Srdja Trifkovic has posted another excellent commentary on the most recent American machinations towards the establishment of an independent Kosovo, another jihadist narco-state lying in the soft underbelly of Europe. Concerning the possible Serbian response to an American-supported unilateral declaration of independence - a blockade, suspension of diplomatic relations with the conspiring nations, and a possible forcible partition of the Serbian enclaves, with a retention of sovereign claims over the remainder - Trifkovic writes:
Serbia’s response will have a limited impact on the countries outside the region, but that will not be the end of the story. Russia, China and India, and dozens of Asian and African countries with secessionist problems—including South Africa and the most populous predominantly Muslim country, Indonesia—will deem the move illegal and invalid. The theory that outside powers can award part of a state’s sovereign territory to a violent ethnic or religious minority, only if that minority is able to provoke a violent government response and secure a “humanitarian” intervention from abroad, would put in question the borders of at least two-dozen states.
It is imperative that it be grasped that such declarations, and the redrawing of the boundaries of sovereign nations, is both illegal under any accepted standard of international law, and therefore a direct threat to the stability and legitimacy of the international order, and luridly imprudent even if one regards the entire edifice of international law as a myth, a fig leaf for machiavellian machtpolitik. The veil of obfuscation that the State Department seeks to draw over these illicit proceedings seems to concede the, ahem, irregularity of the process, inasmuch as it attempts to play the nominalism card in foreign affairs ("No, this is not an act of a general species, but something sui generis!"):
State Department bureaucrats still claim that Kosovo would not set a precedent, but their words cannot change reality: it will. The “frozen conflicts” in the former Soviet Union may be defrosted with a bang, and the best Kosovo could hope for is to become a frozen conflict itself.
Now, while the establishment of this precedent is neither the whole of America's motivation in this matter nor regarded with complete equanimity, the precedent is an aspect of the strategy, despite the frequent disavowals that have accompanied this exercise in imperial hubris. The precedent is desired precisely because it carries the potential to defrost the frozen conflicts of the former Soviet Union, which, if reignited, would afford America the opportunity to have its cake and eat it, too: to wink at the destabilization of Russia while disseminating agitprop about the Soviet Union Redivivus, when the Russians, with unutterable temerity, defend their own territory. Other animating factors are the desire to humiliate Russia at a time of her resurgence, making a show of her impotence, and that bizarre American fetish for currying favour with eternally ungrateful Muslim populations.
Be not deceived however, State Department apparatchiki are never so daft as to believe that actions of the sort now openly contemplated fail to establish precedents - precedents that virtually anyone with sufficient cunning can exploit - but hope to exploit the precedent where they wish, and to deny it where they wish. For such is the discourse of empire.