When Kosovo declared its independence this past February, some of its detractors made subtle claims about the Muslim nature of Kosovan society -- much as those opponents to Turkey's accession to the European Union continue to do so -- and how this could be a destabilizing factor.
Since most Kosovans are nominally Muslim, and because of the serious social and economic problems facing it (unemployment is at nearly fifty percent, for example), so this reasoning went, the new state could become a hotbed of Islamic extremism in Europe. One has heard this same line of reasoning with regards to Albania, and also Bosnia-Herzegovina, two other states in Europe in which the titular nationalities happen to be Muslim.
Well, it so turns out that, like much else that comes from detractors that play the fundamentalism card in the Balkan region, this has been amply demonstrated to be ridiculous. As this Balkan Insight report points out, "Egypt has prevented Kosovo from taking part in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference’s second Ministrial Conference on Women because of ‘political reasons.’" Nothing further is given as a reason; just "political reasons."
It does not take much guesswork to deduce that, given the overt pro-American sympathies in Kosovo (and Albania, for that matter), as well as the reality of a near-complete lack of religiosity amongst the Kosovan population (and far more so in Albania, which was allowed to take part in the conference), most of the Muslim countries that form the OIC are iffy about courting the new state. Not sure where the planting of terror cells or jihadist warriors would play out in such an atmosphere.
While slightly unrelated, one is hard pressed to not also mention the lack of Muslim countries' recognition of Kosovo's independence: just eight out of fifty-seven OIC members have done so. Most of the so-called Islamic world is made up of countries that have perilous human rights situations on multiple levels, many of which deal with issues of autonomy and separatist demands. With so many of these countries wanting little, if anything, to do with Kosovo, where again does the fundamentalism fear come from?
I would venture to guess that such statements say a whole lot more about the detractors themselves than what is really happening in regards to Kosovo.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Haunted houses, still
One simply cannot make such news up. This particular Balkan Insight story reports on the high levels of political apathy in the Balkan region, and essentially concludes that Montenegro and Kosovo are the only optimists in a region of political and economic pessimists.
The European Union has barely grazed the region, but for Slovenia's May 2004 accession, and Croatia's current (and active) candidate status -- it will be part of the EU club in a couple years' time, by most accounts.
But Croatia is among those most pessimistic countries, which all have high levels of distrust in their political leaders, their economic situations, their future courses (including potential EU membership), and their living standards. This is hardly the kind of life-blood needed for change in the region, especially since those decisive, Brussels-based changes have barely been initiated.
But that is not all. The report also mentions this: "A clear majority across all countries thought the future of the region would be peaceful. Around one in four Serbs and Macedonians (22 per cent and 29 per cent respectively), however, felt there could be another war in the region."
Perhaps a bit of panic-mongering, here. But the makings of such volatility do still exist, even if beneath the surface. All in all, this is a murky portrait, and the proponents of EU enlargement, especially after the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty earlier this summer, have a lot of worked carved out for them.
The European Union has barely grazed the region, but for Slovenia's May 2004 accession, and Croatia's current (and active) candidate status -- it will be part of the EU club in a couple years' time, by most accounts.
But Croatia is among those most pessimistic countries, which all have high levels of distrust in their political leaders, their economic situations, their future courses (including potential EU membership), and their living standards. This is hardly the kind of life-blood needed for change in the region, especially since those decisive, Brussels-based changes have barely been initiated.
But that is not all. The report also mentions this: "A clear majority across all countries thought the future of the region would be peaceful. Around one in four Serbs and Macedonians (22 per cent and 29 per cent respectively), however, felt there could be another war in the region."
Perhaps a bit of panic-mongering, here. But the makings of such volatility do still exist, even if beneath the surface. All in all, this is a murky portrait, and the proponents of EU enlargement, especially after the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty earlier this summer, have a lot of worked carved out for them.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Ninety years and beyond
11 November 1918: ninety years ago today was the armistice. It makes this particular Remembrance Day sombre and dark, nor does it help that the weather in Toronto is cold and grey.
Not surprisingly, whenever this day comes, I am always reminded of Erich Maria Remarque's 1929 roman a clef, entitled All Quiet on the Western Front. It was made into a couple film versions, the first of which, as with the novel, were banned by the Nazis upon their seizure of power.
It is a bleak, tragic, but also profoundly beautiful story of a group of idealistic young soldiers whose lives, one by one, are destroyed by the nightmare that was the First World War. The novel's chief protagonist, Paul Baumer, depicts his experiences through idealistic -- almost naive -- eyes that gradually adjust to the reality of the war. Nearing the end, the idealism is gone, with little hope of any internal redemption.
Remarque wrote several other war novels, including a sequel of sorts called The Road Back, but it is safe to say that they paled compared to his main masterpiece. This is what made him, and what has also come to symbolize the tragedy and darkness that is war.
Allow me, then, to quote something poignant from the novel. It was a hard choice to make, just because the novel is a work of poignancy.
"Had we returned home in 1916, out of the suffering and the strength of our experiences we might have unleashed a storm. Now if we go back we will be weary, broken, burnt out, rootless, and without hope. We will not be able to find our way any more...
And men will not understand us -- for the generation that grew up before us, though it has passed these years with us here, already had a home and a calling; now it will return to its old occupations, and the war will be forgotten -- and the generation that has grown up after us will be strange to us and push us aside. We will be superfluous even to ourselves, we will grow older, a few will adapt themselves, some others will merely submit, and most will be bewildered; -- the years will pass by and in the end we shall fall into ruin."
Lest we forget.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Campaign 2008 morning after
It is slightly later than the morning after the 14 October 2008 federal election in Canada, which was this country's fortieth since 1867. Perhaps it is befitting that I am posting something so much later, as if out of symbolism in the profound shock and disbelief that has hovered over observers and pundits, candidates and others, irrespective of their partisan stripes or ideological dispositions.
In the past, some have told me that I am not necessarily qualified to comment on Canadian affairs, solely because I have spent most of my professional life studying the politics of international places and zones that many English-speakers still tend to view as terra incognita.
All the same, I am a proud and passionate Canadian, and always will be. My parents and other members of my family came to this country to escape war, occupation and certain repression from their particular homeland, and have made this country their permanent home and nation. I hope that this is sufficient backing for me to comment on the events of the past few days without invoking the ire of those that may happen to disagree with what I have to say. It really is not much.
I was closely watching the Liberals in this campaign, as I had many times before on both the federal and provincial levels. Their disastrous defeat, just above their worst historic defeat level in 1867, but also right below that which took place in 1984, is as shameful as it is shocking. It serves as a warning shot to its tattered numbers and members to clean up their act, unify, and start acting like the mighty party that they historically have been in this country.
Ever since Chretien stepped down and allowed his (short-lived) successor, Paul Martin, to take the helm, it is as if the Liberal Party has been cast adrift in a foggy, murky and potentially stormy sea from which they have not been able to set course. They have been like squabbling children without a sense of direction and purpose ever since, winding up with a leader -- Stephane Dion -- whose intelligence and integrity has also been matched by his neophyte-like qualities and narrow-minded intent.
Now, on the eve of what many people are anticipating is going to be his resignation as party leader, he leaves behind a very ignoble legacy. One could compare him to the present US President, whose begging and whining before television cameras in the initial wake of the bailout package rejection made him look embarrassingly un-Presidential.
Is this the legacy that will be bequeathed to Mr. Dion? The Liberals now have Messrs Martin and Dion to chalk up as historical footnotes to their mighty legacy in Canadian political history. The upcoming future leader of the party has these ghosts to contend with, as well as building things up on so many multiple levels; whoever it may be, I certainly do not envy them. Nor do I envy those Liberals that were openly rooting for Dion, calling him the next Prime Minister of Canada. I reckon that they have a lot of egg on their faces that needs washing.
Not all is lost, of course, and the Conservatives can hardly call this a victory for themselves, even though they did win a larger minority government than last time. Voter turnout was at 58-59%, which is the lowest in this country's history; for the Tories, it means that even less people actually voted for them. Then again, this same thing can be said for all the parties that partook in the election.
So much more could have been done by the Liberals, whose 38-day campaign was blighted by mismanagement, mishaps, disorganization, and a confused sense of direction and mandate that lacked simplicity. Dion tried to sell, against his advisers' advice, it now has emerged, a complex plan that left so much open to doubt when most Canadians feared the effects of the current economic turmoil.
So many electoral ridings in Ontario, my home province, had neck-to-neck results that swayed to the Conservatives. They could easily have gone (and, in most cases, could have actually remained) Liberal had they only tried harder and been better at it. The Liberals know a thing or two about winning huge majorities and mandates, but I guess this just could not transpire this time around. It tells a lot about the ways in which many Canadians view politics and the contenders that play out their business on Parliament Hill.
If there is a lesson to be learned, it is that this election was a warning shot for them. A warning shot that the time for internal disunity and wishy-washy nose-picking is long gone, and serious work needs to be done. A warning shot that their Conservative rivals came within earshot of achieving a majority mandate by actually doing some incredibly ridiculous things during the campaign and before. A warning shot that is a reminder of the importance of unity, direction and the perils of internal divisions.
I just hope these lessons are absorbed and taken straight to heart. Because, if the Liberals are reduced to a tertiary bunch of outsiders in Canadian politics, then I suspect few people, across all the spectrums that reside in this incredible and amazing country, will be snickering.
In the past, some have told me that I am not necessarily qualified to comment on Canadian affairs, solely because I have spent most of my professional life studying the politics of international places and zones that many English-speakers still tend to view as terra incognita.
All the same, I am a proud and passionate Canadian, and always will be. My parents and other members of my family came to this country to escape war, occupation and certain repression from their particular homeland, and have made this country their permanent home and nation. I hope that this is sufficient backing for me to comment on the events of the past few days without invoking the ire of those that may happen to disagree with what I have to say. It really is not much.
I was closely watching the Liberals in this campaign, as I had many times before on both the federal and provincial levels. Their disastrous defeat, just above their worst historic defeat level in 1867, but also right below that which took place in 1984, is as shameful as it is shocking. It serves as a warning shot to its tattered numbers and members to clean up their act, unify, and start acting like the mighty party that they historically have been in this country.
Ever since Chretien stepped down and allowed his (short-lived) successor, Paul Martin, to take the helm, it is as if the Liberal Party has been cast adrift in a foggy, murky and potentially stormy sea from which they have not been able to set course. They have been like squabbling children without a sense of direction and purpose ever since, winding up with a leader -- Stephane Dion -- whose intelligence and integrity has also been matched by his neophyte-like qualities and narrow-minded intent.
Now, on the eve of what many people are anticipating is going to be his resignation as party leader, he leaves behind a very ignoble legacy. One could compare him to the present US President, whose begging and whining before television cameras in the initial wake of the bailout package rejection made him look embarrassingly un-Presidential.
Is this the legacy that will be bequeathed to Mr. Dion? The Liberals now have Messrs Martin and Dion to chalk up as historical footnotes to their mighty legacy in Canadian political history. The upcoming future leader of the party has these ghosts to contend with, as well as building things up on so many multiple levels; whoever it may be, I certainly do not envy them. Nor do I envy those Liberals that were openly rooting for Dion, calling him the next Prime Minister of Canada. I reckon that they have a lot of egg on their faces that needs washing.
Not all is lost, of course, and the Conservatives can hardly call this a victory for themselves, even though they did win a larger minority government than last time. Voter turnout was at 58-59%, which is the lowest in this country's history; for the Tories, it means that even less people actually voted for them. Then again, this same thing can be said for all the parties that partook in the election.
So much more could have been done by the Liberals, whose 38-day campaign was blighted by mismanagement, mishaps, disorganization, and a confused sense of direction and mandate that lacked simplicity. Dion tried to sell, against his advisers' advice, it now has emerged, a complex plan that left so much open to doubt when most Canadians feared the effects of the current economic turmoil.
So many electoral ridings in Ontario, my home province, had neck-to-neck results that swayed to the Conservatives. They could easily have gone (and, in most cases, could have actually remained) Liberal had they only tried harder and been better at it. The Liberals know a thing or two about winning huge majorities and mandates, but I guess this just could not transpire this time around. It tells a lot about the ways in which many Canadians view politics and the contenders that play out their business on Parliament Hill.
If there is a lesson to be learned, it is that this election was a warning shot for them. A warning shot that the time for internal disunity and wishy-washy nose-picking is long gone, and serious work needs to be done. A warning shot that their Conservative rivals came within earshot of achieving a majority mandate by actually doing some incredibly ridiculous things during the campaign and before. A warning shot that is a reminder of the importance of unity, direction and the perils of internal divisions.
I just hope these lessons are absorbed and taken straight to heart. Because, if the Liberals are reduced to a tertiary bunch of outsiders in Canadian politics, then I suspect few people, across all the spectrums that reside in this incredible and amazing country, will be snickering.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Elections, elections, elections...
Elections are everywhere this year. Canadians and Americans are facing them, and coming from the Great White North myself, I have a hunch that our version of them is going to be totally shadowed in significance by what happens south of us.
Ukraine, of course, is facing the possibility of more parliamentary elections in the near future, provided that the so-called "Orange" coalition is able to come back together and actually govern. It collapsed several days ago because of the same old infighting that has characterized Ukrainian politics since the November-December 2003 breakthrough that is beginning to be shadowed by the long hangover in the country.
Makes for a tough transition, to say the least. More elections, in some parts of the world, are a mixed bag of curse and blessing. With an assertive Russia now rearing itself before the former Soviet Union and beyond, it's looking like it will be even tougher for Ukraine to actually assert itself.
Ukraine, of course, is facing the possibility of more parliamentary elections in the near future, provided that the so-called "Orange" coalition is able to come back together and actually govern. It collapsed several days ago because of the same old infighting that has characterized Ukrainian politics since the November-December 2003 breakthrough that is beginning to be shadowed by the long hangover in the country.
Makes for a tough transition, to say the least. More elections, in some parts of the world, are a mixed bag of curse and blessing. With an assertive Russia now rearing itself before the former Soviet Union and beyond, it's looking like it will be even tougher for Ukraine to actually assert itself.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Russia, Georgia and everything else
A brief note on this Labour Day weekend about the Russian-Georgian conflict, which has provoked military and diplomatic responses that are closely rivalled only by the war of words and rhetoric that has ensued throughout the media landscape.
I know little about the nature of Georgia's problems, or the origins of the secessionist conflicts in its regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, only that they too, like the other frozen conflicts across the former Soviet Union, are rooted in the Soviet period and were made fertile by lackadaisical Soviet planners that haphazardly drew maps that did not always correspond to ground-level demographics. Some say this was a deliberate divide-and-rule tactic orchestrated by Moscow in dealing with the other nationalities.
Here, then, is a piece about the war of words and diplomatic pot-shots that show no signs of stopping. At the end of the day, there is everything to loose and nothing to gain -- for everyone involved -- in prolonging it.
I know little about the nature of Georgia's problems, or the origins of the secessionist conflicts in its regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, only that they too, like the other frozen conflicts across the former Soviet Union, are rooted in the Soviet period and were made fertile by lackadaisical Soviet planners that haphazardly drew maps that did not always correspond to ground-level demographics. Some say this was a deliberate divide-and-rule tactic orchestrated by Moscow in dealing with the other nationalities.
Here, then, is a piece about the war of words and diplomatic pot-shots that show no signs of stopping. At the end of the day, there is everything to loose and nothing to gain -- for everyone involved -- in prolonging it.
Friday, August 29, 2008
No games, please: you're on trial!
Fresh from a short trip to Turkey and completing some unfinished business for grad school, I was -- as millions of others were too -- greeted with this ridiculous news of Radovan Karadzic's refusal to enter a plea in his trial. This exchange is worth quoting in full:
"As to count one of the indictment," the judge had begun. "You're charged with genocide... How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?"
"I will not plead, in line with my standpoint as regards this court," Mr Karadzic replied.
"I shall therefore enter a plea on your behalf of not guilty," the judge said.
"Is that the position you're going to take in relation to each of the other 10 charges on the indictment?"
"Absolutely, yes," Mr Karadzic confirmed.
As Judge Bonomy entered the not guilty pleas, the former Bosnian Serb leader asked: "May I hold you to your word?"
"Which word?" asked the judge.
"That I'm not guilty," replied Mr Karadzic.
"We shall see in due course, Mr Karadzic," the judge said."
Talk about nerve, this truly is ridiculous. Next thing that will happen is a further song-and-dance about nonexistent conspiracies, illegitimacy, propaganda and victimization by sheer circumstance. I wonder how Karadzic, and others like him, were able to hoodwink so many people for such a long period of time with baseless claims like this.
"As to count one of the indictment," the judge had begun. "You're charged with genocide... How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?"
"I will not plead, in line with my standpoint as regards this court," Mr Karadzic replied.
"I shall therefore enter a plea on your behalf of not guilty," the judge said.
"Is that the position you're going to take in relation to each of the other 10 charges on the indictment?"
"Absolutely, yes," Mr Karadzic confirmed.
As Judge Bonomy entered the not guilty pleas, the former Bosnian Serb leader asked: "May I hold you to your word?"
"Which word?" asked the judge.
"That I'm not guilty," replied Mr Karadzic.
"We shall see in due course, Mr Karadzic," the judge said."
Talk about nerve, this truly is ridiculous. Next thing that will happen is a further song-and-dance about nonexistent conspiracies, illegitimacy, propaganda and victimization by sheer circumstance. I wonder how Karadzic, and others like him, were able to hoodwink so many people for such a long period of time with baseless claims like this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
