The Moral Victory of Kosova
In an earlier article under the title "The Historical Victory of Kosova", we
refuted arguments of the opponents of Kosova’s formal independence that
involve falsifications of the historical reality. In the present editorial, we will
reject biased philosophical / ideological / political approaches propagated by
skeptics and adversaries of Kosova’s formal independence.
As societies do not exist without a moral order shared by all and stipulated by
the democratically elected legislative power, every society’s moral principles
and concepts have to be reflected in the politics and the practices of the
political life in its entirety.
Politics without Moral Order: Utter Barbarism
Certainly not all the societies feature the same high moral standards at all
times; to use terms used in the discipline of History, we should call this
situation ‘decadence’, ‘sociopolitical disintegration’, ‘decay’ or ‘fall’; it actually
characterizes the end phases of earlier civilized societies.
Representative and/or totalitarian, monarchical, communist or republican, no
political establishment escapes from this; as a matter of fact, decay and fall
may at a certain moment characterize any society.
The inception of the international community is a modern phenomenon that
pertains precisely to fundamental moral concepts and principles that are
widely diffused and must be prevalent everywhere. The rise of the concept of

Crime against the Mankind (which did not exist in the Antiquity of the
Christian and Islamic Ages) hinges on moral and philosophical
considerations; the term encompasses flagrant violations of moral codes that
are common to, valid for, and accepted in (and by) all societies.
We cannot therefore dissociate the proclamation of Kosova’s independence,
the international recognition of the country, and its entrance in the UN and
other international bodies from several fundamental political considerations
of purely moral character.
This becomes clear in the light of terms used by those who deny Kosova the
right to formal independence; more particularly, the Russian president called
Western countries’ support to Kosova as 'immoral and illegal'! The outgoing
Russian leader, who may soon feel absolutely comfortable in the shoes of the
future Russian prime minister, went on accusing the European countries of
their double standards, and saying that they should be "ashamed"
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/14/kosovo.russia).
What is moral, and what is legal in politics, and subsequently in international
politics? Confronted with conflicting ideas, clashing concepts, and opposite
principles, one has to identify the most fundamental elements of the Moral
Philosophical Order from which all the other commonly accepted moral
values have derived.
Proceeding so, one defines Humanism and the Human Values, as they have
been conceived, analyzed and systematized by the Renaissance and the
Classicist philosophers; these values are the foundations of today’s
international moral order and code.
Humanism, People, Nation and State
Human Being is at the epicenter of our civilization; it consists in the
cornerstone of its integrity. Human freedom and dignity, equity and justice,
equality, tolerance, altruism and respect for the 'Other' are epigrammatically
the pillars of our world. The seminal importance of the Human Being within
our system of values is extended to the human society, and every ethnic,
linguistic and religious group, which self-defines itself according to their
specific cultural and national identity.
Thus, the importance of the Human Being is transferred to the ‘People’, a
large group of human beings sharing common origin, language, culture and
religion. Viewed diachronically, a ‘people’ is called ‘nation’. The latter term
was repeatedly confused with the state, the organization setup by a people in
order to provide infrastructure for organized social life.
This fact created a great confusion; states (also called nations, as we said)

antedate the rise of our modern world, and the Renaissance humanist
philosophers. However, the states ('nations') during the Christian and Islamic
Ages were not conceived in the same way as today. At those days, the concept
of Nation hinged on the feudal and imperial systems. A nation was
personified by a feudal lord, and/or an emperor. With the rise of the
Absolutism and the Absolute Monarchy, the same word took a markedly
different meaning, and this was exemplarily highlighted by the notorious
statement of the roi-soleil, Louis XIV, "L’ état, c’ est moi" (I am the
State/Nation).
The concordance between ‘people’ and ‘nation’ is a later philosophical
conclusion, and as debate it dates back to the 18th century, representing the
epitome of Enlightenment; it was formed under strong classicist impact, and
in opposition to the respective Medieval or Renaissance concepts. However,
the rise of Romanticism, as a rejection of the Classicism and as nostalgia for
aspects of the Renaissance world, brought about a system with incredibly rich
and complex ramifications; one of them was 'nationalism'. This consists in one
new connotation of the word 'nation', which was already rich in nuances.
At the times the International Law was emerging as concept and approach,
‘nation’ was identified with ‘people’ for some philosophers and intellectuals,
whereas for others 'nation' was the supposedly apparent organization of a
people into a system, namely the 'state'. The importance of the state was
practically undeniable as the two world wars were triggered, undertaken and
won by states, despite the participation of vast masses. When the UN
initiative was launched during WW II, few would react to the equation of the
nation with the state. With the rise and the fall of the Soviet block, the
equation prevailed for long.
Today, we cannot afford to stick to the aforementioned obsolete, trivial, and
utterly anti-democratic equation. The fall of the Soviet regimes demonstrated
clearly that, if a society is democratically organized, the equation of the nation
with the state does not occur at the prejudice of the sovereign people. But if
the society is not democratically organized, and the administration does not
reflect the will of the people, the state is a mechanism of oppression.
And the original fact, value or concept is the ‘People’; the ‘state’ exists as a
derivative value and concept. The value of a state is relative; it consists in
mere reflection of the value of the people, under the condition of
representativeness, involving democratic elections, and genuine and accurate
reflection of the popular will.
National Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity
Consequently, the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity
have to be considered as applicable and valid only in case of democratic states

reflecting as best possible the will of the indigenous people (nation) or
peoples (nations).
National sovereignty is to be considered as sovereignty exercised by an
individual national group organized as a democratic society; national
sovereignty is the privilege of a people (historically viewed as a nation) – not
of a state. The privilege is transferred to the state, only in case the state
genuinely and accurately reflects the will of the indigenous people (nation).
National sovereignty cannot be exercised by one specific nation over another
nation, as this would automatically imply servility and involuntary
submission, attitudes that contradict the human nature.
National sovereignty can be shared between two nations under condition of
democratically expressed and internationally recognized agreement (i.e.
referendum); however, even in this case, the cohabitation of the two nations
has to be evident at the level of the administration, the political life, the
educational system, the free market, and the armed forces.
Consequently, when we refer to the principles of national sovereignty and
territorial integrity, we accept them as properly valid and conform to
Humanism and Enlightenment, only if they apply to an independent people -
nation, not an independent state, which may eventually comprise of more
than one nation, potentially oppressing some of them.
Serb national sovereignty is for Serbs – only!
The sovereignty of Serbs is therefore a moral value, as long as it is applied to
Serbs and not to Kosovars, Sanjakis, Voivodinians (term regrouping several
non-Serb nations cohabitating in Voivodina), Macedonians, Albanians,
Bulgarians and Greeks. If for any reason Serb national sovereignty is
exercised over another nation – without that nation’s explicit consent –, this
consists in a tyranny and it should be denounced and terminated.
Subsequently, the territorial integrity of Serbia consists in a value, as long as it
encompasses ethnic Serbs only; any effort to include another, unwilling,
nation within the Serb territory is tyranny and barbarism, as it takes us back
to the primitive hordes of the Neolithic. The sooner this becomes clear to the
nationalist – chauvinist Serbs the better. No national rule can be maintained
over other nations anymore.
In this regard, the fundamental concepts of Humanism and Enlightenment
have prevailed in the case of Kosova’s formal independence, which is a great
moral victory for the undeservedly persecuted Kosovars, as well as for many
oppressed and tyrannized nations all over the world.

Kosova’s formal independence heralds a great perspective for Trans-Dniestr,
the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, as well as Sanjak and Voivodina in
the gradually fading tyranny of Serbia. Furthermore, Kosovo announces a
promising future for other oppressed peoplesin Balkans, notably the Turks
and the Macedonians of Bulgaria, and the Hungarians of Transylvania. As a
matter of fact, Kosova opens the way for Catalonia, Corsica, the Bask country,
Galicia, Occitania, Brittany, and Scotland.
Note
Picture: Prishtina becomes the Epitome of an oppressed nation's moral
victory, opening the path for Barcelona, Ajaccio, Tiraspol, and Edinburgh.
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Published: 2/20/2008