle spreads

Just read this article on the BBC about the Serious Fraud Office investigation over Iraq's oil for food programme. The consensus opinion these days seems to be that the entire thing was riddled with corruption. As part of their investigation the SFO is requesting documents from two major pharmaceutical companies, and they are co-operating with the request.

But it strikes me that this is a story, a pattern, that just grows and grows. Next spring will mark the fifth anniversary of Saddam Hussein's fall and the invasion of Iraq, and still I have a feeling that there is so much more waiting to be uncovered about this disastrous programme (an apt demonstration of the phrase "The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions".).

I would hope the example here would show how ridiculous it is to expect that aid sent to corrupt regimes does what it intends. Or that the best long-term solution to alleviate the condition of a nation's poor is to ensure they have good governance, even if that means removing the previous misgovernance. But I know it won't. It is far too easy to send the aid off and console our consciences that we have done all we ought for our fellow men and women. It is an excuse for inaction, an excuse to let corrupt regimes continue to victimise their own people.

But it is an excuse that the international community will use time and time again.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto

The assassination yesterday of Benazir Bhutto, one feels, brings Pakistan to a perilous place. And while I view Mrs Bhutto's death as a tragedy, I do not subscribe to the view this necessarily leads to disaster. Disaster is certainly a very possible outcome, but let us for a moment explore an alternative.

Mrs Bhutto was a populist candidate. She may well become a populist martyr. And martyrs, true martyrs, are far more difficult to kill in death than the flesh and blood they once were in life. Their ideas and hopes are sanctified in blood. It may well be that in murdering Ms Bhutto, those who did so may have made her far more potent than she ever could have been in life, tainted as she was by the spectre of corruption.

Her death has the potential to break Musharraf. While I think it extremely unlikely that he had a hand in her death, the perception that him or those loyal to him might have let it happen could bring him down. Their opposition might deflect attention also from something else, that whatever crimes of omission he and his supporters may or may not have committed the actual killers were the extremist Islamicists. Pakistan's fractured democrats have in them a common enemy, and in death perhaps they also now have a common martyr (it would be a canny move by Musharraf to honour his opponent now). So perhaps from this killing might come something new, not necessarily something grand or in-your-face (though I would not discount the possibility entirely), but a shift in thought. Bhutto was loved by many of Pakistan's disadvantaged. Extremism finds fertile ground among the same, but now they have struck against one of their idols. This might, I hope, be the false victory that costs them the war for Pakistan's heart, mind, and soul.

This is not to say that a civil war might not yet result, or some other calamity. Only to point out that in tragedies like this can have positive outcomes.

Something wrong with immigration

There are two cases recently of people being given a reprieve from deportation by the Home Office, perhaps because of the Christmas season, which I think are good examples of where we are going wrong as a nation on the whole question of immigration. The two cases are of Al Bangura and the William family. From the information I know, both seem to raise different issues of the same problem.

Al Bangura is a player for Watford football club, which plays in the Championship division. He has been making a career as a sportsman in that club. He is starting to raise a family here, and by all accounts wishes to make his life in this nation. One of the major themes in the anti-immigration talk spouted by so many is that we will be swamped by wastrels who will sponge off the system. This is a clear example of a man who is not sponging off the system, who sounds like he would be a credit to our nation, be carelessly treated.

The William family are Pakistani converts to Christianity, who fled here due to the harrassment they were suffering. The local school especially came out in support of them. The dangers that converts from Islam (to any faith) undergo are well known by anyone with a even a most rudimentary knowledge of the reality of violence in today's Islam. It is a violence not restricted to a fundamentalist few, but widespread in Islamic society throughout the world. Also Pakistan is not precisely the most stable place on the planet now. Both these factors the incompetents and idiots - I won't subscribe malice to this action when incompetency and idiocy will do - are either unaware of or decided to ignore. This nation is meant to be a haven for those who are persecuted and oppressed, regardless of whether that presecution and oppression occurs at the hand of state or non-governmental actors. In particular this deportation just makes a mockery of the asylum system.

Why have we gotten to this state, when legitimate claimants are being shipped off? The paranoia whipped up by many outside groups, including I have to say the Conservative Party, is one reason. Indeed, given their much higher public role I hold the Tory Party to particular account in this case, but they are not alone.

The fear of illegal immigration, or efforts to tackle illegal immigration, basically fail to address the problem. For a very good reason, and it is the same reason why laws to restrict the legal use of guns or knives fail to correct criminal use of guns or knives. You are restricting the liberties of people who wish to follow the law, while doing nothing about those who already flout the law. The way to deal with illegal immigration is not to make the process of legal immigration and asylum even more complex, or to make that process more difficult. In these situations you only end up doing great harm to the very people whom you wish to immigrate to your country or are most in need of asylum. The way to deal with illegal immigration is through proper sanction against the illegal trade itself.

I hope in both the above cases the victims of our system emerge triumphant. But I know that many more cases, equally at fault, will go uncorrected. It is to our great shame as a nation that we close the doors on both those who wish to become part of the great idea that is the United Kingdom, and those vulnerable and in danger who need our protection.

Liberation Day

Twenty-five years ago today Argentine forces on the Falkland Islands surrendered. It marked the ending of a war that had begun a few months previously when Argentine forces invaded and occupied the Islands. It was, by any measurement, a remarkable victory.

Two hundred and fifty-five members of the Task Force sent to recapture the islands lost their lives. So did three Falkland Islanders, hit sadly by shellfire. Many Argentines also lost their lives, likewise victims of the military dictatorship that had gambled taking the Falklands would restore their political fortunes. They lost.

They lost because of the nerve, courage, and committment of many people, from Margaret Thatcher in Downing Street, to the poorly-paid Chinese laundrymen from Hong Kong that served on British ships. Yet, given Britain's record in previous years, and the West's record, they had every expectation that they should have won.

The 1970s was a decade of defeats for the Western cause. You can call that cause freedom, though that is true it is also an oversimplification. But Communism and barbarism had defeated the United States in South East Asia. Indonesia had walked into East Timor and no one had cared. Democracy had only just been restored in Spain, and was a tenuous thing. It is easy to forget how fragile democracy was then, and how craven the West had been.

Looking back, twenty-five years later we know that the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979, the election of John Paul II the Great in 1980, and the election of Ronald Reagan, marked the start of a change. A change in which the Falklands War was a initial and integral part. For Britain had a new direction, though many were not yet aware of it. We did not surrender, as we had done so in the past. In liberating the Falklands, in standing up, we also recaptured something what makes this nation great.

We also sent a signal, a signal that was (eventually) endorsed by the United States. That freedom, democracy, and self-determination must be defended, are worth fighting for. In the closing days of the conflict Ronald Reagon made a notable speech in to the Houses of Parliament, rejecting the idea of detente with the tyrannical Soviet bloc. It another step along the way that, seven years later, would see that bloc fall.

If the Falklands War had not been fought, or had been a failure, the messages sent would have been very different. The world would be a different, and darker, place. There is an argument that the war made no sense. There were only 1800 Falkland Islanders or so. Thirty-thousand plus were moblised to win them their freedom. Millions of pounds were spent. And 255 lives were lost. For just 1800 people. But, if you are not willing to make those committments for just 1800 people, you cannot make then for 18 million either.  And you demonstrate that your so called principles are not principles at all, but just empty words.

For that reason, although today is a date of especial significance to the Falkland Islanders, it has an importance in the wider span of history of modern times that should not be ignored.

A further thought on King Alfred

Just for the record, I think Alfred is entirely deserving of the title Great. Indeed, I think he is one of a rare breed of leaders. I would rank him up there with Winston Churchill, Elizabeth I, George Washington, Peter the Great, Isabella of Castille/Spain, and a few others.

But I have one particular thought I wish to share - the common thread between Churchill, Elizabeth, and Alfred. There are similarities to all three of course, primarily they led this nation (and I feel quite happy to identify both Britain and England with Alfred's Wessex) through times of peril and invasion, and brought us through on the other side. Their peculiar greatness, however, is not that they were great conquerors - it was Alfred's descendents, not Alfred, who conquered the Danelaw; Elizabeth and her privateers raided and harassed Spain, but could do no more; and Churchill's great victory was not in 1945 (a shared triumph) but in 1940. Their brilliance was not in conquest, it was in preventing conquest.

Although I do not consider him of quite being the same rank, it should be noted that one of the greatest Prime Ministers of all time, William Pitt the Younger, is also noted for having been a stalwart when England was in peril from the same threats of invasion that so punctuate our history. 

In comparison, Edward III or William I, even Henry V, important leaders no doubt, simply do not have the same hold, the same place in our history. I am not sure what this speaks of British/English identity, but I suspect it has something to do with us being an island.

The Dark Elf

Recently I purchased, and read, The Dark Elf Trilogy by R A Salvatore. In some respects this was a long-delayed purchsed. I have sort-of avoided the whole Forgotten Realms, for no good reason that I can explain. Certainly I have wasted hours and pounds on other roleplaying fiction in the past, so I regard it as an oversight on my part to have only recently met Drizzt Do'Urden, one of the more memorable characters in the fantasy pantheon. I knew something of him before I opened the book, a character like this does not remain within the pages of his own milieu. Knowledge spreads, insidious, in rumour and whisper, and half-glimpsed through references here and there. Of course, the first thing I notice upon reading this collected trilogy is that this series is actually a prequel of the Icewind Dale Trilogy. Well, I would end up buying those books as well, because the character of Drizzt is entrancing. I am currently watching an eBay auction for the next trilogy of this remarkable creation.

Yet what is it that stands out about this oddly-named being. Drizzt has to be one of the least impressive names in fantasy. It reminds me of Bert's pet in Trap Door. Yet, of course, this quite alien name fits very well, for Drizzt comes from a very differnet world. He was born into darkness - not just the literal darkness from existence in a deep cavern - but a moral darkness also. Into darkness, into evil, and despite this clings to an innate sense of goodness. That innate sense, that innocence, is child-like. What is remarkable I think about the Icewind Dale books is that the innocence is still there, even if the backstory had not been worked out at that point! The Dark Elf books chart Drizzt's journey from the world of birthland, his period of escape, and his first trials on the surface world where his kin are only known to be evil.

The process of journey is one the attractions, and countless books have been written about innumerable journeys of various sorts. The process of self-discovery is remarkably interesting. But that is not what makes Drizzt stand out. What makes him resonate with me, and I suspect with many others, is that he appears to have the strength of will to stand alone, against his race, and with those who despise him. It is rare that someone gives themselves selflessly for the sake of a few ideals. In our own lives we call such people heroes, and Drizzt is a hero through and true. And that is surely why he is memorable.

It occurs to me, just now, that many heroes are loners, leastways in fantasy literature. I immediately thought of Druss in Legend, but equally one might consider Michael Moorcock's Elric, or even cast our minds back to Tolkien himself and that wanderer Aragorn. This is probably more common in the Sword & Sorcery subset of fantasy, but it is there. Even in Feist's Magician the Prince Arutha, definitely portrayed as being more 'heroic' than his brother Lyam, is characterised as being introspective and something of a loner. He is also protrayed as being dark - dark-haired that is, compared to sunny-haired Lyam. Yet there is surely another link between darkness and great heroes. Elric is a cruel creature in many ways, Druss is in love with death. Indeed, David Gemmell with another of his characters - Waylander - ties this sense of darkness even closer. There is the sense with these greatest of heroes that they are only a step away from falling into great villainy. This is perhaps most clear with Aragorn, descendent of an ancient lineage, that has claimed the Ring. We see all too well in Boromir and Denethor what Aragorn could so easily have become.

Enough rambling. For those who have not yet joined Drizzt on his journey, I can heartily recommend it to you.

Blogging Roots

I am currently reading (at Al Hurd's kind suggestion) Ball Four by Jim Bouton, and it occured to me that if that particular project had been conceived today, as opposed to 1969, it might well have been in blog format. After all, there are many similarities between the two. In the book the entries are dated, just as they are in blogs. Bouton charts his year in the 1969 season, for the most part of the season in the then expansion team Seattle Pilots, and for the latter part of the season Houston Astros. He mostly stays on topic, but will on occasion digress on thoughts tangential or unrelated to the central purpose. Like most blogs it is a very 'personal' account. This is not just because it is an autobiography. It is the difference between a conversation and a lecture. Bouton converses, David Attenborough (whose biography I read a year or so ago, and which I enjoyed very much) lectures. The book is opinionated, quite open about it's authors prejudices and points of view. Indeed, just about the only two main differences I can think of between Ball Four and most modern-day blogs is that one it is in paper format, and the others are electronic. Even the very bloggy feature of comments can doubtless be equated to the reader letters, editorial reviews, and the post-publishing furore that apparently took place.

In other words, if you are trying to explain what a blog is to someone, and they have read Ball Four, problem solved. It is also a good example of how much of what apparently makes blogging 'special' is not, in fact, new. The format, if you will, is quite old. It is the immediacy, enabled my modern communications technology, that makes blogging 'new'. Indeed, I think a good case can be made that the basic format goes back nearly two and a half thousand years. What is the basic format? Simple. Contemporaneous writing - that is writing about something as or relatively soon after it happens. Newspapers are a good example of contemporaneous writing, but that particular form of writing only takes us back a few hundred years.

To go back rather more centuries the best example of blog-like writing I know of from my own experience are certain monastic chronicles, or certain portions of others. Let me just quickly explain the necessary proviso. Monastic chronicles came in all shapes and sizes. Some were histories of events before the writer's time. Others were recordings of events of the writer's own day. Some were writen at the instigation of a figure of authority (famously the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was begun at King Alfred's command). Others were pretty much written of the author's own instigation (an example of this would be Gregory of Tour's History of the Franks). The History of the Franks is also an example of a chronicle whose first portions are 'historical' - dealing with the events of the past - but whose latter portions are contemporaneous. Some chronicles are little more than brief annals, others are significantly more wordy. Yet within the contemporaneous ones and portions there are more than  a few similarities with today's blogs (and Bouton's book).

Firstly they are contemporaneous. Given the technology constraints of the time it seems likely most chronicles like these were compiled in sections. The writer would make notes for a few years, and then write everything up. Or so it is largely assumed, as with so many things the further back in time, we cannot be entirely sure. In chronicles of a longer duration it s possible to see the wirter alter his view about this or that person over a number of years. Secondly, the accounts are all very personal, and reflect the interests of the writers. In mediaeval times chronicles might have more than one author (being 'continued' by a successor) and a good example of this is the Lanercost chronicle. It has three main authors, and when I read it at university it was suprisingly easy to tell at what point the author changes. One author, for example, was very interested in dreams and visions, and his section is filled with them. Not unlike Glenn Reynolds occasional blog posts about digital cameras, or Professor Bainbridge's asides on wine. These chronicles almost always display a strong geographical bias as well, which many blogs do also (just think about the Minnesotan connection of Powerline for example), as does Ball Four (Bouton on rarely what else is going on the Leagues in 1969 except as it immediately pertains to first the Pilots, and then the Astros).

We do not have blogging in monastic chronicles - just as we do not have it in Ball Four, for the communications technology does not exist. Moreover, mediaeval monastic chronicles were great plaigerists - they most certainly would not have linked in todays world! However, it is wrong to assume these people were existing in isolation. Mostly they would draw and be influenced by the major chronicles of the previous generation (such as The Flower of History by the thirteenth-century monk Matthew Paris), and they would often use the same sources to their own times. This is just like various bloggers today commenting on the same newspaper op-ed. The difference, of course, is that there are relatively few cases where we can show two chroniclers commentating on each other (indeed, the only one that I can immediately recall to mind - and even then I cannot remember the chronicler concerned - is somewhat who was criticising Gregory of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain as being a work of fantasy, which it pretty much is).

Anyway, I hope that shows this format of contemporaneous, personal writing goes back centuries. Indeed, thanks to Gregory of Tours we can push that back to the end of the sixth century AD, over a thousand years. However, there are two notable historians who lived about a thousand years previous to that, who display just the same characterists in their writings. I am, of course, speaking of Xenophon and Thuycidides.

Thucydides wrote The History of the Peleponnesian War, the second earliest work of history in European liteature. He was followed by the third European historian, Xenophon, who wrote a number of historical works, primarily the Hellenica, the Anabasis (the account of the March of the Ten Thousand), and a biography of the Spartan King Agesilaus. What distinguishes both Xenophon and Thucydides from the first historian, Herodotus, and his Historia - literally "Enquiries" - is that Herodotus was writing about events a generation before his time, while they wrote about events in their own time, and in which they sometimes participated. Indeed, the Anabasis is practically autobiographical for Xenophon, as he took part in that fateful expedition and was its commander during the period of its escape. Likewise Thucydides commanded Athenian troops in Thrace in the late 420s, and rallied them after their defeat by the Spartan general Brasidas, all told in his history. Today I suppose they would be called milibloggers.

I feel that I am getting slightly lost now, so I will sum up quickly. Blogging is new, the necessary technology is comparatively recent, and who knows where it will lead. Immediate writing and publishing to a worldwide audience from almost anyone was impossible only  a short time before. However, contemporaneous writing, as much blogging is, with commentary and accounts of current events, goes write back to the very beginnings of European literature. Blogging, the new-fangled craze, has roots that go right back to the beginning of western scholarship.