Feb 20, 2008

Scania: Reservations on Kosova

If Kosova was in the EU, it wouldn’t need to declare independence, argues a blog, reflecting on Scania’s own struggle for representation.

If Kosova was in the EU, it wouldn’t need to declare independence, argues a blog, reflecting on Scania’s own struggle for representation.

Below is an article published by Blog Skaneland:

The majority of the member state governments of the EU, as well as the US, have opted to support a limited independence to Kosovo to the dismay of Serbia and Russia. Maybe we should congratulate the new nation-state. Or should we?

Both a political party from Kosovo and a foundation from Scania joined an international organisation situated in The Hague – the UNPO - in 1993. Kosovo brought their grievances to the organisation and the member from Scania brought theirs. The member from Kosovo wanted self-rule through total independence since this was the only alternative available to them after the breakdown of Yugoslavia. Total independence and a place in the UN General Assembly was the dream for many regions in the East bloc in the wake of the fall of the Iron Curtain.

The member from Scania advocated for self-government (regionalism) within the framework of the Swedish and European constitutions. This meant a strong regional elected government capable of negotiating on an equal basis with both the state government and the EU. The proposed tool for distributing power between the different levels is the Principle of Subsidiarity. This vision requires a supra-state “overseeing” organisation such as the EU to make sure that the state behaves fairly and do not take unjust advantage of its present superiority. The regions of the Balkans do not have the benefit of the EU and demanded therefore the only possible solution they knew – independence.

The Foreign Minister of the Swedish government is interviewed today’s newspaper about the decision to grant independence to Kosovo. The foreign minister suggests that Sweden should move slowly forward. He refers to “deeply rooted Swedish traditions”: only to recognise a state based on three principles:

  1. One people
  2. A defined territory
  3. An organisation controlling the territory

The number of failed states and the many on the borderline states are on the increase. Corruption, human rights abuses, tyranny, destruction of the environment and the disappearance of cultures and languages all over the world should b added to the conscience of the state system. Doesn't all this indicate that the state system is collapsing and no longer functions the way it was anticipated by its ardent advocates? Shouldn't there, for instance, be a quality criteria attached to the principle of Controlling the territory?

Another one of the Swedish three principles - One people - is interesting seen from another point of view. Which state does not have several nations and peoples – recognised or unrecognised - within its borders? Hardly any.

Isn’t it time to revaluate the state system and start to realise that it is fast becoming yesterday’s political solution? The establishment a new little independent state seems to be the same as simply moving the existing problems to a new size level without actually solving them.