How can the west justify Kosovo's independence then tell Abkhazia that it cannot be independent?

Question

It just seems like western governments change the rules to please themselves. I just want to know what the basis they are making these assertions is?.

Abkhazia declared independence early in 1994. It has never been recognised by a single country and the price has been high indeed. An economic embargo remains in force and Abkhazia is isolated in just about every sense of the word except from Russia which maintains a border crossing and has re-opened the railway line to Sukhumi. Source the BBC link below

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/...

Page last updated at 16:33 GMT, Wednesday, 5 March 2008

Answer 1

Making a comparison beteen the two situations is falatious.

If one country is treated badly that's no reson another should be similarly restricted.

It's a good thing that Kosovo as attained independce. I was there during the conflict, and have kept in touch ever since, and could see that independense was the only route that made sense.

I'm sorry if Abkhazia is not getting a fair deal, but I don't now enough about it to judge. I only know that it should have no bearing on what happens in Kosovo.

Answer 2

There is no moral consistency with respect to statecraft.  The oldest rule of international relations is that "the strong do that which they have the power to do, while the weak must accept that which they lack the power to change".  Is there any morality in that proclamation of the ancient Greeks?  It is a rule that still thrives today, and countries, first and foremost, look out for what is in their best interests.  Increasingly, however, the interests that are determined are not that which served the majority of people, but those at the top of the society.  This is especially true of my country, America, which used to have honor.

Answer 3

well you nailed it..and when i am elected in 08 i will continue our failing policies...americans are stupid so i will promise them tax cuts and hope they wanna have a beer with me....in 10 years China will own us anyways so i will borrow more for war.  we are a country only 250 years old..we will never see 300...McBush in 08 for more of the same

Answer 4

Because Kosovo's Albanians were major donators to Bush presidential campaign. Their community is strong in the US.

Answer 5

One thing that is important to remember is that each case is different.  Every country/region has it's own unique historical and political realities that shape policies toward it.  While it is helpful sometimes to compare different cases, it is important not to fall into the trap of making two different situations equivalent to each other when they very rarely are.  

I'm not too versed in the Abkhazia situation, but I do know that Kosovo's independence has as much to do with the politics regarding the Yugoslav wars of succession as they do with facts on the ground in Kosovo itself.  It is not simply a case of "Ohh look, country A gets to declare independence, so it must be the same as country B declaring independence".

Another point;  individual countries are the ones that ultimately decide whether to recognize a government or not.  There aren't any "rules" per se, more like "gentlemen's agreements" and precedents that may or may not influence individual countrys' decisions.  Even in the case of Kosovo, for example, there are "western" countries that have not recognized Kosovo.  Why a country chooses to recognize breakaway regions has as much to do with their own internal politics and problems as it does with foreign concerns.  Sometimes, it's just as simple as other countries not really caring enough to go to the trouble of recognizing independent states and angering one nation or another because of it(e.g. "Abkh...what?").  Sometimes apathy and maintaining the status quo are the least problematic ("easiest") option for a government.  "Why I should I go to the trouble of recognizing some pissy little backwater?"

Answer 6

They do not have to justify it, hypocrisy pure unadulterated hypocrisy.

Answer 7

Suppose there's a classroom full of kids, and a group of them decides to hit one kid, but not the other. If there's no one to enforce the order, there's no telling where such a situation may lead.

All the world's a stage, and countries behave just like those kids, some of them being stronger, some weaker. There's a difference, however. If You're weak, it is often possible to pay off a government (or its significant elements) to do Your bidding. That's a Golden Rule: he who has gold, makes the rules.

There are obvious international goals of all Western governments, which include keeping Russian influence under control, and expanding their own sphere of influence. Couldn't be more simple. Isn't it logical for every country to protect its own interests? The Western policies are driven by those interests, and modulated by payoffs.