December 27, 2017

Dacic: US, Britain, and France are not Serbia’s friends

inserbia.info

Dacic: US, Britain, and France are not Serbia's friends

InSerbia with agencies

5-6 minutes


Only a blind person could believe that problems in the Balkans are over, Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic said late on Tuesday.

The regional conflict will last until the cause of those problems have been found – if you sweep all the problems under the carpet, you will trip over that carpet, Dacic told a talk show broadcast on TV Happy.

"Have the problems that had led to the wars in the Balkans been removed – no. This is merely an interlude between some new conflicts, not because of the Serbs, but because of the unsolved issues in the Balkans. If great powers don't understand that, they're creating a problem, we will be going round in circles," he stressed.

Speaking about the pressure coming from great powers that have recognized Kosovo, the minister directly mentioned the United States, Britain, and France.

"I cannot say that these are our friends – I beg President Vucic's pardon, they are not working in favor of our interests, they are working against them. I can respect them as partners, but they're far from being our friends," he stressed, and added:

"These are big powers, they think that just because somebody comes from the (US) State Department they can dictate conditions here. America will analyze our military cooperation with Russia – if they have something to say to us, let Donald Trump or Rex Tillerson come here and say it, I'm not listening to what (US State Department official) Bryan Hoyt Yee is telling me this, he can go to my assistant, my deputy…"

On the other hand, Dacic added, "the Russians are our friends, our brothers."

"Ten years ago many countries recognized Kosovo under pressure. Ten years have gone by and Kosovo has not rounded off its independence and never will as long as Serbia is what it is, has these authorities, as long as it will not make compromises at the expense of its own state. Russia will not allow Kosovo to join the UN because it has veto powers," Dacic remarked.

He spoke about lobbying to say that when he recently visited Washington, a man called Barjaktari who originally came from Kosovo sat at the table next to Trump's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster.

"The only solution for us is to talk to Trump and the new administration, because the State Department will never move on," Dacic stressed.

The minister urged "all our people, wherever they are in the world, to make use of all their connections, and to contact him" in order to "together try to talk to some states."

He pointed out that Serbia on several occasions scored own goals after October 5, 2000, citing as an example Goran Svilanovic, Vojislav Kostunica and others accepting that "we should appear in the UN as a new member."

"The MFA at the time warned both Svilanovic and Kostunica that this was not good for our interests – how can we, a founder of the UN, appear as a new member?," Dacic said.

He said there had been various negotiations with the Albanian side, "and at the time we could have talked about many variants of how to resolve the Kosovo issue."

"The situation is such that what could have been discussed in 2005 or 2006, can hardly be discussed today. At that time, we had the principle of rejecting everything that is proposed as a compromise – that's not contentious, but it is contentious that we did not consider the consequences, and the consequence of that is the proclamation of unilateral independence in 2008 and that by 2012, when a new government was formed with the SNS, more than 80 countries had recognized Kosovo's independence," Dacic said.

"We already lost that race at the start – Europe in the highest percentage recognized Kosovo, and we left the countries of Africa and Asia to others," Dacic said. "I think that someone in Serbia should sit down and draft a new memorandum or a new nachertaniye."

Speaking about relations in the region, Dacic pointed out that the Serbs in Slovenia do not have the status of a national minority, that in Croatia they were once a constituent people, and that Croats are now a problem for Bosnia-Herzegovina.

He also said that in Montenegro, a third of the population declares themselves as Serbs, but, he added, "I am looking to see one Serb hold an office in Montenegro – what kind of a thing is that?"

"I told Milo Djukanovic that it would be too much to ask for reciprocity , considering how many Montenegrins hold offices in Serbia – they would not have no spots left for Montenegrins," Dacic said.

In Macedonia, he added, the government believes that Serbia is working against that country – "we challenged that many times."

"They warn us from the EU about using the term the Republic of Macedonia, we have problems in the negotiations with the EU… they say it must be FYROM (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). We are getting our knuckles rapped for recognizing Macedonia under its constitutional name. The Greeks are angry, the EU is angry, while Macedonia is voting in favor of Kosovo in UNSCO. Do you want us to be friends? We will, but it has to be mutual," said Dacic.

 

December 21, 2017

As Serbian president goes to Russia, US plots to ‘finish the job’

rt.com

As Serbian president goes to Russia, US plots to 'finish the job' — RT Op-Edge

6-8 minutes


As the president of Serbia negotiates energy and trade deals in Moscow, the US foreign policy establishment plots to "finish the job" in the Balkans, and already dominates the country's media space.

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic sought to bolster his patriotic bona fides by meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday. They reportedly negotiated Serbia's access to Eurasian Union markets and Russian oil and gas. Vucic hinted at buying Russian transport helicopters but dodged questions about the rumored deal for tanks and armored vehicles, or the S-300 air defense systems.

Officially, Serbia maintains military neutrality and refuses to join the US-EU trade sanctions against Russia. On the other hand, Belgrade signed the Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) with NATO in 2015 and remains committed to entering the EU at some point. These policies had prompted the US envoy to the region, Hoyt B. Yee, to threaten Belgrade in October over "sitting on two chairs."

Hoyt has since become the US ambassador in Macedonia, Serbia's southern neighbor whose government is effectively a client of Washington. Bosnia-Herzegovina to the west is a de facto EU protectorate, with a NATO membership plan, while the renegade province of Kosovo ‒ occupied by NATO in 1999 and declared independent in 2008 ‒ hosts the largest US military base in the region. All the other neighbors are already members of the alliance that waged war on Serbia in 1999.

Vucic rose to power in 2012 as a client of the West. Formerly a senior member of the Serbian Radical Party, which had languished in the political wilderness since the October 2000 color revolution, he rebranded himself as a "progressive" and ousted the Democrats from the US-sponsored ruling coalition. The PR consultancy that made this possible was Bell Pottinger, a UK-based outfit that once made fake terrorist videos for the Pentagon and recently shut down after a South Africa-related scandal.

Temporarily stunned by the election of Donald Trump, whose "America First" platform it had denounced as heretical, the US foreign policy establishment is beginning to stir anew. On November 28, the Atlantic Council presented a report advocating renewed US meddling in the region, arguing that it "offers the best near-term prospect to demonstrate the tangible results of a continued close US-EU relationship."

"Belgrade can and should be a close partner and ally in the region, but it can only become one if it begins to meaningfully distance itself from Russia. This is not a trivial pivot for Serbian leadership, but neither should it be something on which the United States or the EU should compromise," the report's authors wrote.

On December 11, the Council on Foreign Relations listed the Balkans as a potential area of conflict for the first time in years, in the 2018 survey published by the think tank's Center for Preventive Action.

Several news outlets in Serbia have reported that Washington is planning to establish a "media center for battling Russian disinformation" in Serbia, run by NATO and funded through the Atlantic Council, the German Marshall Fund, the National Endowment for Democracy and US European Command (EUCOM).

Yet there is no real need for such an outfit since the US and NATO have exercised dominance over Serbia's media space since 2000, whether through local proxies or outright. The perfect example is N1, a CNN affiliate established in 2014 to cover Serbia and neighboring Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

N1 is owned by the KKR Global Institute, a branch of a major US investment firm chaired by none other than the former CIA chief and retired US General David Petraeus ‒ most recently seen getting a slap on the wrist for giving classified documents to his biographer and paramour.

In March this year, N1 was placed at the "top of the dial" by the cable operator SBB. Though that may seem innocuous to US cable customers, it was jarring for Europeans used to having their public broadcaster in that spot. To the surprise of precisely no one, SBB ‒ one of the largest cable operators in the lands that were once Yugoslavia ‒ is also owned by KKR Global. Other parts of KKR's media empire include the sports and movie channels Sport Klub and Cinemania, and the music production house Grand.

Earlier this month, N1 drew scrutiny when it "ambushed" an immigrant charity worker who had been providing aid to the besieged Serbs in Kosovo for years. The French-born Arnaud Guillon said the network spent just three minutes talking about his humanitarian work, and the rest of the time attacking him as a nationalist and "identitarian" based on his political views as a student.

"I often had to defend myself in France from questions about the aid we give to the Serbs in Kosovo. I honestly didn't expect that I would have to do so in Belgrade," he said after the interview.

Though the six MiG-29 fighters sent by Russia in October can help replace the losses from the 1999 NATO attack, there is nothing they can do against this sort of media war inside Serbia itself.

While Moscow treats President Vucic as a credible partner, he reportedly said he was "satisfied" with the Atlantic Council's proposals and wished they would become official US policy. Having previously conducted an "internal dialogue" with himself on the topic of surrendering the Serbian claim to Kosovo ‒ in the pages of Western-owned newspapers, no less ‒ he now says he'd be happy to hand the issue over to Russia for mediation.

Embittered Serbians might say that Vucic is setting up Moscow to take the fall on Kosovo so he can finally do what he wants and cave into Washington's demands. Given Serbia's ongoing political and media vassalage to the West, it's difficult to argue they'd be wrong.

Nebojsa Malic for RT

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

 

December 16, 2017

Germany and Kosovo Precedent

Zivadin Jovanovic[1]

                     GERMANY AND KOSOVO PRECEDENT

            Dietmar Hartwig's[2] warning letters to Angela Merkel

 

It seems that the recent developments in Europe, and in particular the rising secessionism (Catalonia, Flandreau, Corsica, Veneto, Scotland), rings a bell, or rather is reminiscent of certain events. The ensuing ones are shedding more light on the roles of the EU (EEC), the USA, Great Britain and Germany. One wonders to what extent those democracies have been guided by the principles of the international law and democracy in the Kosovo crisis. How much did they appreciate the reports of their (expensive) missions in Kosovo and Metohija (КDОМ, КVМ, ЕCMM) depicting the realities on the ground? To what extent have they been defending the right to self-determination and human rights and to what extent using separatism for expansion of their geopolitical interests?

As strategies are slow to evolve, recollections of the past may help better understanding of the interests and roles of the USA, Germany, NATO, EU and other geopolitical players in the ongoing Kosovo negotiations in Brussels paired with Serbia's accession to the EU.

Over a longer period of time, the leading members of both, NATO and the EU, have been supporting the terrorist KLA[3] by political, financial and logistic means. This was particularly visible in 1998. In June that year USA abandoned previous position that KLA was terrorist organization and proclaimed it as liberation force[4]. OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM) with personnel of about 1.300[5], from October 1998 to March 1999 was just an imposed and imported umbrella for preparation of the ensuing military aggression. This period was particularly exploited for recuperation and equipping KLA with modern NATO equipment. Subsequently, NATO treated KLA as its ground force in launching military aggression against Serbia (FRY), country which in no way was threatening any other country or organization.

The aggression in clear breach of the UN Charter, without even trying to get consent of the UN Security Council, was a turning point in the world relations towards globalization of the interventionism without authorization of UN SC. To sum it up, the countries and integrations whose highest representatives swear that they have always been upholding the principles and rule-based policies, back in 1999 had provoked the strongest blow to the global legal order and to the United Nations since the end of World War II. The policies pursued by governments of those countries and by integrations thereof during the Yugoslav and the Kosovo crises have provoked the spread of secession movements, expansion of Islamic extremism and terrorism. Double standards policy toward separatism and terrorism backfire today in Europe and beyond.

By violating the basic principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, in the UN Charter and in international conventions and treaties, NATO and EU member countries have induced a lasting instability in the Balkans as the most vulnerable part of Europe. Siding with the extremist, terrorist and criminals of KLA, in one hand, and condemning, satanizing and even bombing Serbia, in other hand,  had been anything but token of democratic, humanistic, law based, anti extremist or anti terrorist policy. Such EU and NATO key members' policy ought to be invoked today if we have a will and courage to explain at least some causes of the current spread of extremism, terrorism, organized crimes and separatism in Europe and beyond. If we are ready to face extremists and terrorist in proper way. Presently, USA, Germany and Great Britain are exerting pressure against Serbia, the one they have been demolishing, deceiving and humiliating by recognizing the forcible capture of her state territory in the form of an engineered unilateral and illegal secession of Kosovo, and requesting that Serbia erases it all from track-record and forgets it all "for the sake of her European future"! What kind of future could it possibly be built upon such foundations!?

The separatist and terrorist genie that the leading countries of NATO and the EU have unleashed from the bottle in Kosovo and Metohija back in 1998/99 for the purpose of furthering the geopolitical goals of the USA, Germany and the UK keeps spreading over Europe, while the EU and NATO believe they would be able to push it back into the bottle clearing they names and revive their dented unity by scarifying once again (interests of) Serbia! The real tragedy for Europe is the reasoning that truth is only what the EU commissioners declare to be the truth! The dominance of such reasoning is preventing the genuine understanding of historical maelstrom that has engulfed the Old Continent!

"War on the FRY was waged to rectify an erroneous decision of General Eisenhower from the Second World War. Therefore, due to strategic reasons, the U.S. soldiers have to be stationed there." This was the explanation given by American representatives at a NATO conference held in late April 2000 in Bratislava, noted by Willy Wimmer, former State Secretary in the German ministry of Defense, in his report to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder dated 2 May 2000.

The first point in this report is an explicit U.S. request that NATO members and candidate members recognize 'independent state of Kosovo' as soon as possible, whereas the tenth, last point, reads that 'the right to self-determination takes precedence over all others". Should one be surprised now by the present referendum on secession of Catalonia? Or, to save their faces, Europeans should continue to keep repeating USA false, shortsighted claim that "Kosovo is unique case"?

Wimmer's report also notes the U.S. declared position at the Bratislava Conference was that the 1999 NATO attack on Yugoslavia without UN SC authorization is "a precedent to be invoked by anyone at any time, and which is going to be invoked". This renders any allegations of a principled and rule-based policy utterly dubious: if the military aggression launched in violation of the UN Charter is declared to be a precedent then unilateral secession being direct result of such aggression can hardly be claimed "unique case"! Normally, if the logic and principles have any place in NATO&EU geo-policies!

In the eve of NATO 1999 aggression on Yugoslavia two major international missions had been actively engaged in the Province of Kosovo and Metohija. One under auspices of OSCE known as Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM), headed by American diplomat William Walker and the other under the auspices of EEC (EU) known as European Community Monitoring Mission (ECMM), headed by German diplomat and army officer Dietmar Hartwig. The author had opportunity to meet Mr. Hartwig in 2002 in Belgrade, on his request. This was about three years following the end of his EU assignment in Kosovo and Metohija. He demanded consultations on his intention to be witness in ICTY process against former President Slobodan Milosevic In the prolonged talks during his stay in Belgrade, Mr. Hartwig stated several times that during his assignment in Kosovo and Metohija before the NATO attack his KVM counterpart ambassador Walker surprised him by his harsh, highly provocative behavior and aggressive instructions to his subordinates. "You should all know that there is no such thing as high cost to deploy NATO in Kosovo. Any cost is acceptable" – was one of apparently Walker's typical instruction to his subordinates before the aggression started on March 24rth, 1999, according to Hartwig.

                              NATO aggression – illegitimate act

After Kosovo Albanian leadership declared unilateral illegal secession in 2006, Dietmar Hartwig in 2007 sent four letters to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her that Germany should not recognize such unilateral illegal act. In his letter of October 26, 2007 Hartwig says:

"Not a single report (of ЕCMM) submitted from late November 1998 up to the evacuation (of ЕCMM, KVM) just before the war broke out (March 24rth, 1999), contains any account of Serbs having committed any major or systematic crimes against Albanians, and not a single report refers to any genocide or similar crimes… Quite the contrary, my (ECMM) reports have repeatedly communicated that, considering the increasingly more frequent KLA attacks against the Serbian executive authorities, their law enforcement kept demonstrating remarkable restraint and discipline. This was a clear and persistently reiterated goal of the Serbian administration – to abide to the Milošević-Holbrooke Agreement (of October 13, 1998) to the letter so not to provide any excuse to the international community for an intervention. In the phase of taking over the Regional Office in Priština, colleagues from various other missions – KDOM, U.S., British, Russian, etc. – confirmed that there were huge 'discrepancies in perception' between what said missions (and, to a certain degree, embassies as well) have been reporting to their respective governments and what the latter thereafter chose to release to the media and the public of their respective countries. This discrepancy could, ultimately, only be understood as an input to general preparations for war against Kosovo/Yugoslavia. The fact is that, until the time of my departure from Kosovo, there has never happened anything of what have been relentlessly claimed by the media and, with no less intensity, the politics, too. Accordingly, until 20 March (1999) there was no reason for military intervention, which renders illegitimate any measures undertaken thereafter by the international community."

                                     "Kosovo place of restlessness"

"The collective behavior of the EU Member States prior to, and after the war broke out, certainly gives rise to a serious concern, because the truth was lacking, and the credibility of the international community was damaged. However, the matter of my concern is exclusively the role of the FR of Germany and its role in this war and its political objective to separate Kosovo from Serbia…"

"The daily political news reporting over the previous months (before October 2007) made it progressively more evident that Germany not only supports the American desire to see Kosovo independent, but also actively engages on its own in dividing the Serbs…You are to be considered responsible for this. The same goes for your foreign minister, in particular, who knows perfectly well what is going on in Kosovo, and is presently pursuing your political directives by tirelessly advocating Kosovo's independence and, thus, its secession from Serbia. Instruct him, rather, to promote a durable solution for the Kosovo issue which is in line with the international law… It is only if all states choose to observe the applicable rights, we can have the foundations for the common life of all nations. Should Kosovo become independent, it will be perpetuated as the place of restlessness… Contribute to achieving the solution for Kosovo on the basis of the endorsed UNSC Resolution 1244 pursuant to which Kosovo remains a province of Serbia. American wishes and active efforts to see Kosovo secede from Serbia and see Kosovo and Kosovo Albanians achieve full independence, are contrary to the international law, politically deprecated and, on top of all, irresponsibly expensive…"

                                Others to claim "Kosovo solution"

"Kosovo's secession from Serbia guided by ethnic criterion would constitute a dangerous precedent and a signal for other ethnic communities in other countries, including in EU Member States, who could rightfully request the 'Kosovo solution'" – says Dietmar Hartwig in concluding his letter to Chancellor Merkel.

Enough said about the 'humanitarian intervention' and the concerns for the protection of rights of the Albanian population as the features of the "uniqueness of the Kosovo case". American Military base "Bondsteel" in the vicinity of the town of Uroševac, surely by a pure chance, happens to be among the largest U.S. military bases outside the USA! Perhaps their anxiety over being potentially spied on from the Serbian-Russian Humanitarian Center in the City of Niš uncovers awareness that "Bondsteel"  is illegally built there?!

It was the U.S.A, the EU and NATO, not Serbia, who froze the conflict following the armed aggression of 1999. They and kept it frozen for the past 18 years by not allowing complete implementation of UN SC resolution 1244. They pressed Serbia to fulfill all its commitments insisting on the legally obliging character of the resolution while exempting them and the Albanians from any obligation therein. They realized that full implementation of UNSCR 1244 means preservation of sovereignty and integrity of Serbia, values which do not suit their geopolitical objective of expanding to the East (Russia) and South-East (Mediterranean).                                                 

At present the West, primarily Germany, insist that Serbia 'unfreezes' Kosovo "independence process". How? By compelling Serbia to sign a 'legally binding agreement' with Pristine, to recognize a illegal unilateral secession, legalize illegal 1999 aggression, permanently accept over 250.000 dislocated Serbs and other non-Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija and essentially assume responsibility for all what has happened or may happen in the future!

                                        The German case

French General Pierre Marie Galois, close assistant to the late French President General De Gaulle, is very interesting and reliable witness of the Germany's politics toward Yugoslavia, particularly toward Serbia and Serbs. In his address to the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals on occasion of the 10th anniversary of NATO aggression he recalls that "dismantling of Yugoslavia was an operation that had been planned in Germany for a long time. They were not just waiting for the death of President Tito in 1980, but were preparing succession and profiting from his departure by reorganizing this territory[6]." To explain and support this assessment, General Galois considers three key motives behind such German geopolitics:

First, "there was obvious (Germany's, aut.) desire to exert revenge on the Serbs who twice, from 1914 to 1918 and from 1939 to 1945 joined with allies against Germany"…"Second, Germans wanted to reward the Croats and the Bosnian Moslems who had joined Nazi Germany"…Third, they wanted Slovenia and Croatia in the sphere of Germany's interests (EEC) as well as access to the Mediterranean via Adriatic.

Historians will certainly judge objectively the validity of the General Galois' arguments, but it is beyond any doubt that he was exceptionally capable and highly respected military and political strategist in the post WWII France, with access to very important sources of information. Also, his assessment does not contradict other available information. Let it be noted, for instance, that in the eve of civil wars in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina at the beginning of 90-ies of the last Century thousands of tones of military hardware from former GDR was illegally exported from Germany to Croatia arming its paramilitary forces. In addition, Germany was the first country to recognize unilateral secessions of Slovenia and Croatia. It was done December 23rd, 1991 by Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher who disregarded call of UN SG Perez de Cuellar who urged Germany to wait for recognition to be part of the peace plan. The rest of the 12 EEC members followed Genscher's step.

In the period of 90-es of the last Century Germany was the source of financing separatists and terrorists in Kosovo and Metohija (KLA). So called "Kosovo government in exile" headed by Bujar Bukosi had an office and network of collecting funds in Germany and other West European countries (Belgium, Switzerland, Italy) for recruiting, training and arming the terrorists. In various occasions and on various diplomatic levels this problem was presented to German authorities in order that they stop anti Serbian (FRY) activities from their territory and comply with the diplomatic rules, national and international laws, including specific decisions of the UN Security council. Unfortunately, these interventions had no effects.

On December 9-10th, 1997, Council of the Peace Implementation in Bosnia and Herzegovina was convened in Bon (Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement). The Yugoslav Delegation, headed by Political Director of the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Dragomir Vucicevic was well prepared for participation, particularly having regard that FR of Yugoslavia was one of the guarantors of the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement. However, German Minister for Foreign Affairs Claus Kinkel, after opening the Conference, insisted that the agenda of the Conference be expanded to include consideration of the issue of Kosovo and Metohija which had no relevance to the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement. Kinkel's method of fait-a-complie, naturally, was unacceptable from the point of the framework of the Conference, practice applied at the preceding conferences and principle of transparent preparations. In addition, Serbia (FRY) had maintained position that Kosovo and Metohija is an issue of internal nature which will be resolved by political methods respecting territorial integrity and sovereignty of Serbia (FRY). Therefore Yugoslav Delegation abandoned Bon Conference.

             Unitarization of Bosnia and fragmentation of Serbia

Interestingly, Bon's final document is one of the most extensive of all Council's documents and so called "Bon's Full Powers" made the High Representative the ultimate legislative and executive authority in Bosnia and Herzegovina – above the Parliamentary Assembly, Presidency, governments. So called Bon's 1997 principles made the whole Dayton-Paris system deformed, non-functional, non-delivering, and so up today. If there is a single or key cause for Bosnia and Herzegovina being dysfunctional and unstable today, than it is Bon's "Full Powers" originating from Germany's Foreign Ministry and its geopolitics. Using and abusing Bon's "Full Powers" the High Representative had been imposing laws systematically curbing authority of the entities and transferring the power to Sarajevo thus reopening process of centralization and unitarization, destabilizing political system as laid down in Dayton. This process has been particularly directed to deprive the powers of Serbian entity Republica Srpska entrusted to it by Deyton-Paris Peace Agreement.

Aforesaid, perhaps, would not be of much use if today we wouldn't be faced with similar German geopolitics and demands. Serbia, naturally, does not recognize illegal unilateral secession of its Province. Under UNSCR 1244 and under current Constitution Kosovo and Metohija makes integral part of sovereign Serbian state territory. Nevertheless, Germany insists that Serbia signs "legally binding document on normalization and good neighborliness" with Kosovo! In fact, such "legally binding" document would equal recognition of the illegal secession. This would also mean that Serbia will not object Kosovo's membership to the UN, UNESCO, OSCE, CE and other international organizations. Finally, by signing such a document, Serbia would "a posteriori" grant amnesty to NATO for its 1999 military aggression, i.e. for all human victims, enormous destruction and war damages. Interestingly, German diplomats have already prepared the draft of such an agreement which most likely will be presented in the way "take it or leave". Perhaps, the authors of the draft agreement are the same who in 1997 drafted Bon's "full powers" for High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina? The same ones who initiated Kosovo and Metohija to be part of Agenda of the Bon's Peace Implementation Council's meeting convened to consider implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina, in December 1997?

                                   Objective - to bind Serbia only

UNSCR 1244 (1999) is legally binding document of the highest rank in the hierarchy of international public law. It provides guaranty for sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia as well as substantial autonomy for the Province of Kosovo and Metohija within Serbia. Serbia has long ago fulfilled all her obligations from this legally binding document. The others, including UNMIK, KFOR and particularly Kosovo Albanian leaders have not. For example, about 250.000 of displaced Serbs and other non-Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija 18 years after have no possibility as yet to freely and safely return to their homes and lands in the Province! Why? Many Serbs, including school children, harvesters, bus passengers and others have been abducted, or killed in the period since the Province got under the UN mandate. Nobody has been found guilty. Why?

In the Brussels negotiations process under EU auspices in the last several years a number of agreements have been reached. Again, Serbia has fully complied with all its obligations, the others have not.

So, even if Serbia would sign any new legally binding document which what in the opinion of the author Serbia should not do, it would bind only Serbia, not anybody else. All who supposedly would offer guaranty that this time it would be different have lost their credibility long ago, EU including.

Accepting legally binding agreement with Kosovo Serbia would be permitted to come to the door step of EU by 2025. Mere signature would not be enough for EU membership. Full implementation is required before. What happens if Serbia signs such an agreement and EU, or any of 27 member countries come with new demands and preconditions which Serbia would not be able to fulfill? Let us not be mistaken – the history of Serbia's relations with EU and with a number of neighboring countries abound such examples. Who is enough credible to guaranty to Serbia that this is excluded? Is it possible that Serbia delivers everything that she is required now and finally gets nothing?

Kosovo and Metohija, birthplace of Serbian state, culture, religion, and identity should not be considered commodity to exchange for EU membership.                                    

German diplomacy evokes "Germany's case" wherein both, West and East Germany (GDR) had been UN members while not formally recognizing each other. This reference is meant to be only face saving for the government in Belgrade, which keeps giving in substantial concessions and at the same time declaring it will never recognize Kosovo as sovereign state. It is, however, quite clear that there are no similarities to compare between FR Germany and GDR, in one hand, and Serbia and Kosovo, on the other. 

On April 12, 2007, German ambassador to Serbia Andreas Coble at the European Forum's conference in Belgrade stated that "if Serbian Government continues to insist that Kosovo is integral part of Serbia, it is possible that the question of Vojvodina[7] may be opened. Hungary might insist on Vojvodina. And not only that. There would be possibility for opening of the question of Sandzak (Raska)"[8]. Could really such elaborated statement be just of personal invention of visionary, well-intended diplomat, or perhaps he has learned about those "possibilities" in the course of preparations for his Belgrade ambassadorial post?

His successor Ambassador Andreas Mass in December 2011 gave astonishing public advice to Serbian nation to teach their children to love NATO because NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 for good of Serbia. Mass did not comment 4000 Serbian citizens killed by NATO, including by German bombers, killing children, train passengers, hospital patients. He did not mention use of missiles with depleted uranium, destroyed schools, hospitals, monuments. Nevertheless he was certain that Serbia will be member of NATO anyway. "The question is not whether but when Serbia will become NATO member" – said Mass.

Present German ambassador Aksel Ditman in the interview to the Belgrade weekly "NIN" on November 11th, 2017, stated that Germany supports membership of unilaterally conceded Kosovo to the UN and other international organizations. In fact, Ambassador does not even pretend to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the receiving country which is all but diplomatic.

It is long time since Dietrich Genscher and Claus Kinkel were ministers of foreign affairs of Germany. But the same "good geopolitics" concerning Balkan and especially Serbs and Serbia, remain firmly implanted in Berlin.

With the best wishes,

Sa postovanjem,

Zivadin Jovanovic

 



[1] Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of FR of Yugoslavia 1998-2000. Chairman of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

[2] Head of EU  (EEC) Monitoring Mission in Kosovo and Metohija (ECMM) from 1998 until March 20th, 1999

[3] Kosovo Liberation Army

[4] Special USA representative Richard Holbrook met KLA commanders June 20th, 1998, in Junik, Kosovo and Metohija, Serbia

[5] Of 2000 planned

[6] Message au People Serbe, Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, p. 36, Belgrade 2009

[7] Another Autonomous Province of Serbia partially populated by members of Hungarian national minority

[8] Populated by Moslems (Bosniaks) ethnic community

December 15, 2017

The Economist : What the Yugoslav war-crimes tribunal achieved

The Economist explainsWhat the Yugoslav war-crimes tribunal achieved

It closes this month after 24 years and 161 indictments

The Economist explains

Dec 7th 2017

by T.J.

 

THE International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which was established by the United Nations Security Council in 1993, closes at the end of this month. A few remaining appeals and retrials will become the responsibility of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, which performs the same role with the now-closed Rwandan tribunal. The ramifications of the ICTY's work extend far beyond the region. It was the first such court to prosecute war crimes since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials at the end of the second world war. It indicted 161 people, including former presidents and prime ministers. All were caught, handed themselves in, or died. Ninety were convicted. Nineteen were acquitted. None is a fugitive. The court heard evidence from more than 4,650 witnesses in cases relating to genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass murder and sexual violence. 

Once a relatively liberal communist country, Yugoslavia disintegrated in the 1990s. It was a federation of six republics and two autonomous provinces—and a mish-mash of nationalities. Many regional leaders transmogrified into nationalists and war took hold. If Croatia was going to become independent then many of its Serb inhabitants would fight to remain in a Greater Serbian state. And Croat nationalists wanted a Greater Croatia that included Croat-inhabited parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And so on. As the Bosnian war ground on and Serb forces besieged Sarajevo, the Bosnian capital, foreign powers could not agree how to respond. No one wanted to send troops to separate the parties. But they all approved the prosecution of war criminals, so backed the establishment of the tribunal. At first the court, based in The Hague, had little money. It also had no police of its own to arrest anyone indicted. But over the years its influence increased. It demanded that the Balkan states and others carry out arrests, and also got help from NATO-led peacekeepers in Bosnia. It succeeded in making the handing over of those indicted a political issue, with sanctions slapped on Serbia and Croatia when they dragged their feet.

Some of its achievements were legal and some political. Several of the most evil of the wartime actors were imprisoned. The tribunal gave victims and civilians a voice, and often justice, in a way that would not otherwise have been possible. It created new legal precedents. Sexual violence is now considered a war crime. It established the groundwork for other courts, including those that looked into horrors committed in Rwanda and Sierra Leone, and the International Criminal Court (ICC). Its 2.5m pages of transcripts provide an extraordinary archive. It established that genocide had taken place when some 8,000 Bosniaks (Muslims) were murdered as Srebrenica fell. To weigh against all this there must be the acknowledgment that many believe that justice was not always done. The hopes that many had for the tribunal have at times been disappointed. It did not accelerate the process of reconciliation. Many believe there was interference, from America and elsewhere, in its work. In cases related to Kosovar Albanians, in particular, prosecutors alleged witness-tampering.

According to Eric Gordy, a sociologist at University College London's School of Slavonic and East European Studies, the court tried to end impunity for war crimes and in this "it was partially successful". It was founded at a time when there was still some consensus about the need for this. Now, sadly, that is no longer the case. There is no international tribunal indicting anyone for war crimes in Syria. Russia and America are among those countries that have either withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the ICC or never ratified its statute. It remains to be seen whether the Yugoslav tribunal will become a relic from a more hopeful time or a trailblazer in a cause that was always bound to suffer setbacks.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/12/economist-explains-3?cid1=cust/ddnew/email/n/n/2017127n/owned/n/n/ddnew/n/n/n/ne/Daily_Dispatch/email&etear=dailydispatch

 

 

 

December 09, 2017

'They treated her like a dog': tragedy of the six-year-old killed at Croatian border

theguardian.com

'They treated her like a dog': tragedy of the six-year-old killed at Croatian border | World news

Emma Graham-Harrison

8-10 minutes


When the train hit six-year-old Madina Hussiny, her family stumbled to the watching Croatian border police begging for help, her body limp in their arms.

The same officers had ordered the exhausted Afghan family down railway tracks towards Serbia in the dark without warning them there might still be trains running, said Madina's mother, Muslima Hussiny. But desperate and terrified, they had nowhere else to turn.

Madina was a casualty of a slow-burning crisis along Europe's borders that aid groups and activists say is causing untold suffering.

Thousands of migrants and refugees trapped in Serbia, where they have almost no chance of successfully claiming asylum and little hope of moving on legally, are resorting to increasingly desperate means to try to cross into the European Union.

The border police of Croatia, Hungary and Bulgaria have responded by forcing any people they catch back over the frontier, often violently, according to groups ranging from Human Rights Watch to Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

The tragedy of the Hussiny family, who tried to reach Croatia after spending nearly a year in Serbia hoping for legal passage into Hungary, was the latest in a string of deaths and injuries to children and adults across the Balkans.

"What we continue to witness is the negative consequences of the EU policies at the external EU borders," said MSF's humanitarian affairs adviser for Serbia, Andrea Contenta. "These policies continue to put people in danger. There is no safe way to travel."

The day that ended in tragedy had begun in hope. Muslima Hussiny decided to set off with six of her 10 children on 21 November after hearing that the border with Croatia was less tightly sealed than it had been in recent months.

Muslima said the group, with four children under 10, made it into Croatia by scrambling across fields and over and under fences, but they were picked up by police a few hours later as they rested in a park under blankets.

She was happy to see the officers at first, expecting to be taken to a police station to formally claim asylum, their right under European law. Instead, Muslima said, they were driven to the railway line and ordered to walk back towards Serbia.

"I begged: 'If you won't accept us, please let us stay here tonight. In this weather we are already tired and cold, the children are little,'" she said. "But they were inhuman."

Croatian authorities denied that Madina and her family had set foot in their country before her death, or that border police played any role in putting the six-year-old in the path of the train. They said the family were crossing from Serbia and were on the far side of the border when the train hit, but the death was recorded in Croatia because the family ran that way for help.

"We emphasise that treatment of the Croatian border police had not contributed in any way or caused the accident and the death of a child," the interior ministry said in a statement, adding that its treatment of all migrants and refugees followed EU law.

But multiple aid and human rights groups have documented hundreds of cases of people with a legal right to claim asylum being forced back over EU borders in Croatia, Hungary and Bulgaria, frequently with the use of violence.

At the start of this year, Médecins du Monde raised warnings about tactics including beatings, pepper spray and dog attacks in these "forced pushbacks".

There have been many reports of people being ordered back along the train tracks where Madina died. "Many of our patients tell us that the [Croatian] police allegedly brought them to the train line and ordered them to cross back. It's a recurrent pattern that we hear," said MSF's Contenta.

For a moment after the train screeched to a halt, Muslima's focus was on Madina's older sister, who tumbled to the ground as the train rushed past. Then she realised that the chubby chatterbox who was everyone's favourite was missing.

There was a frantic scramble with phone flashlights in the dark, and then Madina's older brother spotted her lying on the ground. Muslima hoped she was just concussed, but it quickly became clear she was terribly hurt. "Rashid took off her hat and there was blood everywhere. I picked her up and saw there was no sign of life."

When they stumbled back to the police, she said, the officers ignored Rashid's desperate pleas for medical help and ordered the family into a van, taking time to check that everyone they wanted to deport was accounted for.

So she hugged her daughter's battered body during a journey that stretched on for eternity and was over too soon. At some point on the road, the van stopped and nurses transferred Madina to an ambulance where they worked on her for a while. Then they drove away, ignoring Muslima's pleas to stay with her daughter.

"I told them: 'I want to go with my child, wherever you are taking her,'" she wept. "I asked: 'Why are you sending her alone, I want to be with her, it's my right to be together.'"

The next time she saw Madina was days later, when the body was icy cold and blood and mud were still smeared on her face.

The family had left their home after threats against their father, Rahmat Shah, for his work with the police. They moved first to the Afghan capital, Kabul, but danger followed them, so they left for Europe at the start of 2016 and reached Serbia around a year later.

Madina, at six, was a dimpled clown, kind and silly, inspiration for the whole family on the long journey. "She was always smiling, always the one everybody liked," said her oldest sister, Nilab, 17. "She talked a lot but always so sweet. My mum asked her: 'Why do you talk so much,' but she just smiled."

Nilab cannot shake the memories of the body as it was returned to the family, battered and muddied. "They just treated her like an animal, like a dog. Such a small body and they didn't treat it like a human," she said, tears welling up in her eyes.

In the days that followed the accident, the family had to fight for news of Madina's fate, information about her body and the right to bury her according to Muslim tradition.

They were sent back to Serbia the night she died, without confirmation of where she had been taken or whether she was dead, and not even a number to contact.

They met with little more compassion on the other side of the border, held overnight in a police room with only a table and chairs, still covered in Madina's blood, cold, hungry and desperate with grief.

It took them days to confirm she had been killed and to reclaim her body, and only then with the support of groups including MSF and HelpRefugees.

When Madina was returned to them on 24 November, the family were ordered to bury her immediately. There was no paperwork, and four bottles of water to perform the washing of the body that is a vital part of Muslim funeral rites.

They spent more than six hours in a tense standoff at the municipal cemetery with officials, her father said. "I told them I would rather you bury us all here than make me bury her like this."

But Serbian authorities threatened the whole family with deportation if they continued to resist, he said. Then UN officials arrived and warned the family that if they did not agree to the burial, Serbian authorities could go ahead without their consent.

So, unwillingly, they agreed to the burial. "I was shouting and crying when my wife and daughter took the body to wash," said Rahmat Shah. Because winter was setting in, it was already getting dark when she was laid into the ground. "I will carry it in my heart for ever, that I did not give her a proper ceremony."

Madina's grave lies at the edge of a municipal graveyard, on the bleak outskirts of the border town where she spent her last afternoon, on the edge of a vast, flat expanse of fields. There is no marker, but her family pray she will not be forgotten.

"Please spread our message as much as you can, because she came here with all her hopes," said her father. He is still waiting for her death certificate.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/08/they-treated-her-like-a-dog-tragedy-of-the-six-year-old-killed-at-croatian-border

 

 

Partagé avec Cliqz pour iOS

 

 

Envoyé de mon iPad

December 08, 2017

NATO, EU path, Russian arms - and why Putin matters to Serbs

b92.net

NATO, EU path, Russian arms - and why Putin matters to Serbs - PoliticsEnglish

8-10 minutes


Serbia has embarked on the European path, but has no intention of joining NATO, Aleksandar Vucic has said.

Source: Tanjug, TASS Friday, December 8, 2017 | 16:07

 

(Tanjug, file)

Speaking for TASS ahead of his trip to Moscow, the Serbian president revealed that his country plans to buy at least six Russian helicopters and air defense missile systems.

"Serbia is on the European path, but the difference between Serbia and other countries in the region is that Serbia does not want to join NATO. Ten days ago, I was in Brussels, at NATO's headquarters, and told the 29 leaders of the NATO member-countries that Serbia has no intention of joining NATO. Serbia will maintain its military neutrality. That has been Serbia's policy, and it will continue to be so," Vucic said.

"We have received six Russian MiG-29 warplanes, which are now undergoing modernization," he continued, and added:

"We expect they will be in full operational readiness within months. We have other applications: we want to buy weapons, we want to buy at least six military transport helicopters and air defense systems."

"Serbia is an independent country, a military neutral country, so we must be strong militarily to be able to defend our land. I hope to discuss this and many other topics with Vladimir Putin," Vucic said.

TASS noted in its report that the Serbian president will be in Moscow on December 18-20, where he will meet with President Vladimir Putin, with their talks expected to focus on a wide range of bilateral and global issues.

"I would like to address the Russian people and say one thing that politicians already know but it is important that ordinary people know it too: it is not always easy for Serbia but remember that Serbia is the only country among those seeking EU membership that has never voted against Russia at any international meetings and has never imposed any sanctions," Vucic told TASS ahead of his trip to Russia.

"I have many times told this not only to the Russian media outlets but all the others as well: Serbia will not impose sanctions on Russia, no pressure can make us change our position," he said, and remarked:

"Sometimes when you take part in some meetings in the West, ties between Russia and Serbia are discussed for one hour and forty-five minutes out of two hours."

Relations with Russia are Serbia's priority for the future, the Serbian president said.

"Serbia has made a decision which is not an easy one, but it is not just a question of our traditional relations, as some claim it to be. It is a matter of our future relationship, as we see Russia as one of our key partners in the future and not only in the past with its great figures such as Dostoevsky, Yesenin and Pushkin, whom any American would mention to you, but we see Russia as our partner in the political, economic and any other field," Vucic said.

He thinks that relations of Serbia and Russia are developing exceptionally thanks to Vladimir Putin, the agency said.

"Development of Serbian-Russian relations is always credited more to President Putin than to us. People here (in Serbia) respect and love Russia, but we are a small country and only thanks to President Putin's leadership, attention is paid to Serbia," Vucic said.

"If we recall Vladimir Putin's predecessors, Serbia hardly existed for them. Not only for the Russian people is Putin important, during his mandate he has been taking care of and showing attention to the Serbian people as well, and we are grateful him for everything," he told TASS, and added:

"For us in Serbia, a meeting with president of the Russian Federation is always a particular event, a milestone. I hope to discuss global issues at our meeting and to thank once again the Russian Federation for its support to the territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia. Those are not idle words but true gratitude."