<nettime> A future for Kosova: a closer look at the problem of nationalism

[I-AFD_2@anarch.free.de (Nico MYOWNA)]

*A future for Kosova: a closer look at the problem of nationalism*
by Nico Myowna

All states on this world and neither also on Balkan based on the national  
idea of France 1789. This idea express the claim for a closed, coherent  
territory with a religious and ethnic clean population out of the former  
multinational empire. First with the revolution in France 1789 the pro-  
dominate ethnic group of the former empire try to emanzipate themself  
against all other ethnic communities inside of the borders of this em-  
pire. State and nation are in this idea similar to each other; the ci-  
tiziens are equal and free, because they are parts of the same ethnic  
group with one mutual language and one mutual culture.

Advocates of this idea claim "Serbia for the Serbs!", "Germany for Ger-  
mans only!" or "Turkey for Turks!", because the freedom is definite only  
possible in their notion as a voluntary union of each other like-minded  
and identical persons. Therefore they are only able to acept members of  
the national main culture. Mostly they claim, that only this main culture  
and main ethnic group exist; they argue often, that every to the main  
culture not corresponding culture must be a falsification of main culture  
or belong to the main culture and main ethnic group -- like the Kurds in  
Turkey, who should be "mountain-turks" for the turk constitution.

Nationalism become a kind of modern religion: a irrational legend of ori-  
gin coming into being like the mythical origin of the denish flag at the  
battle near Talin, Estland, om 1200 A.D. or the mythical origin of the  
serbian nation in the lost battle at the Amselfield 1389 against the  
Turks. Every advocate of this worldly, modern religion could hope to con-  
serve immortality in the memory of all future members of his/her nation.

The Human rights are the positiv formulation of freedom inside the nation  
and the national state; but freedom doesn't come in neither case out of  
the pure existence of the citiziens, rather out of the constitution of the  
community: the power of the community, who based on the collectively com-  
bining of like-minded single persons, give and guarantee every citizien  
this freedom inside the borders of their national (state) territory. Every  
person is like-minded, who share the mutual language and mutual main cul-  
ture and bound themself to the prodominate national notion.

Human rights are bound to the political souveranity of each democratic com- 
munity. Only members of this community have the right to resist against a  
government, which injure the Human rights; only members of this souveran  
state could establish a new government. Human rights of single persons are  
*group-rights* inside of communities, dependent of each community and only  
possible through the guarantee of the prodominate group of each community  
for members of this community. This notion of Human rights dependent of na- 
tional souveranity include the right of the government to send foreign  
persons out of borders, curtail their political rights or injure their  
Human rights.

Today this notion change with the development of the United Nations: now  
Human rights should be part of the international law. "The international  
law should help the community of men and not states" say Kofi Annan. The  
Declaration of Human Rights should be a formulation of the general freedom  
of men and not only a formulation of freedom of equal citiziens inside of  
a nation and national state. We as left-libertarians should support this  
change, because it is a step forward to our notion of Human rights, who  
are coming out of the pure existence of men as living beings.

Like further kings and czars had identified in the name of their religion  
their empire as belonging to one of the religious kingdoms now nationa- 
lists identify the territory of the former kingdoms with their national  
territory. They combine a social unity of like-minded, ethnic identical  
persons with the ground, where they live. This notion contain all forms of  
imperialism, ethnic cleansing and fascism. Both Auschwitz and the ethnical  
cleansing of Kosova are results of this notion. Fascism become the logical  
continuation of nationalism.

The Kosova crisis is a modern religious civil war between two modern world- 
ly religions. Both claim, that every member of a culture not in correspon-  
ding to or clear outside of the main culture,i.e., national culture should  
give up their seperatism and live in future as a member of the main cultu-  
re -- he/she should be either a Serb with the ethnic origin as Albanian or  
a Albanian with the ethnic origin as Serb. Both claim their right, to use  
force, if a person decline to change their culture in favour of the natio-  
nal main culture, and send the advocates of seperatistic cultures to their  
death or out of borders. And both combine their social and/or ethnic unity  
with the ground, where they live.

With the agreement between Denmark and Germany about the rights of the na-  
tional minorities in the south of Denmark and the north of Germany coming  
1955 a new notion into being: the seperation of the idea of state from the  
idea of nation. One paragraph in this agreement proclaim:"The confession  
to one of the nations in the territory of South-Denmark and the state Sles- 
vig-Holsten of the Federal Republik of Germany *is free* and this national  
afiliation cant be screen or refuse by administrations on both sides." In  
this region nobody can dictate the national afiliation generally like nobo- 
dy try to dictate the religious afiliation. Persons with diffrent national  
afiliations could be -- like persons with diffrent confessional afiliati- 
ons -- acepted citiziens of their state.

This notion include a refusal of the idea, to combine a region with a so-  
cial unity of one nation: on one territory northern and southern of the  
border between Denmark and Germany are today three autonom structures of  
kindergardens, schools, neighbourhood-clubs, editor-offices of publica- 
tions in the diffrent national languages, churches and libraries possible.  
And since 1996 every citizien have a right to negoitate with the admini- 
stration in his own national language, guided by representants of each na-  
tion.

We should acept this idea, not to combine a region with one nation as a bi- 
lateral base for federal structures. If we outgrow some day the state,  
than we will be confronted with diffrent ethnic groups, languages and so-  
cial national communities as one form of the freedom of men. We should  
stretch our term of freedom to acept all forms of nationalism and ethnic  
self-fulfillment, who don't contain a combination between a nation and  
their claim for a national territory; we should acept every national afi-  
liation, which not contain fascist elements of national freedom inside of  
a ethnic clean territory. We should stop to condemn people for their world- 
ly religion and mostly irrational national beliefe.

No Nation is really bound to a territory; a nation is a social unity -- a  
society -- of people with the same origin, the same language and/or the  
same culture and religion. A nation is a combining of persons like the  
unions, the churches or other groups; it is just as ridiculous to combine  
a nation with a territory as to combine a union with a terrain.

Every nation is in fact international as a social and ethnic combining of  
persons, who use the same language, practize the same customs and have a  
mutual notion of culture; in every region of our globe is a community of  
one of this nations practicable, if we recognize the various serbian, al- 
banian, denish, german, kurdish, native-american and other national com- 
munities around the world. And the Internet make it possible for many mem- 
bers of this communities to take part in their national discussions and  
decissions.

Our notion of nationalism as a *worldly religion* should include the right  
to claim religious monuments and places -- like the world religions -- but  
any longer the right to claim entire territories for their property.

Theoretical is in the next centaury a *virtual* notion of nations possi- 
ble: every nation could be souveran through their structures on Internet,  
could carry out elections on the net to deligate representatives for a na-  
tional parliament, which take place in a city with a large population of  
this nation; this parliament could hit decisions who bound all voluntary  
members of this nation on every place of our globe. And the United Nations  
could make progress to a federal parliament with representatives of all na- 
tional parliaments, which guide the mutual interests of all nations on mu- 
tual structures and settle of disputes and conflicts between souveran vir- 
tual nations to a global federal law.

## CrossPoint v3.11 ##

---
#  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/  contact: nettime-owner@desk.nl