Scott Taylor argues that Canada should come to its senses, and withdraw its recognition of Kosovo’s independence (Embassy).
While I am more than willing to recognize well thought-out and articulate arguments against such recognition of independence, Taylor’s op-ed falls well short of the mark.
1) He insinuates that the Canadian government placates the Americans, regardless of the merits:
Worse yet, the subsequent appeal to logic directly contradicts the preceding emotional jab at the U.S., ironically suggesting that his appeal to reason is insincere.
2) Taylor’s agreement that Quebec’s situation differs from Kosovo’s is seemingly disingenuous too. He makes the case that Kosovo remains dependent on foreign aid, which is true, while “Quebec is already far more independent than Kosovo can be”. The implication is that Quebec has more of an argument for separation than Kosovo regardless of recent history, genocide and oppression in the Balkans. As I’ve said before, here and here, this context makes a great deal of difference.
3) Finally, the author suggests that the true Kosovo flag resembles Albania’s, and not the “American-designed” flag. Presumably, Taylor thinks that the Kosovo flag should incorporate the eagle reflecting the prominence of ethnic Albanian Kosovars. However, I’m not quite sure why he felt compelled to add “American-designed” in order to make the point instead of stating it outright. I’m also curious why he fails to recognize the intent of Kosovo’s officials, namely Fadil Hysa, who said “We will not have the flag of any other country” (CSM).
While I am more than willing to recognize well thought-out and articulate arguments against such recognition of independence, Taylor’s op-ed falls well short of the mark.
1) He insinuates that the Canadian government placates the Americans, regardless of the merits:
Canada sat on the fence for 30 days, but finally caved in to pressure from the U.S. State Department. So other than once again placating the Americans, what exactly has Canada achieved through this formal recognition of independence?
Let's start by taking the emotional issues off the table and examining the background.
Worse yet, the subsequent appeal to logic directly contradicts the preceding emotional jab at the U.S., ironically suggesting that his appeal to reason is insincere.
2) Taylor’s agreement that Quebec’s situation differs from Kosovo’s is seemingly disingenuous too. He makes the case that Kosovo remains dependent on foreign aid, which is true, while “Quebec is already far more independent than Kosovo can be”. The implication is that Quebec has more of an argument for separation than Kosovo regardless of recent history, genocide and oppression in the Balkans. As I’ve said before, here and here, this context makes a great deal of difference.
3) Finally, the author suggests that the true Kosovo flag resembles Albania’s, and not the “American-designed” flag. Presumably, Taylor thinks that the Kosovo flag should incorporate the eagle reflecting the prominence of ethnic Albanian Kosovars. However, I’m not quite sure why he felt compelled to add “American-designed” in order to make the point instead of stating it outright. I’m also curious why he fails to recognize the intent of Kosovo’s officials, namely Fadil Hysa, who said “We will not have the flag of any other country” (CSM).
2 Comments:
Quebec wants to seperate, and that is reason enough. The precedent for a unilateral declaration has been set. You want to pick and choose when to enforce laws, feel free. For every expert you bring up opposing Quebec UDI, I am sure they will have just as many of equal quality to support their cause.
You want to pick and choose when to enforce laws, feel free.
This is not a situation of inconsistent application of the law. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled on the ability of Quebec to unilaterally secede from Canada in Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 (LexUM). Please feel free to read it, even if it’s just the headnote. There you will see that Quebec “does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development.”
Ambiguity lies in determining what a clear majority means and the constitutionality of the federal Clarity Act, S.C. 2000, c. 26.
Essentially, the Quebec comparison is not as fluid as you suggest.
And for good measure, I fail to see how anyone could reasonably equate the context surrounding Quebec’s separation aspirations to that of Kosovo.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home