Kosovo’s independence has created a whirlwind of diplomatic activity, worries, news articles and discussion. But let me say it in no uncertain words: Kosovo does not set a precedent for others.

Kosovo’s February 17th declaration of independence was perhaps the most carefully orchestrated, controlled and cautiousl independence ever. The declaration itself mentions the UN, international law, EU and a number of other parts of the Ahtisaari plan. For example:

3. We accept fully the obligations for Kosovo contained in the Ahtisaari Plan [...]

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 [...]

5. We welcome the international community’s continued support of our democratic development through international presences established in Kosovo on the basis of U.N. 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 U.N. [...]

If that was a controversial declaration of independence then I’d like to see an acceptable one. While most media outlets are talking about precedents and naming every tiny conflict under the sun like Transdniester or a secessionist movement in Vermont, the real problem is that Kosovo has finally raised a question people have been asking for decades and nobody was answering: Who gets to be a state?

Indeed, what constitutes acceptable demands for independence that the international community will recognize? People in Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Basque Country, Catalonia, northern Italy, Turkey, Nagorno-Karabagh, Abkhazia, Northern Iraq and more all want to know. In 1900, there were approximately 57 countries in the world. In 2000, there were around 192. What happened?

Countries, Nations, Nation-States and Nationalism

A number of major events happened within the 20th century that led to the proliferation of the current form of country, the nation-state. First of all, we must be firm with our definitions, namely that:

A country is a sovereign state that controls internationally recognized territorial borders, has a government which provides public services and police power, and has sovereignty.

A nation is culturally homogeneous groups of people, larger than a single tribe or community, which share a common language, institutions, religion, and historical experience.

A nation-state exists when a nation of people have their own independent country. An example would be Germany, France or America. It is also possible to have nations without states, such as the Kurds who are clearly a distinct nation but have no country of their own.

Nationalism is a political ideology stating that a nation of people has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community based on a shared history and common destiny. Most nationalists believe the borders of the state should be congruent with the borders of the nation. (via wikipedia)

So Who Gets to be a State?

Over the next week, I’ll be discussing the nation state, nationalism and whether we’ve reached a post-nation-state era and trying to answer the question posed by an independent Kosovo.

• BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
• « Kosovo : Serbia :: Quebec : Canada, how?
• » The History of Male Circumcision, Part 2: America and the English Speaking World