In what is for a dogged Albanian majority a day of freedom, and for the rest of the world is a day to celebrate the notorious Balkans settling the Hell down, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia and was recognized.

This has been a raw knuckled process since the starting line - Kosovo’s first chirp for autonomy back in early 90s when Yugoslavia collapsed - this last year’s flat rejection of the call for independence by Serbia and Russia showed how fragile it was. When the Russian Bear put down its paw to say the Kosovars and UN would have to go back to the drawing board on the independence process in 2007, it looked like it would be years before the drafting of ways to placate Serbia while partitioning Kosovo as an autonomous entity could trudge back to the step it had been at - likely only to be slapped away by Russia again.

Now, taking a page from Israel’s playbook, Kosovo simply declared its existence and dared the world to take sides - a risky move considering that, unlike Israel, Kosovo’s chief opposition is an ascending superpower getting its old chauvanism back in spades, Putin’s Russia. But sides were taken, and with the exception of Spain and a few more less influential hold outs, the United States and the EU joined in their recognition of the nascent Republic of Kosovo.

Kosovo’s parliament has unanimously endorsed a declaration of independence from Serbia, in a historic session.
Celebrations went on into the night after Prime Minister Hashim Thaci promised a democracy that respected the rights of all ethnic communities.

Serbia’s PM denounced the US for helping create a “false state”.

A split later emerged at the Security Council, when Russia said there was no basis for changing a 1999 resolution which handed Kosovo to the UN.

Seven Western countries said it was quite clear the situation had moved on.

I support this move for a variety of reasons. One, as the sweeping Western support, demographics of Kosovo and economic realities indicate, it was about damn time. Kosovo is 92% Albanian, which under Serbia’s nationalistic system means about 92% second class citizens. Granted, this number was reached by a smidge of ethnic cleansing, up from about 89%. Kosovo’s freedom fighters were pals with al-Qaeda; they are hardly choir boys - staunch, nationalistic killers. However, given a massacre-rife history of Serbian oppression that extends into the Bush II presidency and a massive Albanian population, they are also right in demanding independence.

Secondly, I like tossing mud in the Bear’s eye and watching it stick. All pretense that Russia was going to be a liberal capitalism long ago went down the tubes with Boris Yeltsin’s regurgitated breakfast of vodka, and Putin is using Russia’s possibly-unparalleled oil wealth to shove other great powers around. A choice playing piece in his political game board was Kosovo, which he always liked to make noise about subjugating or marginalizing whenever we brought up nuclear disarmament or his shady petro-chemical dealings. Upping the ante like this when Russia is weaker than it will be the next time it could have rejected talks over Kosovo independence was wise. It will not shut Putin up - or the Serbs; there are already bombs being thrown by Serbian nationalists - but it will expedite the settling of this issue before Russia gets truly mighty and belligerent.

At the end of the day, Kosovo’s independence was not a clean process. It is not a resolved issue. But it is a cause to celebrate the freedom of a people from centuries of domination and the hope for the future that made it possible.

It may seem hard, at a glance, to figure which is the more ridiculous headline: That a soldier’s mother shipped 80,000 cans of silly string to Iraq or that Libya and Vietnam won seats on the UN Security Council. But given that the answer for the silly string question came to mind quickly with some consideration and has a practical purpose - it can detect trip wires - the winner in this one is clear.

Yes, it’s true, Libya and Vietnam are going to be on the Security Council. The madcap North African upstart with the account number of nearly every terrorist cell in the world and the runt of successful Asian totalitarian Commu-capitalists are going to have a major say in why, where and how the United Nations deploys its military forces.

Libya was virtually assured of election because it has been endorsed by the African group along with Burkina Faso and faced no opposition. Vietnam, which was endorsed by the Asian group, also ran unopposed. All three countries won in the first round of voting.

Now, granted, they’re not the only tarnished records to ever fill one of the esteemed 2-year positions that rotate on the Council - the Dominican Republic was also in the race this go-around. And of course the argument for internationalism is that you want your enemies at the table so that you can look them in the eye when you interact, turning them into friends or at least getting the best intel possible. But this goes too far - invite them into your parlor, by all means, but your war room?

Furthermore, these two states are actively up to no good. It’s not like they’ve abandoned sordid pasts in order for the more palatable way of low-intensity oppression and robber baron capitalism. Vietnam by all indications still uses slave labor, and Libya just pulled off a colossal hostage scam, to the tune of exclusive French-guided European contracts and hundreds of millions of dollars. You don’t want to give these people any real say in whether or not the rogue states of the globe are going to be punished, as they are rogue states themselves.

There’s a time and a place for unity. There’s a time and a place for chances at redemption. But the chief international authority for lawful use of force is not one of them.

Until Libya and Vietnam cease to be dependent on breaking the rules, they should not sit among those that make them.

After four years of watching the chaos in Iraq like a kid at a horror movie with his fingers fanned in front of his face, the UN is heading back into the maelstrom with new resolve. The Security Council passed a resolution that nearly doubles the UN’s staff present and sets some definite objectives for the UN’s mission there, most importantly aiding in reconciliation and enhancing the infrastructure.

And yet, is this really good news? UN resolutions have a somewhat shabby reputation these days. Though this is largely due to a misconception about how the UN works - and just who, exactly, pulls the teeth out of those resolutions - there is cause for concern that more blue helmets in country are just a larger dose of a placebo.

This is not so. The situation in Iraq needs all hands on deck. A greater role for the organization in bringing the basic human needs to an ailing population - the UN’s specialty - is most certainly welcome. It is unlikely that the UN will have the clout to affect reconciliation, it is likely that their attempts to do so will bring retaliation just as they did in 2003, but nevertheless, every bit of capable aid helps.

The sole concern about an increased UN presence is that liaison between the legitimate governing leadership - PM Maliki - and the UN might expose US attempts to put down the Iranian-backed Shiite militias that Maliki either actively or indirectly supports. A similar incident involving military being exposed to their target by the UN occurred in Somalia in 1993 under UNITAF, because both the UN and US considered the leading warlord there, Mohammed Farah Aideed, to be a faithful interlocutor. Aideed ended up merely waiting until the US scaled down its military presence, then launched attacks on the UN that culminated in the Battle of Mogadishu of “Black Hawk Down” infamy.

Bringing another party into an already complex and tense conflict is always a delicate matter. However, there is no doubt that Iraq needs all the basic humanitarian assistance it can get, and the same goes for pressure towards reconciliation.

Besides, its traditionally the UN that moves in to take over once a major western power has done most of the military heavy lifting. Its more cost-effective and less onerus for the US; it signals the shift of our burden, the coming of the end chapter of our involvement. In light of that, the US has less reason to be reluctant to include the UN, as the UN has to take over from the US.