NATO is in Kosovo. Of course so are the Russians and the U.N. What a mess! The short-term lessons will be oriented towards how to "defend the community of nations and maintain the peace." Most of this will be power driven and oriented toward socialistic logic having to do with coughing up national sovereignty for the good of the community of nations. However, there is a bigger lesson for the United States that it will probably not learn. A lesson that is more important than any learned during the "occupation" of Kosovo.
A lot of Southerners aren’t aware of a movement that is taking place in the American Southwest. As the Hispanic population continues to grow in the Southwest, there is a belief among some Hispanics that the Southwest, having once been a part of Mexico, should again be a part of Mexico. If not able to rejoin Mexico, this group of Hispanics believes they should be able to establish their own country called "Azetland."
Living in Texas I’m more aware of this than most Southerners. The states that are the focus of this Hispanic idea are California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Texas. I’m not sure if there are other states, but these are the primary ones targeted to make up this new Hispanic country. Now you ask, "What does this have to do with Kosovo?"
When the Hispanic community within these states grows until it is the majority and starts pressing for more power and rights, and maybe some autonomy, what will the U.S. do? Will the United States fear losing part of their country and seeing the Southwest become part of a "Greater Mexico" not unlike what Serbia fears with Kosovo and a potential "Greater Albania?" Already Mexico has given Hispanics in the American Southwest voting rights in Mexico and is considering giving them dual citizenship based solely on their ethnic background.
What happens when a large ethnic group, who happens to be the majority in a designated area within the U.S., decides they want to go a different rout rather than staying within the U.S.? The experience in Kosovo says that the United States will have to allow NATO, the U.N. or even Russia to send troops into the contested area and let these foreign troops maintain the peace while the Hispanic majority in the southwest exerts some limited autonomy.
The U.S. is setting a precedent that does not bode well for itself in the future. U.S. involvement in Kosovo opens the door not just for U.S. military intervention in disputes in other nations, but for other nations to intervene in disputes within the United States. Obviously the United States, being the hypocritical federal giant it is, will never allow foreign troops to control its soil or freely allow a large chunk of its territory to be taken away.
This begs another question: What about the South and the emerging desire to reassert Southern independence? Will Southerners have to ask for NATO or the U.N. to send in troops to guarantee our rights, even our lives?
The United States has attempted a cultural cleansing of the South for decades. As Southerners exert themselves to regain what is rightfully theirs, will the U.S. go from cultural cleansing to true ethnic cleansing? We have no friendly border country like Kosovo has Albania. All we have is the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. Are Southerners more like the Kosovo Albanians with a hostile neighbor to the North, or like the Israelis with their backs to the sea, surrounded by those that wish them to fall into the ocean and disappear? When push comes to shove, what will the U.S. do to "keep the peace within the community of nations?"
Jeff Adams
June 15, 1999