Serbia Is at Crossroads, while Kosovo is Unstable

Published: April 30, 2012 18:38, Adelina Marini, Sofia

In the Western Balkans there is a feeling of new hope but there also is a feeling that only a spark would be enough to inflame the old hostilities again. The EU is too consumed by its own problems, popular discontent is rising, the nationalists score success after success. USA is far away and it has already changed its foreign policy focus - it is now watching the Pacific region and China in particular. Russia is also busy with the developments in the Middle East, Iran and North Korea. And the Western Balkans' neighbouring countries continue to be too insecure what they want from life. Such is the situation on the Balkan peninsula a few days before extremely important and even crucial elections in Serbia on May 6th - the day when there will be not less important and crucial elections in Greece and France. Crucial, because on the outcome of the elections will depend the future of relations between Serbia and Kosovo. This was made clear by two politicians - a Serb and a Kosovar. The former is a former official and is pro-European and the latter - incumbent and sober realist.

 

CONTINUED……………. http://www.euinside.eu/en/faces/serbia-is-at-crossroads-and-kosovo-is-unstable

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SJ-8kOmqtoY

 

Transitional justice and the Hague Tribunal – justice impossible?

Transitional justice and the Hague Tribunal – justice impossible?

Posted on April 23rd, 2012 in the category Conflict by TransConflict Subscribe to the transconflict RSS feed

2 Comments

Prosecuting war crimes is only one of the prerequisites for transitional justice; the lack of other effective mechanisms at the national and regional level explains, in part, the shortcomings of transitional justice in the former Yugoslavia.

By Danijela Dobrota

Transitional justice is one of the terms most frequently used by politicians (particularly when elections approach), the media and relevant stakeholders in the region. It is often reiterated that the Balkans ought to make an attempt to ensure transitional justice, leading to reconciliation and a better future; with the Hague Tribunal widely perceived as the main instrument for transitional justice.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (hereinafter the ICTY or Tribunal) was established with the aim of prosecuting persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the region as of  January 1st 1991. The term 'transitional justice' is frequently mentioned and yet, interestingly enough, not really explained to the public. For Sottas, "transitional justice aims to restore victims' dignity, build confidence between previously warring groups and foster the institutional changes needed to bring about a new relationship within the population, in order to usher in the rule of law without endorsing practices that amount to total or partial impunity." (1)

There are numerous definitions which vary on different points. All of them agree, however, that the proper criminal prosecution of war crimes is only one of the prerequisites for transitional justice. Moreover, the existence of more than one effective transitional justice mechanism on the national level is crucial. And this is exactly where the problem with the ICTY and Balkans lies.

From the very definitions and examples, it becomes clear that the ICTY is just one of the elements of transitional policy; one that is far from sufficient to ensure transitional justice. Though there have been attempts to establish other transitional justice instruments within the region, such as Truth Commissions, these have never become fully-functional. Whilst there are many national and regional NGOs dealing with issues of reconciliation, confronting the past and war crimes trials, most are perceived as highly-partial; hence their legitimacy and ability to make a real difference remains questionable.

Being the only more or less efficient transitional justice instrument, one can easily conclude that the Tribunal took on more than it could contend with and that, from one point of view,  was doomed to fail with respect to its overly ambitious goals. For instance, "Professor Bassiouni notes that one of the primary purposes of an accountability regime like the ICTY is to 'establish a record of truth. The ICTY sought to emulate the Nuremberg experience in creating a lasting and truthful historical record of the atrocities and not follow the footsteps of countless 'forgotten atrocities'." (2)

Leaving aside the fact that there was little to emulate from the Nuremberg Trials, one can easily argue, especially taking into account the complexity of Balkans conflicts, that there is not one single truth, but a multitude of competing versions. To believe that a court – which should be a strictly legal organ – can determine the truth is, therefore, highly ambitious. The nature of a very complicated international criminal trial very often limits the discovery of truth. This is especially true with respect to the ICTY, which represents a highly compelling experiment and mixture of common and civil law systems. More importantly, newly-appointed judges may not be willing to hand down decisions that are too politically controversial. (3)

In this regard, the Tribunal has been more successful in determining the truth regarding crimes committed by one of the three conflicting parties, whilst the crimes committed by other conflicting parties remain rather underexplored. One can wonder, therefore, if the Hague Tribunal – like the Nuremberg Tribunal sixty years ago – also applies victors' justice. Nonetheless, as my criminal law professor once emphasized, it is not possible for any criminal system – let alone a young and fragile international court, such as the ICTY – to prosecute all perpetrators.

More importantly, one needs to look at the bigger picture and imagine what the situation would be like if there was no Hague Tribunal; particularly given that national judiciaries were not – and still are not – fully able to deal with war crimes trials. Whilst the Tribunal has plenty of flaws, it gently pushed the region to talk about what happened during the nineties, meaning that the region cannot simply turn a blind eye as happened after World War Two. After all, it all comes down to a basic question – is it better to have some justice or no justice at all?

The problem is that there are not enough effective transitional justice mechanisms, meaning that that region continues to rely upon external factors to help solve its lingering problems, particularly where reconciliation is concerned. In order to successfully confront the troublesome legacy of the nineties – and in order not to keep repeating the mistakes of the past – internally-driven initiatives on the national and regional levels are essential.

Finally, and as Harvard professor, Michael Ignatieff, stated, 'what seems apparent in the former Yugoslavia is that the past continues to torment because it is not the past. These places are…living in a time in which the past and present are continuous, agglutinated mass of fantasies, distortions, myths, and lies. Reporters in the Balkans wars often observed that when they were told stories about atrocities they were occasionally uncertain whether these stories had occurred yesterday or in 1941, or 1841, or 1441.'

Danijela Dobrota is a lawyer from Belgrade.

To learn more about the Balkans, please refer to TransConflict's reading list series by clicking here.

To keep up-to-date with the work of TransConflict, please click here. If you are interested in supporting TransConflict, please click here.

Bibliography

1. E. Sottas, 'Transitional Justice and Sanctions', International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 90, Number 870, June 2008, Page 371

2. A.A. Schvey, 'Striving for Accountability in the Former Yugoslavia', 'Accountability for Atrocities: National and International Responses', Edited by J. E. Stromseth, page 56

3. J. Sarkin, 'Comparing and Contrasting the Approach to Transitional Justice in South Africa and Rwanda: Choosing Between Truth, Reconciliation and Justice', Page 330

http://www.transconflict.com/2012/04/transitional-justice-and-the-hague-tribunal-justice-impossible-234/

UN envoy recalls time when being anti-Serb was "preferable"

UN envoy recalls time when being anti-Serb was "preferable"

Source: Tanjug

PRAGUE -- Bosnian war-era UN envoy Thorvald Stoltenberg says diplomats were better off being against Serbs - in order to avoid criticism and ensure acceptance.

 

Thorvald Stoltenberg (Harry Wad, file)

The former Norwegian foreign minister told RFE in an interview 20 years after the start of the 1992-95 war in Bosnia that he "knew from the first day of the war" that in order to be completely accepted and avoid criticism, "one had to be against Serbs, support Bosniaks (Muslims), and look the other way when it comes to Croats".

Those diplomats, "such as himself", who chose to support a side "based on concrete developments in the field", faced fierce criticism, he added.

Stoltenberg said he was deemed to be "pro-Serb" because of his desire to remain unbiased, and added that he was also forced to give up on speaking the Serbian language - which he had learned during his previous diplomatic post in Belgrade - and switch to English. This came because he was criticized that "when he spoke Serbo-Croatian, he spoke the Serbian variant too much, and the Croatian too little".

"Specifically, my accent was too Serbian. For this reason I started speaking English, so my knowledge of Serbo-Croatian didn't help much in the negotiations," the Norwegian diplomat recalled, and stressed that he never wished - then or now - to be a judge, but worked to contribute to ending the war, in his role of a UN envoy.

According to Stoltenberg, a failed peace plan hammered out in 1993 was more favorable for Bosniaks than the one accepted in Dayton two years later - during which time thousands of people died and tens of thousands more were displaced. However, he revealed, the United States had suggested to the Bosniak side to reject the 1993 plan:

"The reason given was that the territory that would belong to Bosniaks was too small. The agreement envisaged that they should receive 33.3 percent of the territory. Today, after Dayton (peace accords), they essentially control between 26 and 28 percent of the country. The 1993 agreement also envisaged the creation of tree units within Bosnia-Herzegovina: Bosniak, Serb, and Croat."

He further commented on the role of the United States by saying that they "at the time made reaching an agreement more difficult". The former UN envoy said he at first hoped that Washington would take part in the negotiations sooner, but that he accepted then U.S. President Bill Clinton's argument that the war "a European issue".

"I though that to be a fair approach. However, the U.S. did not completely withdraw from the region, they stood on the sidelines, giving instructions to some of the participants, which, in fact, made reaching a deal more difficult," he was quoted as saying.

As for Bosnia's future - considering that the country is still divided along ethnic lines, and dysfunctional as a state, Stoltenberg said it was up to the people in Bosnia to make decisions about "life in peace" - rather than anyone else, the United States included.

"I am convinced that all these issues will be solved, and without war. I do not consider the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina to be the most dangerous in the Balkans," Stoltenberg revealed, and added that he was "much more concerned about the situation in Kosovo," but did not further elaborate on his stance regarding the province.

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/world-article.php?yyyy=2012&mm=04

Secessionist Threat In Macedonia: New War In Balkans?

http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English/Security/Macedonia-Mysterious-army-threatens-liberation-of-Albanian-lands_313214443368.html

ADN Kronos
April 17, 2012

Macedonia: Mysterious 'army' threatens 'liberation of Albanian lands'

====

Ethnic Albanians rebelled in 2001...gaining concessions from the government under international [NATO, U.S., EU] mediation. But tensions have been running high ever since.

====

Skopje: Tensions were high in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on Tuesday, less than a week after the murder of five Macedonians near the capital of Skopje, as a mysterious "army" threatened a "liberation of occupied Albanian lands"

The until recently unknown "The Army for Liberation of Occupied Albanian Lands", in a statement published by the Macedonian media, gave the government an ultimatum to withdraw in two weeks from what it called "occupied Albanians lands" or face reprisals.

The "army' said it has decided at a meeting of its "general staff" it would attack "Slavo-Macedonian police and military structures" if they don't withdraw from the territory inhabited by ethnic Albanians.

Ethnic Albanians, who make about 25 percent of Macedonia's two million population, are concentrated mostly in the west of the country bordering Albania, but there are numerous cities, like Skopje, with a mixed population.

Five Macedonian youths and a middle aged man were killed last week near a lake north of Skopje while fishing and local media speculated the murders were ethnically motivated.

The police still haven't discovered the perpetrators and about one thousand Macedonians protested in Skopje Monday evening, smashing windows at a government building and clashing with police.

Six people, including three policemen, were injured in the clashes and fourteen protesters were arrested as police blocked demonstrators from marching onto Albanian section of the city.

Ethnic Albanians rebelled in 2001...gaining concessions from the government under international [NATO, U.S., EU] mediation. But tensions have been running high ever since.

Macedonians are Slavs and the mysterious army has accused prime minister Nikola Gruevski of "daily violations of the rights of Albanians", of "spreading anti-Albanian ideology, staging attacks on innocent Albanians and of blocking Albanian villages".

"We have been silent long enough, the silence is now over," the statement said. It vowed to "revenge brothers" and to "respond on fire with fire, an eye for an eye and an arm for an arm".

Letter: NATO Should Just Go Away

 

http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/opinions/letters/11877919-474/letters-nato-should-just-go-away.html

Joliet Herald News
April 17, 2012

Letter: NATO should just go away

From the ashes of World War II rose the great superpower rivalry — the Cold War between the U.S. and Soviet Union. The U.S. formed NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The U.S.S.R. formed the Warsaw Pact, building up the largest concentration of military machines ever, along the Iron Curtain.

Eventually, the Soviet Union went bankrupt and the Cold War came to a screeching halt, scrapping the Warsaw Pact.

So what's happened to NATO? To my amazement, it's grown larger, with soldiers all over the world and no end in sight. The U.S., already nearly half the world's "kill power," combines with NATO nations for a whopping three-quarters of the world's military spending.

The four big NATO wars: Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan are outside the defense of the original borders in violation of the treaty, and further agreements are being broken as NATO pushes missile systems inside former Soviet territory.

These wars have been one lie after another, and the results have been considerably less than a resounding victory. As soon as we start ignoring the disaster of one war, NATO is ramping up for another.

As with the Warsaw Pact at the end of the Cold War, why in blazes didn't NATO just go away? Most press coverage of the pending NATO summit in May focuses solely on the supposed violence of protesters — as if we now need NATO to keep them from overthrowing the government.

We all need to meet in Chicago on May 20 for that summit at McCormick Place to ask why NATO should even exist. We need to agitate for scrapping NATO before it bankrupts us on another cold war or, worse, another world war or little wars that add up to a really big war.

Gary Jones
Joliet

Kosovo's "Mafia State" and Camp Bondsteel: Towards a Permanent US Military Presence in Southeast Europe

 

www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=30262
Kosovo's "Mafia State" and Camp Bondsteel: Towards a Permanent US Military Presence in Southeast Europe Washington's Bizarre Kosovo Strategy could destroy NATO   By F. William Engdahl
Global Research, April 12, 2012
In one of the more bizarre foreign policy announcements of a bizarre Obama Administration, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that Washington will "help" Kosovo to join NATO as well as the European Union. She made the pledge after a recent Washington meeting with Kosovan Prime Minister Hashim Thaci in Washington where she praised the progress of the Thaci government in its progress in "European integration and economic development." 1   Her announcement no doubt caused serious gas pains among government and military officials in the various capitals of European NATO. Few people  appreciate just how mad Clinton's plan to push Kosovo into NATO and the EU is.   Basic Kosovo geopolitics   The controversial piece of real estate today called Kosovo was a part of Yugoslavia and tied to Serbia until the NATO bombing campaign in 1999 demolished what remained of Milosevic's Serbia and  opened the way for the United States, with the dubious assist of EU nations, above all Germany, to carve up the former Yugoslavia into tiny, dependent pseudo states. Kosovo became one, as did Macedonia. Slovenia and Croatia had earlier split off from Yugoslavia with a strong assist from the German Foreign Ministry.   Some brief review of the circumstances leading to the secession of Kosovo from Yugoslavia will help locate how risky a NATO membership or EU membership would be for the future of Europe. Hashim Thaci the current Kosovo Prime Minister, got his job, so to speak, through the US State Department and not via free democratic Kosovo elections. Kosovo is not recognized as a legitimate state by either Russia or Serbia or over one hundred other nations. However, it was immediately recognized when it declared independence in 2008 by the Bush Administration and by Berlin.   Membership into the EU for Kosovo would be welcoming another failed state, something which may not bother US Secretary Clinton, but which the EU at this juncture definitely can do without. Best estimates place unemployment in the country at as much as 60%. That is not just Third World level. The economy was always the poorest in Yugoslavia and today it is worse. Yet the real issue in terms of the future of EU peace and security is the nature of the Kosovo state that has been created by Washington since the late 1990's.   Mafia State and Camp Bondsteel   Kosovo is a tiny parcel of land in one of the most strategic locations in all Europe from a geopolitical standpoint of the US military objective of controlling oil flows and political developments from the oil-rich Middle East to Russia and Western Europe. The current US-led recognition of the self-declared Republic of Kosovo is a continuation of US policy for the Balkans since the illegal 1999 US-led NATO bombing of Serbia—a NATO "out-of-area" deployment never approved by the UN Security Council, allegedly on the premise that Milosevic's army was on the verge of carrying out a genocidal massacre of Kosovo Albanians.   Some months before the US-led bombing of Serbian targets, one of the heaviest bombings since World War II, a senior US intelligence official in private conversation told Croatian senior army officers in Zagreb about Washington's strategy for former Yugoslavia. According to these reports, communicated privately to this author, the Pentagon goal already in late 1998 was to take control of Kosovo in order to secure a military base to control the entire southeast European region down to the Middle East oil lands.   Since June 1999 when the NATO Kosovo Force (KFOR) occupied Kosovo, then an integral part of then-Yugoslavia, Kosovo was technically under a United Nations mandate, UN Security Council Resolution 1244. Russia and China also agreed to that mandate, which specifies the role of KFOR to ensure an end to inter-ethnic fighting and atrocities between the Serb minority population, others and the Kosovo Albanian Islamic majority. Under 1244 Kosovo would remain part of Serbia pending a peaceful resolution of its status. That UN Resolution was blatantly ignored by the US, German and other EU parties in 2008.   Germany's and Washington's prompt recognition of Kosovo's independence in February 2008, significantly, came days after elections for President in Serbia confirmed pro-Washington Boris Tadic had won a second four year term. With Tadic's post secured, Washington could count on a compliant Serbian reaction to its support for Kosovo.      Immediately after the bombing of Serbia in 1999 the Pentagon seized a 1000 acre large parcel of land in Kosovo at Uresevic near the border to Macedonia, and awarded a contract to Halliburton when Dick Cheney was CEO there, to build one of the largest US overseas military bases in the world, Camp Bondsteel, with more than 7000 troops today.   The Pentagon has already secured seven new military bases in Bulgaria and Romania on the Black Sea in the Northern Balkans, including the Graf Ignatievo and Bezmer airbases in Bulgaria and Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base in Romania, which are used for "downrange" military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Romanian installation hosts the Pentagon's Joint Task Force–East. The US's colossal Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo and the use and upgrading of Croatian and Montenegrin Adriatic harbors for US Navy deployments complete the militarization of the Balkans.[ii]   The US strategic agenda for Kosovo is primarily military, secondarily, it seems, narcotics trafficking. Its prime focus is against Russia and for control of oil flows from the Caspian Sea to the Middle East into Western Europe. By declaring its independence, Washington gains a weak state which it can fully control. So long as it remained a part of Serbia, that NATO military control would be politically insecure. Today Kosovo is controlled as a military satrapy of NATO, whose KFOR has 16,000 troops there for a tiny population of 2 million. Its Camp Bondsteel is one of a string of so-called forward operating bases and "lily pads" as Donald Rumsfeld called them, for military action to the east and south. Now formally bringing Kosovo into the EU and to NATO will solidify that military base now that the Republic of Georgia under US protégé Saakashvili failed so miserably in 2008 to fill that NATO role.   Heroin Transport Corridor   US-NATO military control of Kosovo serves several purposes for Washington's greater geo-strategic agenda. First it enables greater US control over potential oil and gas pipeline routes into the EU from the Caspian and Middle East as well as control of the transport corridors linking the EU to the Black Sea.   It also protects the multi-billion dollar heroin trade, which, significantly, has grown to record dimensions in Afghanistan according to UN narcotics officials, since the US occupation. Kosovo and Albania are major heroin transit routes into Europe. According to a 2008 US State Department annual report on international narcotics traffic, several key drug trafficking routes pass through the Balkans. Kosovo is mentioned as a key point for the transfer of heroin from Turkey and Afghanistan to Western Europe. Those drugs flow under the watchful eye of the Thaci government.   Since its dealings with the Meo tribesmen in Laos during the Vietnam era, the CIA has protected narcotics traffic in key locations in order partly to finance its covert operations. The scale of international narcotics traffic today is such that major US banks such as Citigroup are reported to derive a significant share of their profits from laundering the proceeds.    One of the notable features of the indecent rush by Washington and other states to immediately recognize the independence of Kosovo is the fact that they well knew its government and both major political parties were in fact run by Kosovo Albanian organized crime.   Hashim Thaci, Prime Minister of Kosovo and head of the Democratic Party of Kosovo, is the former leader of the terrorist organization which the US and NATO trained and called the Kosovo Liberation Army, KLA, or in Albanian, UCK. In Kosovo crime circles he is known as Hashim "The Snake" for his personal ruthlessness against opponents.   In 1997, President Clinton's Special Balkans Envoy, Robert Gelbard described the KLA as, "without any question a terrorist group." It was far more. It was a klan-based mafia, impossible therefore to infiltrate, which controlled the underground black economy of Kosovo. Today the Democratic Party of Thaci, according to European police sources, retains its links to organized crime.   A February 22, 2005 German BND report, labeled Top Secret, which has since been leaked, stated, "Über die Key-Player (wie z. B. Haliti, Thaci, Haradinaj) bestehen engste Verflechtungen zwischen Politik, Wirtschaft und international operierenden OK-Strukturen im Kosovo. Die dahinter stehenden kriminellen Netzwerke fördern dort die politische Instabilität. Sie haben kein Interesse am Aufbau einer funktionierenden staatlichen Ordnung, durch die ihre florierenden Geschäfte beeinträchtigt werden können." (OK=Organized Kriminalität). (Translation: "Through the key players—for example Thaci, Haliti, Haradinaj—there is the closest interlink between politics, the economy and international organized crime in Kosovo. The criminal organizations in the background there foster political instability. They have no interest at all in the building of a functioning orderly state that could be detrimental to their booming business."3   The KLA began action in 1996 with the bombing of refugee camps housing Serbian refugees from the wars in Bosnia and Croatia. The KLA repeatedly called for the "liberation" of areas of Montenegro, Macedonia and parts of Northern Greece. Thaci is hardly a figure of regional stability to put it mildly.    The 44 year old Thaci was a personal protégé of Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright during the 1990s, when he was a mere 30-year old gangster. The KLA was supported from the outset by the CIA and the German BND. During the 1999 war the KLA was directly supported by NATO. At the time he was picked up by the USA in the mid-1990s, Thaci was founder of the Drenica Group, a criminal syndicate in Kosovo with ties to Albanian, Macedonian and Italian organized mafias.  A classified January 2007 report prepared for the EU Commission, labeled "VS-Nur für den Dienstgebrauch" was leaked to the media. It detailed the organized criminal activity of KLA and its successor Democratic Party under Thaci.   A December 2010 Council of Europe report, released a day after Kosovo's election commission said Mr Thaci's party won the first post-independence election, accused Western powers of complicity in ignoring the activities of the crime ring headed by Thaci: "Thaci and these other 'Drenica Group' members are consistently named as 'key players' in intelligence reports on Kosovo's mafia-like structures of organised crime," the report said. "We found that the 'Drenica Group' had as its chief – or, to use the terminology of organised crime networks, its 'boss' – the renowned political operator ... Hashim Thaci." 4   The report stated that Thaci exerted "violent control" over the heroin trade. Dick Marty, the European Union investigator, presented the report to European diplomats from all member states. The response was silence. Washington was behind Thaci.5   The same Council of Europe report on Kosovo organized crime accused Thaci's mafia organization of dealing in trade in human organs. Figures from Thaçi's inner circle were accused of taking captives across the border into Albania after the war, where a number of Serbs are said to have been murdered for their kidneys that were sold on the black market. In one case revealed in legal proceedings in a Pristina district court in 2008 organs were said to have been taken from impoverished victims at a clinic known as Medicus – linked to Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) organ harvesting in 2000.6   The question then becomes, why are Washington, NATO, the EU and inclusive and importantly, the German Government, so eager to legitimize the breakaway Kosovo? A Kosovo run internally by organized criminal networks is easy for NATO to control. It insures a weak state which is far easier to bring under NATO domination. Combined with NATO control over Afghanistan where the Kosovo heroin controlled by Prime Minister Thaci originates, the Pentagon is building a web of encirclement around Russia that is anything but peaceful.    The Thaci dependence on US and NATO good graces insures Thaci's government will do what it is asked. That, in turn, assures the US a major military gain consolidating its permanent presence in the strategically vital southeast Europe. It is a major step in consolidating NATO control of Eurasia, and gives the US a large swing its way in the European balance of power. Little wonder Moscow has not welcomed the development, nor have numerous other states. The US is literally playing with dynamite, potentially as well with nuclear war in the Balkans.      *F. William Engdahl is author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. He may be contacted via his website,www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net Notes 1 RIA Novosti, US to Help Kosovo Join EU NATO: Clinton, April 5, 2012, accessed in  http://en.rian.ru/world/20120405/172621125.html.   2 Rick Rozoff, Pentagon and NATO Complete Their Conquest of The Balkans, Global Research, November 28, 2009, accessed in  www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16311.   3 Tom Burghardt, The End of the Affair: The BND, CIA and Kosovo's Deep State, accessed in http://wikileaks.org/wiki/The_End_of_the_Affair%3F_The_BND%2C_CIA_and_Kosovo%27s_Deep_State.   4 The Telegraph, Kosovo's prime minister 'key player in mafia-like gang,' December 14, 2010, accessed in  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/kosovo/8202700/Kosovos-prime-minister-key-player-in-mafia-like-gang.html.   5 Ibid.    6  Paul Lewis, Kosovo PM is head of human organ and arms ring Council of Europe reports, The Guardian, 14 December 2010.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com  www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com © Copyright F. William Engdahl, Global Research, 2012  The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=30262
© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

 

Joseph Biden...Holy Cold War, Batman!

Anti-Empire Report, April 7, 2012

Joseph Biden

From a document found at Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan after his assassination last May: A call to kill President Obama because "Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make Biden take over the presidency. ... Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis.¹³

So ... it would appear that the man America loved to hate and fear was no more knowledgeable of how United States foreign policy works than is the average American. What difference in the War on Terror — for better or for worse — against the likes of bin Laden and his al Qaeda followers could there have been over the past three years if Joe Biden had been the president? Biden was an outspoken supporter of the war against Iraq and is every bit the pro-Israel fanatic that Obama is. In his 35 years in the US Senate Biden avidly supported every American war of aggression including the attacks on Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, Iraq in 1991, Yugoslavia in 1999 and Afghanistan in 2001. Whatever was Osama bin Laden thinking?

And whatever was Joe Biden thinking when he recently said the following after hosting China's presumptive next leader Xi Jinping in a visit to the United States?

America holds at least one key economic advantage over China. Because China's authoritarian government represses its own citizens, they don't think freely or innovate. "Why have they not become [one of] the most innovative countries in the world? Why is there a need to steal our intellectual property? Why is there a need to have a business hand over its trade secrets to have access to a market of a billion, three hundred million people? Because they're not innovating." Noting that China and similar countries produce many engineers and scientists but few innovators, Biden said, "It's impossible to think different in a country where you can't speak freely. It's impossible to think different when you have to worry what you put on the Internet will either be confiscated or you will be arrested. It's impossible to think different where orthodoxy reigns. That's why we remain the most innovative country in the world."¹⁴

Holy Cold War, Batman! This is exactly the kind of stuff we were told about the Soviet Union. For years and years. For decades. Then came Sputnik, the first artificial satellite to be put into Earth's orbit. It was launched into an Earth orbit by the Soviet Union on October 4, 1957. The unanticipated announcement of Sputnik 1's success precipitated the Sputnik crisis in the United States and ignited the Space Race. The USSR's launch of Sputnik spurred the United States to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency to regain a technological lead. Not only did the launch of Sputnik spur America to action in the space race, it also led directly to the creation of NASA. ¹⁵

Notes

1. Washington Post, April 1, 2012 ^↩
2. Huffington Post, December 19, 2011^↩
3. See the document on WikiLeaks ^↩
4. Washington Post, March 24, 2012^↩
5. Ibid., March 26, 2012 ^↩
6. Ibid., January 10, 2012 ^↩
7. Prensa Latina (Cuba), March 18, 2012 ^↩
8. See the video description on Cuba's UN Ambassador at Left Forum '12^↩
9. BBC News, "Ecuador to boycott Americas summit over Cuba exclusion", April 3, 2012^↩
10. Los Angeles Times, February 1, 2009 ^↩
11. New York Times, February 6, 2009 ^↩
12. Associated Press, November 17, 2008 ^↩
13. Washington Post, March 16, 2012 ^↩
14. Ibid., March 1, 2012 ^↩
15. Wikipedia entry for Sputnik 1 ^↩

 

http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer104.html

 

 

Biden Welcomes Human Organ Trafficker

 

Vice President Joe Biden is set to welcome to the White House a man who is currently under investigation for trafficking human organs on behalf of a "mafia-like" crime ring. ... [ And, that's how it is in (today's) USA, a country that readily bombs some, but on the other hand 'welcomes' mafioso criminals. How low will (today's) USA continue to go? ] http://times247.com/articles/biden-buddies-up-with-kosovo-organ-trafficker Biden to Give Welcome to Human Organ Trafficker   The Washington Free Beacon by: Adam Kredo 2, 2012 Vice President Joe Biden is set to welcome to the White House a man who is currently under investigation for trafficking human organs on behalf of a "mafia-like" crime ring. Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci is scheduled to meet with Biden this Thursday at the White House, according to the vice president's public schedule. Thaci is accused by the Council of Europe of being one of the central players in a crime syndicate that smuggled guns, drugs, and human organs in run-up to the 1998 Kosovo war. Read the original article at The Washington Free Beacon Biden's Buddy: Organ Trafficker Biden to welcome accused trafficker of human organs to White House   AP Images BY: Adam Kredo - April 2, 2012 2:07 pm Vice President Joe Biden is set to welcome to the White House a man who is currently under investigation for trafficking human organs on behalf of a "mafia-like" crime ring. Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci is schedule to meet with Biden this Thursday at the White House, according to the vice president's public schedule. Thaci is accused by the Council of Europe of being one of the central players in a crime syndicate that smuggled guns, drugs, and human organs in run-up to the 1998 Kosovo war. The Guardian newspaper outlined the case against Thaci in a 2010 article: Hashim Thaçi is identified as the boss of a network that began operating criminal rackets in the runup to the 1998-99 Kosovo war, and has held powerful sway over the country's government since. The report of the two-year inquiry, which cites FBI and other intelligence sources, has been obtained by the Guardian. It names Thaçi as having over the last decade exerted "violent control" over the heroin trade. Figures from Thaçi's inner circle are also accused of taking captives across the border into Albania after the war, where a number of Serbs are said to have been murdered for their kidneys, which were sold on the black market. "This is striking—even for Joe Biden," said one GOP operative. "Talk about being out of touch. And can you imagine if the president does a drop-in on the meeting?" The European Court of Human Rights named Thaci as the head of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a "mafia-like" militant groups that is said to have trafficked in human organs and committed routine assassinations and beatings. Biden—who has not shied away from public meetings with Thaci—met with the leader in 2010 "as part of the Administration's frequent consultations with our European partners on our shared agenda," according to a White House press release. This entry was posted in Obama Administration and tagged Hashim Thaci, Joe Biden, Kosovo, Organs. Bookmark the permalink.

 

Benjamin Schett: From Bosnia to Syria - Is History Repeating Itself?

 

From Bosnia to Syria: Is History Repeating Itself?   By Benjamin Schett
Global Research, March 28, 2012
URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30001
Anyone closely following the ongoing crisis in Syria will notice that the desire for reforms is coming from a large part of the Syrian population which has no ties to the armed insurgency supported by foreign powers. These groups, many of them Wahhabi or Salafi terrorists, constitute a serious threat to the unity of Sunni, Shia, Alawite, Christian and Druze living together in a sovereign secular state. In fact, reports suggest that in places where the armed insurgents have managed to gain control, the actions being carried are tantamount to  "ethnic cleansing". However, as long as those allegedly responsible are acting in a way which serves US-NATO interests, their various undertakings go unreported and media attention is strategically diverted. (See: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29842) In reality, many Syrians who are demanding reforms are not opposed to President Al Assad, and in fact believe in his commitment to implement change. Such reforms, however, require time to be carried out in the face of certain obstacles. Indeed, after decades of Baath rule, certain factions within the current regime have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo rather than having their privileges threatened by major changes brought about through reforms. Moreover, there is also a peaceful opposition within the country that stands for change through dialogue with the government, knowing that sudden provocations could plunge the country into chaos. In an interview with "Syria Comment" from October 2011, writer Louay Hussein, an outspoken and longstanding opponent of the Syrian government, warned of further escalation: "I believe there are two reasons why demonstrations will significantly diminish; first, the violent oppression by the authorities recently and second, the increase in the number of armed operations by groups opposed to the authorities such as 'The Free Syrian Army'. This is why I expect more bloodshed in Syria. Moreover, I worry that if we fail to reach a homegrown settlement of the conflict very quickly, we will clearly witness different aspects of a civil war in the near future."   (See: http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/?p=12507&cp=all) The mainstream media has dismissed this assessment and ignored these basic facts. Media attention has focussed on the exiled "opposition" group, the "Syrian National Council" (which is already breaking apart thanks to the domineering role of the Muslim Brotherhood) and the "Free Syrian Army", supported covertly by the West. In addition, one of Western media's favourite sources of information is the small, London-based organization called the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, whose claims, though unverified, have nevertheless been broadly quoted. All this bears a striking resemblance to events leading up to last year's NATO attacks on Libya, in which tens of thousands of Libyan civilians were killed. But there are two key differences: 1. This time Russia and China have been playing a more decisive role. They have expressed their opposition to actions which might lead to aggression against Syria.  2. The so-called Libyan "rebels" had some kind of a stronghold in the city of Benghazi in the East of the country, from where NATO could bomb their way into Tripoli. Comparable conditions do not prevail in Syria. Might this be a reason for the Syrian insurgents to increase violence by carrying out bomb attacks and provoking shootings, in order to cause severe reactions from government troops and destabilize the country, and thereby reinforce sectarian conflicts? Namely, until the situation escalates to the point that Western powers feel they can "justify" the need for intervention?   The efforts for a peaceful solution made by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan would only stand a chance if Western countries and their Saudi and Qatari allies stopped their unilateral support for anti-Assad armed insurgency. The Lessons of History: Yugoslavia Historically, this situation is not unique and prompts us to consider how similar events have played out in the past, particularly during the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s which set a historical precedent for armed Western intervention. These tragic conflicts, especially in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, served as a playground for exercising the destabilization of an entire region, manipulating public opinion in order to start a war of aggression, and carrying out regime change and economic (and partly territorial) colonization. (See: Michael Parenti's incisive speech on the destruction of Yugoslavia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEzOgpMWnVs) Given the extent to which insurgents in Syria can count on full support from the outside, some parallels to the outbreak of the Bosnian civil war (1992 – 1995) are worth emphasizing. Consider the following: during the war, the leader of the Bosnian Muslims, Alija Izetbegovic, supported covertly by the West, set as a priority the creation of an independent Bosnian state under Muslim rule. However, he had to deal with the problem that his vision did not represent the will of Bosnia's majority population: according to a 1991 census, 44% of the population considered themselves Muslim/Bosniak, 32.5% Serb and 17% Croat.   While quite accurately all of Bosnia's Serb population (one of the three constitutional nations within the republic) did not wish to leave the Yugoslav federation, the Croat side did support the holding of a referendum on an independent Bosnia. However, anyone familiar with the political aspirations of Croatia's then president Franjo Tudjman and his Bosnian Croat allies will understand that the Croatian side certainly did not favour Bosnia's independence because they wanted to live in such a state; rather, breaking Bosnia apart from Yugoslavia was supposed to be the first step in amalgamating the Bosnian territories having a Croatian majority population within the Croatian "motherland".   Facing these facts and knowing that civil war had already broken out in Croatia in 1991, the only reasonable way to prevent a catastrophe in Bosnia would have been through sincere negotiations on all sides. This, in fact, was the goal of the most popular Bosnian Muslim politician at the time, Fikret Abdic, who considered himself pro-Yugoslav and received the most votes in Bosnia's 1990 elections. Nevertheless, Izetbegovic – the candidate favoured and supported by U.S. officials – seized the Bosnian presidency instead. (Incidentally, the fact that Izetbegovic had been in prison for having disturbed the order of the Yugoslav state by stating there could be "no peace or coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic social and political institutions" in a text called the "Islamic Declaration" did not seem to pose a problem to Washington.)   In March 1992, a peaceful solution for Bosnia finally seemed to be within reach. All three Bosnian leaders (Alija Izetbegovic/Muslim, Radovan Karadzic/Serb and Mate Boban/Croat) signed the so-called Lisbon Agreement, which proposed ethnic power-sharing on all administrative levels and the delegation of central government to local ethnic communities. However Izetbegovic withdrew his signature only ten days later, after having met with the U.S. ambassador to Yugoslavia, Warren Zimmermann. It has been widely confirmed that the U.S. was pushing for an immediate recognition of Bosnia at that time. (See short clip from "Yugoslavia – An Avoidable War": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Iobb8xMFRc)   A few weeks later, war broke out, and the West was one step closer to achieving its goal of nationwide destabilization. Could the same fate be in store for Syria given the parallel involvement of the West in Syria?   In Syria as in Bosnia, efforts to find a compromise would mean putting pressure on both sides to reach an agreement. But if one side already has full support from the West, what incentive is there in pursuing a compromise with the government? In Syria, the insurgents had foreign support from the outset, automatically sabotaging the possibility of real negotiations.  Further exacerbating the situation, the mainstream media has been aggressively building the case for intervention in Syria. Several statements made by Syrian government opponents and some Western media blame the Syrian government of being responsible for the bloody terrorist bomb attacks in Damascus and Aleppo that took place on the weekend of March 17 and 18. But they were stuck for an answer regarding why it would be in President Al Assad's interest to cause an escalation in the two largest cities of the country where he is still enjoying the support of a majority of the population.   If we go back to the Bosnian example, we can see who has historically taken advantage of such events. On May 27, 1992, a massacre took place in the Bosnian capital Sarajevo, killing many innocent people waiting in line to get some bread. The terrible event was immediately and repeatedly broadcast across the world. Just four days later, on May 31, harsh UN sanctions were imposed on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. For Western decision-makers, it was clear that the Serbs were responsible for the crime. Many experts disagreed with the finger-pointing, and reference should be made particularly to Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, then Commander of the Bosnia UN troops:   "The streets had been blocked off just before the incident. Once the crowd was let in and lined up, the media appeared but kept their distance. The attack took place, and the media were immediately on the scene. The majority of the people killed are alleged to be 'tame Serbs'." (http://www.srpska-mreza.com/Bosnia/Sarajevo/breadline.html)   Similar events took place in 1994 and 1995 (See for example "Yugoslavia – An Avoidable War", in its entirety: http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=5860186121153047571#)   This finally caused the NATO bombing campaign against Bosnian Serbs, carried out between August 30 and September 20, 1995, as justified by Western calls for "humanitarian intervention". Following from the Damascus and Aleppo attacks, could a similar "justification" be around the corner for Syria? A great irony, of course is the hypocritical stance taken by the U.S. government, which calls for peace on the one hand and is a leading global supplier of weapons on the other. While the Obama administration might have called on the Syrian rebels to lay down their arms, there is a vast difference between official statements and what is being carried out on the ground. Indeed, there is currently a multi-billion dollar deal underway between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia (a leading arms supplier for the Syrian rebels) for the sale of US advanced weapons. (See: http://rt.com/news/saudi-arabia-protests-piety-514/) This double standard was certainly applied in Bosnia, where the CIA was secretly smuggling weapons into the area despite an arms embargo officially being in place. (See: "Wie der Dschihad nach Europa kam: Gotteskrieger und Geheimdienste auf dem Balkan" ["How Jihad Came to Europe: Holy Warriors and Secret Services in the Balkans"] by Jürgen Elsässer, 2008) It is worth noting that in the cases of both Syria and Bosnia (among other examples), Al Qaeda-affiliated mercenaries from several Arab countries were involved. In Syria, they integrated the "opposition", heralded by the Western mainstream media as the victims of the government crackdown. This should come as no surprise. Those who operate under the "Al Qaeda" label are often serving the interests of Washington. In Bosnia, where Mujahideen fighters trained Bosnian soldiers and fought against Serbs and Croats, the Al Qaeda leadership had to approve military actions by the Bosnian Muslim Army.  (See: Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, http://www.bim.ba/en/79/10/4113)   One of the Bosnian Muslims who refused to fight against the Serbs, the previously mentioned Fikret Abdic, created his own safe haven by making a peace agreement with the Serbian side and by forming the "Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia", located in the area of Velika Kladusa. British diplomat David Owen described him as "forthright, confident and different from the Sarajevan Muslims. He was in favour of negotiating and compromising with Croats and Serbs to achieve a settlement, and scathing about those Muslims who wanted to block any such settlement." (David Owen, "Balkan Odyssey", 1995, S. 82)   In August 1995, under a joint attack carried out by Izetbegovic's troops and the Croatian army (both Western allies), Abdic's peaceful, autonomous province collapsed.   Often in the media, conflicts are portrayed with reference to "good guys versus bad guys", peacekeepers versus terrorists, us versus them. As this example from Bosnia shows, the full story cannot be accurately conveyed using these stylized concepts; not all Muslims were automatically against the Serbs, and certainly not all were interested in having Izetbegovic as president. And in Syria, it is clear that not all of those who are demanding democracy are enemies of the Al Assad government. However, delving into the "grey area" of the good/evil dichotomy puts into question the clear-cut "justification" for intervention, and casting such doubts is certainly not in the interest of the mainstream media and the Western interests they serve.   In order to avoid misunderstanding, the people on all sides suffered terribly in the Bosnian civil war. But as in Syria, it is important to establish who has an interest in triggering increased social chaos and violence. Throughout the entire Yugoslav civil war, separatist forces  served the Western agenda which consisted in destabilizing and destroying an entire country. Yugoslavia  had free education, an equitable distribution of income. It  preserved its independence by being a key player within the Non-aligned Movement. In turn, this historical stance by Yugoslavia served as an example for other countries of the Non-aligned Movement which refused to accept the neoliberal diktats of the IMF.  In the context of the Balkans, the Serbian people bore the brunt of the blame from the West, and were vilified largely because they firmly opposed the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Serbia was the largest Yugoslav nation and suffered heavily during World War Two, when the Croatian fascist Ustasa movement systematically slaughtered Croatia's and Bosnia's Serb population. It was largely this trauma that made the idea of living in the independent states of Croatia and Bosnia, both led by extremists, unbearable for most Serbs. A realistic image of Serbia's role in the Yugoslav wars was given by then Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, in an interview made during the Kosovo war:   "We are not angels. Nor are we the devils you have made us out to be. Our regular forces are highly disciplined. The paramilitary irregular forces are a different story. Bad things happened, as they did with both sides during the Vietnam War, or any war for that matter." (See: http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/MiloInt.html)   All facts considered, the same could easily be said of the Syrian army and other groups fighting on Al Assad's side. But maintaining an ambivalent position on current events in Syria, as is the trend among many mainstream liberal-leftist circles, means giving in to the neo-colonial and imperialist agenda of Western powers and their pseudo-humanitarian justification. And this despite the fact that they have actively stirred up ethnic and/or religious hatred and ignored reasonable voices, in Yugoslavia as well as in Syria, in order to follow the old Latin concept of "divide et impera".    Author's Note: According to the latest reports, Syria's government has accepted Kofi Annan's 6-point peace plan. On April 1, the "Friends of Syria" will be meeting in Istanbul, bringing together mostly Arab and Western countries favouring stronger action against President Bashar al-Assad's government. Time will tell how these developments will impact the Syrian crisis and the potential effectiveness of the peace plan, knowing that so many outside players are acting in the background. Benjamin Schett is an independent Swiss-based researcher and student of East European History at the University of Vienna. He can be reached at schettb@gmail.com
To make sure you don't miss our emails add newsletter@globalresearch.ca to your address book