Tuesday, November 15, 2011

The Citizenship Gambit

Pictures of Vladimir Putin have long been part of the Serbian patriotic iconography. But now some Serbs are going a step further, petitioning Moscow for citizenship. Several sources reported Monday that a group of Serbs in the occupied province of Kosovo (illegally declared independent in February 2008 by an ethnic Albanian "government" backed by the US, EU and NATO) sent a note to the Russian government asking to become Russian citizens.

According to RT, the letter was addressed to the legislature, which may not even be the right address for this sort of thing (as a footnote, it could not have possibly come through via the "Russian Embassy in Kosovo" - since such an embassy ought not exist, given that Moscow doesn't recognize the breakaway province). This suggests that the petition is really a publicity stunt. What are we to make of it, then?

First of all, it is clearly a protest against Belgrade. At its essence, any government is a protection racket, and protecting the lives and property of its subjects (or citizens) is its primary function. By this standard, the current regime in Belgrade is a failed government. Not only has it done nothing to help its citizens in the occupied province, it has actively collaborated with the occupation authorities and even the separatist Albanian "government" to surrender any claim to Kosovo (while publicly pretending otherwise).

The Serbs in Kosovo have successfully resisted both the Albanians and their KFOR/EULEX enforcers, and they aren't about to see their success invalidated by a quisling coterie in Belgrade.Now, perhaps these Serbs have an inaccurate understanding of Russia's military and political capabilities, but it is by no means a stretch to argue that any government could do a better job of safeguarding their lives, liberty and property than the current one. And as the American Founders explained in their own Declaration of Independence, when a government fails its people, it is only reasonable for those people to exchange it for another. So, the principle of the proposed arrangement isn't unusual, only the logistics.

It would be going too far, however, to argue that Russia has a "duty" to say yes. The only country that ought to have a duty towards the Serbs in Kosovo is Serbia. By giving citizenship to the Serb petitioners, Russia would take upon itself the obligation to protect them with more than just words. Perhaps that is what the Serbs had in mind - but then they ought to know it isn't a decision to be made lightly.


jack said...

Well it is Russia’s interests to support the Kosovo Serbs as the KLA regime has direct connections to Chechen jihadists who Chechen warlords and their families started buying up Kosovo real estate in 97 and moving there families there and is part of the planned strategy to construct alternative pipelines to Europe that bypass Russia with Nabucco.

It was said that when Russia forces entered Kosovo Chechens were harassing them over radio communication.

Russia is powerless to provide any assistance to the Serbs as like with Kosovo in 99 they are denied airspace to give any military support and if they give any other support they will be accused of imperialism which the Russian empire and the USSR will be brought up in the media.

Russia is facing the Serbian treatment as powerful US and British forces are supporting the various ethnic groups in the Caucasus region that are hostile to Russia funding research into “genocide” during the 19th century Caucasus war to halt Ottoman expansion backed by Britain and France promoting Greater Circassia a huge piece of territory which of course like with Chechnya means the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the ethnic Russian population in the region.


Eugene Costa said...

Curious: the following headline appears in the strangest places:

"21 NATO Troops Wounded in Kosovo Offensive".

Not "injured" or "hurt" but "wounded"?

Eugene Costa said...

Ah, and behold, the Reuters style manual has South Osetia as "rebel Georgia":


Eugene Costa said...

Ah, now a more authentic use of "wound" along with "NATO soldiers":


In the body, on the other hand, they revert to "peacekeepers."

The vocabulary is quite complex. Medicos do use "wound", for example, in relation to injuries, but in journalism "wounded" almost always implies injuries by conventionally defined weapons of some sort.

But it is even more complex than that.

For example, a soldier armed with a rifle "wounds" unarmed demonstrators, but a demonstrator returning the favor with a rock (or a dump truck) is better and less tendentiously said to "injure".

Well, at least NATO and its media are getting what they have been asking for in regard to vocabulary, though the cryptotype of heavily armed "peaceful" soldiers fighting off unarmed but "warlike" demonstrators and protesters remains, doesn't it?

Even in the US, those who were around in the '60's saw the vocabulary honed by the Right Wing,
just as in California a clutch of violent demonstrators are now peppersprayed by peaceful campus police, don't you know?