[ Non tutti i voti sono uguali:
Le diverse reazioni dell'Occidente alle elezioni in Ucraina, Macedonia
e Kosovo indicano che l'Occidente appoggia il volere del popolo se e
solo se quest'ultimo fa quello che gli viene detto... ]
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA872.htm
Article 13 January 2005
Not all votes are equal
The West's different responses to elections in Ukraine, Macedonia and
Kosovo suggests that it only supports the will of the people when the
people do as they're told.
by Tara McCormack
During the recent political crisis in Ukraine, Western politicians and
commentators celebrated opposition demonstrations in Kiev's main square
as symbols of the brave people of the Ukraine standing up for
democracy. Around the same time, a largely unreported referendum was
taking place in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in which the
highest echelons of the international community intervened forcefully
to discourage voting.
These contrasting approaches to political participation demonstrate
that the West doesn't support democratic participation in all
circumstances.
The November 2004 referendum in Macedonia concerned a law that was to
begin implementation of the Ohrid Agreement (1). The Ohrid Agreement
was signed in August 2001 between the Macedonian government and
Macedonian Albanian parties, and had been brokered by the European
Union (EU) and the USA. This came after several months of fighting
between the army and Albanian separatist groups, sparked in March 2001
when Macedonian Albanian guerrillas in alliance with Kosovo Albanian
fighters began offensives in the Macedonian areas of Tetovo and
Kumanovo. Under NATO and EU pressure, in August 2001 the Macedonian
government withdrew its heavy weaponry from the areas of conflict
(although the forces were blocked from doing so for several days by
residents of Tetovo who did not want them to go).
The Ohrid Agreement entailed a redivision of the country's internal
administrative units, creating fewer units with far greater autonomy.
The redivision also gave the Albanian minority more power in several
areas - control over education and health, for example, and ethnic
quotas for the police, judiciary and other institutions. NATO and the
EU heralded the agreement as vital for the stabilisation and peaceful
development of the country, and as a crucial step for the beginning of
Macedonia's EU accession talks. However, this agreement seems to have
only increased tensions between Macedonia's Slav and Albanian
populations, with Macedonian Slav citizens seeing it as the first step
towards secession of Albanian majority areas.
In August 2004 the Macedonian government passed a law that would
implement some of the Ohrid Agreement and begin decentralisation.
Demonstrations against the law were held in Skopje, and a campaign grew
for a referendum aiming to repeal the law. It was this referendum, held
on 7 November 2004, which precipitated a flurry of activity in the
international community.
The Presidency of the EU warned Macedonia that should the referendum be
successful in rejecting the law, Macedonia's chances of joining the EU
would be seriously threatened (2). Lawrence Butler, US ambassador to
Macedonia (3), and Michael Sahlin, the EU's special representative in
Macedonia (4), also issued warnings, while US defence secretary Donald
Rumsfeld mentioned Macedonia's application to join NATO:
'The success in becoming a NATO member will largely depend on the
success in implementing the Framework Agreement, which includes
stronger and more effective local self-government units. The
legislation passed this August will certainly help democracy strengthen
in the grassroots. The Macedonian people are facing a choice of a
future with NATO and the EU where stability and economic growth can
thrive, or a return to the past.' (5)
The Macedonian government also announced that it would resign if the
referendum was successful, and urged the population not to vote (6).
The Macedonian Constitution requires a voter turnout of at least 50 per
cent for a referendum to be valid. But the case of this referendum,
turnout was only 26 per cent, with the Albanian population almost
entirely boycotting the vote (7).
It might have been thought that the international community would be
concerned by this lack of participation, but far from it. In fact, it
was quick to praise the failure of the referendum due to low voter
turnout.
'It shows that the citizens have chosen to maintain the course towards
the European Union', said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana (8).
The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) welcomed
the result, as did US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher (9).
The British minister for Europe, Denis MacShane, praised Macedonians:
'This is a clear signal that Macedonia wants to continue on its path
towards full membership of the European family of nations as well as
NATO membership. I congratulate the leaders of the Macedonian and
Albanian parties and communities who made clear that the clock should
not be turned back and that the Lake Ohrid agreement will be upheld and
must now be fully implemented. We look forward to cooperating with
Macedonia over the nation's ambitions for Euro-Atlantic integration.'
(10)
Ironically, only two weeks before, at the end of October 2004, the
international community had condemned the low level of voter
participation in the Serbian region of Kosovo. The remaining Serbs of
Kosovo, who were widely expected to boycott the elections, had been
urged to vote by the NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and
UN chief Kofi Annan (11). Soren Jessen-Petersen, the head of the UN
Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), criticised Serbian prime minister Vojislav
Kostunica's call for Kosovo's Serbs to boycott the election.
Only around one per cent of Kosovo's Serbs voted. Jessen-Petersen
complained that some Serbs had been intimidated into observing the
boycott and had 'had their democratic right to vote hijacked' (12).
However, he also said that the participation of just over 50 per cent
of Kosovo's voters did render the elections legitimate (13).
What conclusions can be drawn from these different treatments of
Macedonia, Ukraine and Kosovo? It seems that for the international
community all votes are not equal: political participation is
understood in an instrumental way, which has little to do with the
democratic will of the electorate.
In Kosovo it was important for the international community for the
Serbs to participate in the elections, in order to present a less
disastrous image of the province after five years of international
administration. In Macedonia it was vital for the vote to fail as it
would impede the internationally imposed Ohrid Agreement. In Ukraine,
the international community encouraged citizens to protest against the
marginal defeat of its favoured candidate, Viktor Yuschenko.
While Ukrainians are urged to fight for their right to have their votes
counted, Macedonians are told in no uncertain terms that they can
forget EU/NATO membership if they make their votes count. Neither call
had anything to do with the democratic will of the citizens of the
former Yugoslavia or the Ukraine.
(1) Full text of the Agreement available on the Council of Europe
website [http://www.coe.int/%5d
(2) Press releases (CFSP), 2 November 2004, General Affairs and
External Relations, available from Democracy Monitor
[http://www.diplomacymonitor.com/stu/dm.nsf/dn/
dnAFEB75C02802257085256F40003E3BD9]
(3) U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia: Referendum Diminishes Chances for
Joining NATO and EU, Reality Macedonia, 27 September 2004
[http://www.realitymacedonia.org.mk/web/news_page.asp?nid=3708]
(4) 'Divisive' poll could spark civil war in Macedonia', The Times 6
November 2004
(5) Rumsfeld: United States to Continue Support of Macedonia on Road
to NATO, Southeast European Times, 13 October 2004
[http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/
features/2004/10/13/feature-01]
(6) 'Macedonia's government to quit if voters opt to block powers for
Albanian minority', The Irish Times, 6 November 2004
(7) 'Macedonia vote falling short', World News Digest, FT, 8 November
2004
(8) 'EU welcomes scuttling of vote by Macedonians', The Irish Times, 9
November 2004
(9) US, EU Praise Results of Macedonia Referendum, Southeast European
Times, 9 November 2004
[http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newsbriefs/setimes/
newsbriefs/2004/11/09/nb-01]
(10) Macshane welcomes Macedonian referendum decision, Diplomacy
Monitor, 8 November 2004
[http://www.diplomacymonitor.com/stu/dm.nsf/dn/
dn8DA154AA958E2F2685256F4600443470]
(11) 'Serb boycott likely to lessen validity of Kosovo poll', The
Irish Times, 23 October 2004
(12) 'Kosovo poll reveals failure of UN rule', Daily Telegraph, 25
October 2004
(13) 'Serbs' poll boycott leaves shadow over Kosovo peace talks', FT,
25 October 2004
Reprinted from :
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA872.htm
Le diverse reazioni dell'Occidente alle elezioni in Ucraina, Macedonia
e Kosovo indicano che l'Occidente appoggia il volere del popolo se e
solo se quest'ultimo fa quello che gli viene detto... ]
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA872.htm
Article 13 January 2005
Not all votes are equal
The West's different responses to elections in Ukraine, Macedonia and
Kosovo suggests that it only supports the will of the people when the
people do as they're told.
by Tara McCormack
During the recent political crisis in Ukraine, Western politicians and
commentators celebrated opposition demonstrations in Kiev's main square
as symbols of the brave people of the Ukraine standing up for
democracy. Around the same time, a largely unreported referendum was
taking place in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in which the
highest echelons of the international community intervened forcefully
to discourage voting.
These contrasting approaches to political participation demonstrate
that the West doesn't support democratic participation in all
circumstances.
The November 2004 referendum in Macedonia concerned a law that was to
begin implementation of the Ohrid Agreement (1). The Ohrid Agreement
was signed in August 2001 between the Macedonian government and
Macedonian Albanian parties, and had been brokered by the European
Union (EU) and the USA. This came after several months of fighting
between the army and Albanian separatist groups, sparked in March 2001
when Macedonian Albanian guerrillas in alliance with Kosovo Albanian
fighters began offensives in the Macedonian areas of Tetovo and
Kumanovo. Under NATO and EU pressure, in August 2001 the Macedonian
government withdrew its heavy weaponry from the areas of conflict
(although the forces were blocked from doing so for several days by
residents of Tetovo who did not want them to go).
The Ohrid Agreement entailed a redivision of the country's internal
administrative units, creating fewer units with far greater autonomy.
The redivision also gave the Albanian minority more power in several
areas - control over education and health, for example, and ethnic
quotas for the police, judiciary and other institutions. NATO and the
EU heralded the agreement as vital for the stabilisation and peaceful
development of the country, and as a crucial step for the beginning of
Macedonia's EU accession talks. However, this agreement seems to have
only increased tensions between Macedonia's Slav and Albanian
populations, with Macedonian Slav citizens seeing it as the first step
towards secession of Albanian majority areas.
In August 2004 the Macedonian government passed a law that would
implement some of the Ohrid Agreement and begin decentralisation.
Demonstrations against the law were held in Skopje, and a campaign grew
for a referendum aiming to repeal the law. It was this referendum, held
on 7 November 2004, which precipitated a flurry of activity in the
international community.
The Presidency of the EU warned Macedonia that should the referendum be
successful in rejecting the law, Macedonia's chances of joining the EU
would be seriously threatened (2). Lawrence Butler, US ambassador to
Macedonia (3), and Michael Sahlin, the EU's special representative in
Macedonia (4), also issued warnings, while US defence secretary Donald
Rumsfeld mentioned Macedonia's application to join NATO:
'The success in becoming a NATO member will largely depend on the
success in implementing the Framework Agreement, which includes
stronger and more effective local self-government units. The
legislation passed this August will certainly help democracy strengthen
in the grassroots. The Macedonian people are facing a choice of a
future with NATO and the EU where stability and economic growth can
thrive, or a return to the past.' (5)
The Macedonian government also announced that it would resign if the
referendum was successful, and urged the population not to vote (6).
The Macedonian Constitution requires a voter turnout of at least 50 per
cent for a referendum to be valid. But the case of this referendum,
turnout was only 26 per cent, with the Albanian population almost
entirely boycotting the vote (7).
It might have been thought that the international community would be
concerned by this lack of participation, but far from it. In fact, it
was quick to praise the failure of the referendum due to low voter
turnout.
'It shows that the citizens have chosen to maintain the course towards
the European Union', said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana (8).
The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) welcomed
the result, as did US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher (9).
The British minister for Europe, Denis MacShane, praised Macedonians:
'This is a clear signal that Macedonia wants to continue on its path
towards full membership of the European family of nations as well as
NATO membership. I congratulate the leaders of the Macedonian and
Albanian parties and communities who made clear that the clock should
not be turned back and that the Lake Ohrid agreement will be upheld and
must now be fully implemented. We look forward to cooperating with
Macedonia over the nation's ambitions for Euro-Atlantic integration.'
(10)
Ironically, only two weeks before, at the end of October 2004, the
international community had condemned the low level of voter
participation in the Serbian region of Kosovo. The remaining Serbs of
Kosovo, who were widely expected to boycott the elections, had been
urged to vote by the NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and
UN chief Kofi Annan (11). Soren Jessen-Petersen, the head of the UN
Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), criticised Serbian prime minister Vojislav
Kostunica's call for Kosovo's Serbs to boycott the election.
Only around one per cent of Kosovo's Serbs voted. Jessen-Petersen
complained that some Serbs had been intimidated into observing the
boycott and had 'had their democratic right to vote hijacked' (12).
However, he also said that the participation of just over 50 per cent
of Kosovo's voters did render the elections legitimate (13).
What conclusions can be drawn from these different treatments of
Macedonia, Ukraine and Kosovo? It seems that for the international
community all votes are not equal: political participation is
understood in an instrumental way, which has little to do with the
democratic will of the electorate.
In Kosovo it was important for the international community for the
Serbs to participate in the elections, in order to present a less
disastrous image of the province after five years of international
administration. In Macedonia it was vital for the vote to fail as it
would impede the internationally imposed Ohrid Agreement. In Ukraine,
the international community encouraged citizens to protest against the
marginal defeat of its favoured candidate, Viktor Yuschenko.
While Ukrainians are urged to fight for their right to have their votes
counted, Macedonians are told in no uncertain terms that they can
forget EU/NATO membership if they make their votes count. Neither call
had anything to do with the democratic will of the citizens of the
former Yugoslavia or the Ukraine.
(1) Full text of the Agreement available on the Council of Europe
website [http://www.coe.int/%5d
(2) Press releases (CFSP), 2 November 2004, General Affairs and
External Relations, available from Democracy Monitor
[http://www.diplomacymonitor.com/stu/dm.nsf/dn/
dnAFEB75C02802257085256F40003E3BD9]
(3) U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia: Referendum Diminishes Chances for
Joining NATO and EU, Reality Macedonia, 27 September 2004
[http://www.realitymacedonia.org.mk/web/news_page.asp?nid=3708]
(4) 'Divisive' poll could spark civil war in Macedonia', The Times 6
November 2004
(5) Rumsfeld: United States to Continue Support of Macedonia on Road
to NATO, Southeast European Times, 13 October 2004
[http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/
features/2004/10/13/feature-01]
(6) 'Macedonia's government to quit if voters opt to block powers for
Albanian minority', The Irish Times, 6 November 2004
(7) 'Macedonia vote falling short', World News Digest, FT, 8 November
2004
(8) 'EU welcomes scuttling of vote by Macedonians', The Irish Times, 9
November 2004
(9) US, EU Praise Results of Macedonia Referendum, Southeast European
Times, 9 November 2004
[http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newsbriefs/setimes/
newsbriefs/2004/11/09/nb-01]
(10) Macshane welcomes Macedonian referendum decision, Diplomacy
Monitor, 8 November 2004
[http://www.diplomacymonitor.com/stu/dm.nsf/dn/
dn8DA154AA958E2F2685256F4600443470]
(11) 'Serb boycott likely to lessen validity of Kosovo poll', The
Irish Times, 23 October 2004
(12) 'Kosovo poll reveals failure of UN rule', Daily Telegraph, 25
October 2004
(13) 'Serbs' poll boycott leaves shadow over Kosovo peace talks', FT,
25 October 2004
Reprinted from :
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA872.htm