Kosovo Declaration of Independence

Here is the Declaration of Independence, taken directly from the website for the Assembly of Kosovo. Click here to learn more. I will respond to the press coverage of this in the next couple of days. It's not every day that a territory posts its declaration on the internet, or is it?

Kosovo Declaration of Independence

Convened in an extraordinary meeting on February 17, 2008, in Pristina, the capital of Kosovo,

Answering the call of the people to build a society that honours human dignity and affirms the pride and purpose of its citizens,

Committed to confront the painful legacy of the recent past in a spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness,

Dedicated to protecting, promoting and honoring the diversity of our people,

Reaffirming our wish to become fully integrated into the Euro-Atlantic family of democracies,

Observing that Kosovo is a special case arising from Yugoslavia's non-consensual breakup and is not a precedent for any other situation,

Recalling the years of strife and violence in Kosovo, that disturbed the conscience of all civilised people,

Grateful that in 1999 the world intervened, thereby removing Belgrade's governance over Kosovo and placing Kosovo under United Nations interim administration,

Proud that Kosovo has since developed functional, multi-ethnic institutions of democracy that express freely the will of our citizens,

Recalling the years of internationally-sponsored negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina over the question of our future political status,

Regretting that no mutually-acceptable status outcome was possible, in spite of the good-faith engagement of our leaders,

Confirming that the recommendations of UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari provide Kosovo with a comprehensive framework for its future development and are in line with the highest European standards of human rights and good governance,

Determined to see our status resolved in order to give our people clarity about their future, move beyond the conflicts of the past and realise the full democratic potential of our society,

Honouring all the men and women who made great sacrifices to build a better future for Kosovo,

1. We, the democratically-elected leaders of our people, hereby declare Kosovo to be an independent and sovereign state. This declaration reflects the will of our people and it is in full accordance with the recommendations of UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari and his Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement.

2. We declare Kosovo to be a democratic, secular and multi-ethnic republic, guided by the principles of non-discrimination and equal protection under the law. We shall protect and promote the rights of all communities in Kosovo and create the conditions necessary for their effective participation in political and decision-making processes.

3. We accept fully the obligations for Kosovo contained in the Ahtisaari Plan, and welcome the framework it proposes to guide Kosovo in the years ahead. We shall implement in full those obligations including through priority adoption of the legislation included in its Annex XII, particularly those that protect and promote the rights of communities and their members.

4. We shall adopt as soon as possible a Constitution that enshrines our commitment to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all our citizens, particularly as defined by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Constitution shall incorporate all relevant principles of the Ahtisaari Plan and be adopted through a democratic and deliberative process.

5. We welcome the international community's continued support of our democratic development through international presences established in Kosovo on the basis of UN Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). We invite and welcome an international civilian presence to supervise our implementation of the Ahtisaari Plan, and a European Union-led rule of law mission. We also invite and welcome the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to retain the leadership role of the international military presence in Kosovo and to implement responsibilities assigned to it under UN Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) and the Ahtisaari Plan, until such time as Kosovo institutions are capable of assuming these responsibilities. We shall cooperate fully with these presences to ensure Kosovo's future peace, prosperity and stability.

6. For reasons of culture, geography and history, we believe our future lies with the European family. We therefore declare our intention to take all steps necessary to facilitate full membership in the European Union as soon as feasible and implement the reforms required for European and Euro-Atlantic integration.

7. We express our deep gratitude to the United Nations for the work it has done to help us recover and rebuild from war and build institutions of democracy. We are committed to working constructively with the United Nations as it continues its work in the period ahead.

8. With independence comes the duty of responsible membership in the international community. We accept fully this duty and shall abide by the principles of the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, other acts of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the international legal obligations and principles of international comity that mark the relations among states. Kosovo shall have its international borders as set forth in Annex VIII of the Ahtisaari Plan, and shall fully respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all our neighbors. Kosovo shall also refrain from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

9. We hereby undertake the international obligations of Kosovo, including those concluded on our behalf by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and treaty and other obligations of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to which we are bound as a former constituent part, including the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations. We shall cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. We intend to seek membership in international organisations, in which Kosovo shall seek to contribute to the pursuit of international peace and stability.

10. Kosovo declares its commitment to peace and stability in our region of southeast Europe. Our independence brings to an end the process of Yugoslavia's violent dissolution. While this process has been a painful one, we shall work tirelessly to contribute to a reconciliation that would allow southeast Europe to move beyond the conflicts of our past and forge new links of regional cooperation. We shall therefore work together with our neighbours to advance a common European future.

11. We express, in particular, our desire to establish good relations with all our neighbours, including the Republic of Serbia with whom we have deep historical, commercial and social ties that we seek to develop further in the near future. We shall continue our efforts to contribute to relations of friendship and cooperation with the Republic of Serbia, while promoting reconciliation among our people.

12. We hereby affirm, clearly, specifically, and irrevocably, that Kosovo shall be legally bound to comply with the provisions contained in this Declaration, including, especially, the obligations for it under the Ahtisaari Plan. In all of these matters, we shall act consistent with principles of international law and resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations, including resolution 1244 (1999). We declare publicly that all states are entitled to rely upon this declaration, and appeal to them to extend to us their support and friendship.

Whose freedom?

I have begun to realize how difficult it must be for many to truly understand world events. Finding information is difficult enough, but how do we assess that information? For instance, my previous post about RED completely skirted an explanation of foreign aid and investment in Africa. As some theorists have suggested, it is not possible to know everything. Nonetheless, it is difficult to understand situations without understanding the local context.

I check the news each day, completely bypassing the print and broadcast media entirely now. While I do not discount them as viable media, they simply do not allow for the navigation that I prefer. I wonder now if I’m a little ADD because of my interaction with the Internet; it is a medium that doesn’t necessarily require my complete attention at any given point. I hop around, from page to page and site to site, though this ability is not always negative. It enables me to travel through the course of a story, checking out related stories that I might not get through more traditional forms of media. One such story concerns the developments in Turkey. It was an AP headline that first peaked my attention about Turkey and Northern Iraq.

It is always interesting to me who follows what in the news. One of my colleagues said she had been following the developments in Turkey; of course, she’s one of those who reads the Sunday edition of the Times. Another friend said she had not been following, and I was relieved to know that she was like me – no clue. Interestingly, the one who was following the developments said, “What I think is interesting is how the word “insurgent” has been used.” Again, it seems like an ancillary connection, but is it? Ultimately the word depends on your perspective.

Turkey, Iran, and Kurdistan
The headline was this: “Will Turkey invade Northern Iraq?” I have to say that I was a little concerned. Isn’t Turkey our ally? What is Turkey’s problem any way? What was in Iraq that Turkey wanted? I am sure there were a number of readers out there who saw this headline and did not know what to think, especially since our military is in Iraq. And speaking of our military, why weren’t military officials worried about this? If they are, we might never know considering it’s probably been filed in the “National Security” category. This category overlaps with the American’s freedom - transparency and the right to know, to engage in knowledgeable participation. When our federal government must act toward the public good, these two categories often conflict.

It was the word invasion that worried me. No doubt that word is immediately tied to the First Gulf war and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or further back, Russia's invasion of Poland or Germany's invasion of Russia. Typically it conjures the idea of one nation-state taking land or resource away from another nation-state. A trite analogy: in the geopolitical sandbox, it would be like a little kid expanding his or her space into a space already occupied. So I wanted answers to these questions, and it led me on a journey through several websites. And what I found pulled me into several layers of complexity that seem difficult to untangle. I shall touch on some, knowing well I am merely scratching the surface.We'll start with Turkish elections and work through the different stories that I found. Elections hindered plans to cross into Norther Iraq, according to The Turkish Daily News. Almost a week later, The Guardian reported Vice President Cheney has placed pressure on President Bush to invade Iran, which is all we need, right? We’re in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can’t manage the real estate that we have already, so expansion seems the next logical step. In addition, women are not faring well in Kurdistan, and some believe the U.S. government is actually aiding Kurds in attacks on Iran. Turkey and Iran have also found a friendship in one another; they signed an agreement – a Memorandum of Understanding – to transport natural gas, and both countries have led operations in Kurdistan. All of this seems simple, right? But wait, what the hell is Kurdistan?

The other Iraq
Kurdistan is Northern Iraq. I am not sure if it is a country, though most of the information that I have found indicates that it is. It possesses its own democratically elected Prime Minister and National Assembly. It seems like both its government and national identity should be recognized as legitimate. Perhaps some history will make things more clear?

Some history of Kurdistan
The Treaty of Sevres provided for autonomy for the Kurds; however, the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 invalidated the treaty. The League of Nations placed Kurdistan under the protection of the UK in 1925 for 25 years to ensure autonomy. In addition, the Kurdistan Democratic Party also received an agreement from Baghdad for its autonomy and political representation in 1970; however, from 1971 to 1980, the Iraqi government expelled thousands of Shia Kurds from Iraq. The Algiers Agreement between Kurdistan and Iran in 1975 settled disputes over land in exchange for Iran ending its support of the Kurdistan Democratic Party.

Kurds in Kurdistan are predominantly Sunni Muslims, but some are other faiths and religions, as well. Kurdistan has had its problems, marred by internal strife. A unification treaty, signed in January 2006, served to end disturbances and civil fighting. Problems aside, websites indicate Kurdistan is its own politically autonomous entity. Why, then, does Turkey and Iran insist on shelling the “stateless nation?”

PKK and PJAK
The Kurdistan Worker’s Party (Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan, PKK) is a Marxist separatist group seeking to create an independent Kurdish state in southeast Turkey and parts of neighboring countries; I'm up in the air about this one. Do they seek to expand the already existing Kurdistan, or do they want their own parcel of land? The group reportedly has participated in guerilla warfare and terrorism, resulting in the eventual military crackdown by Turkey. Members of the group withdrew to Northern Iraq, and is considered by the United States as a terrorist organization. Turkey, of course, regards the group as a terrorist organization, but the group has actively sought independence from Turkey, which does not recognize its Kurdish minority.
These two groups have caused a tremendous amount of trouble in Turkey and Iran.

One concern of Turkey could be the size of its Kurdish population; about 12 million Kurds live in Turkey. PKK began in 1973 and eventually moved its base of operations to Syria. The “invasion” into Kurdistan is an ongoing situation; on June 8, Turkish troops crossed into Kurdistan pursing members of PKK, and Iranian aircraft bombed the camps of the Party of Free Life in Kurdistan, or PJAK. PJAK is seen as PKK’s sister party in Iran, though some of the literature suggests that PJAK has an entirely different politcal persuasion. Interestingly, the Financial Times Deutschland suggested the organization is not helping Turkey’s entry into the European Union. While countries like Syria and Iran entertained and helped train some of the members of PKK, the tide has changed; Syria has arrested its members, and Iran has now paired with Turkey to fight the organization. Would they be considered “insurgents”?

Insurgent
You have to ask yourself, what is an insurgent? What does that mean? According to WordNet, a “lexical database” from the Cognitive Science Lab at Princeton University, insurgent has two different meanings. As a noun, it carries both a positive and negative connotation. Take a look:

1. Insurgent, insurrectionist, freedom fighter, rebel: "a rebel who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority, especially in the hope of improving conditions";
-or-
2. Guerilla, irregular, insurgent: "a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment."

I wondered how the word would be used; I guessed that it would belong to the negative category, as I recall few instances where people were fighting legitimate battles for freedom. Oh, I’m sure they exist; however, it is a matter of knowing about them. I entered the word into Google; I just wanted to see who was using the word. I ignored the stories dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq. Below are the first five stories that I found:

*More violence in Mogadishu

*Insurgents could strike in Bangkok, warns Sonthi (not a stable link)

*Insurgents make another attack as troops deploy in Northwest (Sidenote: the headline mentioned here is the teaser that came up in the search; the headline on the story is different, and the story makes no mention of the word, insurgent).

*Military clashes with Insurgents in Sri Lanka

*Three Insurgents killed in Manipur

I will let you follow the links, but the word is used in areas around the world, and it seems to have replaced the word ‘rebel.’ Regardless of its use, it indicates a relation between or among groups. Again, it depends on your perspective.

And Back to Kurdistan
What does the word insurgent have to do with Kurdistan? Some believe the United States is aiding PKK's waging attacks in Iran, while on the other hand condemning its attacks in Turkey. In fact, some regard PKK as a legitimate resistance group. But this is the same behavior from the U.S. government that has led to problems in the past. The United States helped the Mujahadeen resist the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. And according to Ned Parker’s recent article in the Los Angeles Times, the Saudi intelligence service sponsored Sunni Muslims in the 1980s to help the U.S.-backed Afghan Mujahadeen fight the Soviets. Again, the word insurgent is relational.

Parker’s article is enlightening, even if spin-off articles are less intelligent and actually somewhat offensive. Matthew Mainen’s article describes Syria as the “highest exporter of insurgents,” which belies the complexity involved. As if there’s an insurgent making factory that simply needs eradication – if it were only that simple. Parker’s article provides a great deal of context and information, and it adds a whole other level to insurgency. According to Parker, most of the insurgents in Iraq are NOT from Iraq. In fact, nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. custody are Saudi. This distinction - NOT from Iraq - adds a layer of complexity to the word insurgent; are there domestic insurgents, and if so, who are they? And these insurgents pose the "greatest short-term threat to Iraq's security," which provides a glimpse into the stability of the country. What are the long-term threats, I wonder. One official in Saudi Arabia has said its government believes it is the disbanded army in Iraq that is the source of the insurgence and "backbone of the situation there today." That's great, but it fails to explain the number of Saudi captives in U.S. custody; some speculate the Saudis are happy to slough off some of the extremists to avoid problems in their own backyard. It seems almost like religious extremism is the ship of fools of the 21st Century.

Sometimes I find it difficult to sort through the immense amount of information out there. In backtracking to find the links for this post, I found a number of more recent articles, on the unhappiness of the United States with the agreement between Iran and Turkey, of the U.S.'s stance that it has not aided PKK, of the Turkish elections. It seems, though, to simply speak about insurgents in Iraq is to sweep under the carpet the number of groups involved and the connections between the groups. Am I to believe insurgents are good when they attack Iran and bad when they attack Turkey? When we talk about insurgents in Iraq, does that include PKK in Northern Iraq, aka Kurdistan?

Personally, I would not want to be a soldier in Iraq, and I could never begin to imagine determining who is good and who is bad. It has a familiar sound, like the stories I heard from men who fought in Vietnam, trying to distinguish the Viet Cong and the civilian. The task of the active democratic participant seems less arduous, but not by much. Ultimately it could be our voice that brings our troops home, perhaps to leave a fledgling Iraqi government to fend for itself. We assume as active participants that we have access to information that aids in our decision making process. But in my searches over the past few days, I made a minute dent in the history and human connectivity of these groups. I find in my searches for information, I am paralyzed by the sheer amount of it. How do I sort? And once I have it, what do I do with it? If knowledge is power, then whose freedom do I choose when I vote by proxy?

Introduction

In August, I will begin the second year of my PhD program, and I am in the process of discovering my areas of interest. As I have begun to unpack what I have read over the past two semesters - a task that I think is more arduous than actually reading the literature - I realize I have many interests, including how news organizations and their audiences exchange, use, and interpret information. I am also interested in how each of these groups interact and make meaning; finally, I am interested in globalization.

I began as a professional journalist in 1996, working in smaller markets in the midwest. I knew the estimated readership of each of the papers, but I always wondered who was reading and how they used the information. I found out through the course of reporting who read the local paper as well as what they liked or disliked about the stories, the paper, or just people around town. I eventually left newspapers and returned to school. I have been in higher education now for five years, and my growing awareness of globalization reminds me of these questions, though on a much wider scale.

The purpose of this blog, at least initially, is to write about my academic journey, to gain feedback about my research ideas, and share my struggle of being an American learning of new ideas, cultures and people - all of which involve my attempt to understand the complex process of globalization. How does information flow into the United States? What do Americans - average Americans - know about the rest of the world, or at least what do they learn from the news media? What is the cultural logic that colors their perspective of world events? Conversely, how do average people outside of the United States know about us? Is it through lived or mediated experience? Is it that our views, our perspectives are mediated by others? If mediation is key to our knowledge and understanding of one another, who is mediating?

On a personal level, what do I know, and how do I know it? Hence, the title of the blog, stupid American. Learning more and more about the world is sometimes a difficult feat, especially when I might be confused with those clumsy, clueless creatures traveling carelessly through the world, disregarding local culture and upsetting the sensibilities of many. Unfortunately the precedent has been set. The United States government, my government, has enforced its might on both willing and unwilling participants in a U.S.-dominated global environment. And my fellow Americans sometimes serve to reinforce widely held negative perceptions.

Buying into what we see on the surface neglects the complexity of our world and the process of globalization. I want to push through the surface to penetrate this complexity, to shed light on how communication, specifically news media, serves to hinder, inhibit, oppress, elucidate, liberate, or engage. I do not propose to have the answers now, but I invite you to follow me in my path of discovery.