That unfortunately is a rarely concidered category. Such breaking up is, however, a popular idea. Leaving aside aestethic considerations, Austro-Hungary should still exist.

Secondly, staying with the example, what would Canada do, if Quebec declared independance? Send in the police to arrest the prime minister? As this is hardly realistic, they’d offer negotiations for conditions and terms, play for time and hope for a change of heart.

Thirdly, mini states declaring independance after a huge change is not new. A lot of that happened after 1919. Within a short amount of time, they all joined a larger country.

I’m sorry, but it’s a fairly huge leap from “these groups would like independence” to “these groups want to be part of Greater Albania”.

And it’s an even longer leap when you consider that the Macedonian Albanians have been satisfied with limited autonomy and a share of political power.

Kinda like the Serbs did in both Bosnia and Croatia, you know?

That’s a much weaker analogy than you probably think it is. Large minorities of the Bosnian and Croatian Serbs /didn’t/ want to be part of Greater Serbia. They wanted a dominant position in Bosnia and an independent Serb Republic in Croatia, but they didn’t want to hand over all power to Belgrade.

This is why, for instance, Babic the dentist was sidelined as chief of the Republic of Serb Krajina in 1992, in favor of “Milosevic’s messenger” Goran Hadzic.

And this was in the face of Greater Serbia propaganda that was much more sustained and intense than anything seen for “Greater Albania”.

Doug M.

Bekim, you simply named all three neighbouring to Albania countries. This should explain the seeming coincidence, shouldn’t it?

Doug, I don’t feel as if I need to respond to arguments you attempt to put in my mouth. The idea of “Greater Albania” arose from the fact that Albanian minorities in both nations that had them be local *majorities* started agitating for “independence”.

Kinda like the Serbs did in both Bosnia and Croatia, you know? I don’t think that one was coincidental either.

Now you are telling me that appearances are deceiving. Well and fine, but don’t pretend that it’s not a natural first conclusion one could legitimately come to.

That’s not enough. Breaking up perfectly good countries for aesthetic reasons is a deeply dumb idea.

I also agree that it’s dumb. But that doesn’t mean it’s not in those people’s right to separate. At some point we have to agree that national groups should only participate willingly in greater unions, especially if they can separate without the need for “ethnic cleansings”.

Nor do I, but I do think they need something stronger than “we’d rather be independent”. Especially if they’re part of a well-run nation which already recognizes their rights.

They may simply feel as belonging in a separate nation.

That’s not enough. Breaking up perfectly good countries for aesthetic reasons is a deeply dumb idea.

As for Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia “adjusting the status quo for themselves”, the very fact that they pretty much began their war only after the Kosovars were given their victory, indicates to me the connection of their ambitions.

…you’re repeating yourself, and I already responded to this.

But, again: the Kosovo conflict helped trigger the Macedonian one, yes. But not because they were trying for “Greater Albania”. It’s because (1) Albanians were second class citizens in Macdonia, and (2) during the war, Macedonia treated the refugee Albanians like dirt, thus arousing resentment among Albanians on both sides of the border; and (3) the end of the Kosovo war released thousands of KLA fighters onto the market, and a lot of these crossed into Macedonia; finally (4) the war gave a huge boost to Macedonian Albanians who wanted to resolve the political struggle through violence, while temporarily discrediting those who were pursuing peaceful means.

Look, Macedonia has been at peace for four, going on five years now. That’s because the Ohrid Agrement gave the Albanians a real stake in the country. It’s had some difficulties, but it’s now working pretty well… Albanians have been part of every government, and their linguistic and cultural rights are protected. Surprise: they’ve abandoned violence and (mostly) stopped agitating for independence.

They don’t want to be part of Greater Albania. They want to join the EU.

…I doubt I’ll convince you. Greater Albania seems to be Holy Writ in Greece. As far as I can tell, Greeks of all political persuasions are convinced that this is what Albanians want… all Albanians, everywhere, always. And every action of every Albanian anywhere, in Albania, Macedonia, Kosovo, Greece, is interpreted in that light.

This strikes me as profoundly stupid, but, shrug.

Doug M.

And I love your responses to Serbs and Greeks on this board. You nailed it, “Greater Albania” only exist in their heads.
That “argument”, or rather misleading propaganda, has been used very frequently by Serbs and also Greeks to an extent.
But now the world has realized which country in the Balkans has been striving for expansion, and did not stopp at nothing to create “Greater Sebia”. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, massmurder…

If a group presses its desire for sovereignty far enough, the government they wish to be free must either grant it or push back. And if the government pushes back, those seeking after sovereignty will soon acquire some legitimate grievances, even if they didn’t have them to begin with.

Every country in existence has a vested interest in the doctrine of territorial integrity, and every time national boundaries get redrawn, that doctrine is eroded. Thus, there is a proliferation of forms of semi-sovereignty, accepted by the international community to settle disputes by any means short of redrawing national boundaries.

But I fear that in some parts of the world (and the Caucasus is near the top of the list), the resulting pileup of de facto sovreignties, autonomous republics, and the like, bears analogy to forest management by fire suppression: the attempt to keep little wars from happening stores up fuel for some future conflagration.

And even if this fear is unfounded, in the meantime, the state of uncertainty regarding future national boundaries discourages development. Foreign investment bears a risk premium in Georgia, or Armenia, or Azerbaijan, while their respective boundary issues remain unresolved. For that matter, even nationals of those countries will tend to keep their capital (both financial and human) outside the border, if they can, just in case.

To some extent, the language of rights stands in the way of conflict resolution. The lines of actual control are where they are, whether or not we approve of the means by which they got there.

I never said anything about the Quebecois being oppressed. I don’t believe that a people needs necessarily be “oppressed” in order to legitimately seek independence.

They may simply feel as belonging in a separate nation.

As for Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia “adjusting the status quo for themselves”, the very fact that they pretty much began their war only after the Kosovars were given their victory, indicates to me the connection of their ambitions.