Madam, - Sé D'Alton (September 10th) writes that the arguments I advanced against the partition of Kosovo (September 6th) are similar to the arguments that could be used against the partition of Serbia, or those used against that of former Yugoslavia.
But while he notes the similarity of the arguments, he fails to recognise the distinction between these cases.
To recognize this distinction, we have to recall the dictum of Hannah Arendt, the famous Jewish philosopher, that the revolutions and civil wars that accompany the destruction of a given state are always the consequences, and never the causes, of that destruction. Applied to the former Yugoslav case, the wars of the 1990s did not cause the destruction of Yugoslavia - it was the destruction of Yugoslavia that caused those wars. And the real reason for its destruction was the decision by Serbia to transform Yugoslavia into a place where Serbs would dominate and all the other peoples of the region would be ethnically subjugated.
It is misleading to speak of former Yugoslavia being partitioned. The reality is that, due to the oppression of other national groups within this region by an ultra-nationalist Serbian government, they were left with no other option than to seek independence.
Recognition of Kosovo's independence, as proposed by the UN Special Envoy for Kosovo, former Finnish President Marti Ahtisaari, should now be the final consequence of the brutal destruction of the Yugoslav Federation by the Milosevic regime. - Yours, etc,
MENTOR AGANI,
Department of Sociology,
University of Prishtina,
Kosovo.