April 08, 2024

Serbia's Been Struggling to Buy Rafale Instead of MiG-29 for Two Years Now to No Progress

en.defence-ua.com

Serbia's Been Struggling to Buy Rafale Instead of MiG-29 for Two Years Now to No Progress | Defense Express

~3 minutes


Back in April 2022, Serbia first announced its intention to purchase Rafale fighter jets from France to replace the MiG-29 received from russia. Belgrade anticipated signing a deal on 12 new aircraft instead of 14 aging MiG-29s.

At that time, Serbia already had in its portfolio an example of successful defense cooperation with France stemming precisely from the intent to find an alternative to "friendship" with the russian federation. In October 2021, the Serbian Ministry of Defense agreed with Airbus on the supply of two C295 transport aircraft to replace the An-26, moreover, it happened right after the russians did not fulfill their promise to supply Serbia with additional transport aircraft.

Read more: russia Boosts Su-34 Fleet Despite Production Questions

Rafale multirole fighter of the French Air Force / Open-source illustrative photo

Once again, Serbia announced it wanted to buy the French Rafale fighters in February 2023. The statement was made by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić on the sidelines of the IDEX 2023 defense exhibition.

As reported, the Rafales from France would cost Serbia EUR 3 billion in total costs. That is while Belgrade was viewing an increase in the overall annual defense budget to 2.2 billion dollars as the maximum affordable measure to at least minimally cover the defense needs of the entire national military.

On the other hand, Serbia was facing a dilemma: since the beginning of russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, buying components for available MiG-29s became difficult. Therefore, the price factor no longer matters.

Serbian MiG-29 / Open-source illustrative photo

In late March 2024, Serbian president Vučić once again stated his country was still interested in seeing Rafale in its fleet, as he was inspecting one of the country's airfields. He also emphasized that if Rafale turned out not viable as an option, Belgrade would look into other opportunities.

However, from what Vučić said, the Rafale deal is currently hanging due to France's political stance, particularly because of the views on the status of Kosovo. In addition, Paris doesn't want to sell Meteor air-to-air missiles to Serbia, which is a non-NATO country.

French Rafale fighters / Open-source illustrative photo

Read more: Ukrainian Forces Strike russian Troops at Avdiivka Coke Plant Using AASM Hammer Guided Bombs



 

April 02, 2024

ZIVADIN JOVANOVIC: US-led NATO is military, nuclear fist of expansionist strategy

March 27th, 2024.

 

Zivadin Jovanovic, president of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

 

THE INTERVIEW FOR "THE GLOBAL TIMES", BEIJING

 

Q. Recently, Serbia marked the 25th anniversary of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. How does the NATO bombing still affect people in Serbia today?

 

R. Yes, indeed. Serbia mourned and paid respect to more than 4.000 people killed by NATO 25 years ago. We also remembered that NATO bombed Chinese embassy in Belgrade killing three Chinese journalists. NATO had used missiles with depleted uranium, cluster bombs and other forbidden means and methods provoking maligned deceases and deaths of people even today. Material damage inflicted by the aggressor amounts to over 100 billion of US dollars.

The objective of USA led NATO was to take the Province of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia, transform it into carrier of USA troupes for expansion to the East, to topple the government of the President Slobodan Milosevic, make a precedent for the future military interventions violating of the UN Charter and the supremacy of the UN Security Council and International Law, in general, as well as to firmly discipline European allies behind the concept of uni-polar world order, behind USA geostrategic interests. In 1999 NATO went beyond its 1949 Founding Act, at the same time, abandoning defensive and adopting offensive aggressive character.

USA/NATO pursues these interests today. Military aggression has been replaced by other means. Right now they use pressure and blackmail Serbia to recognizes secession of its autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija, accepts its membership in the international organizations and so on.  Serbia, of course, will not submit. Economically, Serbia has not as yet fully recovered, ruins from the aggression could be seen even in the heart of Belgrade, but Serbia, nevertheless maintains constant rise of the GDP, even above the European average. Unfortunately, area of the Balkan is far from stable, Europe divided, dependant, militarized. 

 

Q.You attended an international conference in Belgrade in late March that marked the anniversary. The theme of the conference was "From the Aggression to a New Just Order." What are the obstacles to a new just world order?

 

A.Main obstacles to the new world order based on the principle of sovereign equality and non-interference in internal affairs is the policy of expansion and global domination of the minority of western countries led by USA. They seem not to understand the global changes and trends of multi-polarization and tend to believe that they can stop those historic trends, even, reverse them, by force, including nuclear. Such doctrines represent main source of serious threats to global peace and development. It is threat to humanity.

 

Q. Taking into consideration the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia 25 years and the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, what role does NATO play in facilitating US hegemony?

 

A. First, I think that the NATO aggression on Yugoslavia in 1999. was the beginning of the globalization of military interventionism of USA led NATO. Afterwards, we saw many interventions and aggressions based on the 1999 NATO precedent on Yugoslavia. German politician Willy Wimmer has said in 2022 that the "first bombes on Ukraine were thrown in 1999 during NATO attack on Yugoslavia".

USA led NATO, in my opinion, is military, nuclear fist of expansionist strategy, of the global domination within uni-polarity, protector of the the interest of neoliberal, multinational corporative system.

 

Q. The US has leveraged NATO to sustain dominance over Europe. Do you think Europe has the will and ability to reflect on its position? Is Europe feeling more secure or less secure?

 

In my opinion, European autonomy at present is at the lowest level in the whole period after the Second World War. Its dignity, identity and morality too. It is not because of the people, European nations or cultural heritage; it is, first of all, because of the quality of the present political elite which has lost the sense of traditional civilization values, which seems to have abandoned morality, solidarity, justice, legality and which has practically reduced everything and everybody to the profit, profit by all means. I don't know, really, what term would suit the best to express such a characteristics, but perhaps, it is not far from – corruption, one way or the other. Global changes under way, however, could hardly levee Europe untouched. Some changes toward autonomy, dignity, sovereignty, are taking place, particularly in some European countries, like Hungary, Slovakia and others. We shall see what the June EU elections will show. I hope for the beginning of changes to the better. One elections may not be sufficient, but the trends matter.

 

Q.China was also a victim of NATO bombing 25 years ago. In the past two years, NATO has declared China a security challenge. NATO chief also linked what's happening in Ukraine to the Taiwan question. What is NATO's purpose toward China?

 

A.It is true. China was also the victim of NATO military aggression in 1999. I would say, not the victim only, but the target. While the aggression was in full swing destroying mainly civilian infrastructure, passenger's trains in Grdelica, apartment's buildings in Aleksinac, green market in the City of Nis, on May 7th, 1999 USA bombers hit Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing three Chinese journalists and wounding many more staff members.  A dozen of minutes after, I was at the scene seeing public services taking out survivors from debris. Bombs were still hitting nearby Hotel "Jugoslavia" and surrounding park, when Chinese Ambassador Pan Jangling was freed out of ruins and I could express to him personal and my Government solidarity and condolences.

Should anybody wonder why Serbia and China are "steel friends", comprehensive strategic partners ever since?

 

Who, what and why represents the challenge depends on who is assessing it and from positions of which values. Learning from recent history, I suppose, every country insisting on sovereign equality, inclusive World Order, mutual respect – represents a challenge for western power centers. Countries demanding equal security, sovereignty over natural resources, such as oil and gas reserves, uranium and other strategic minerals deposits, huge markets, geostrategic connectivity lines - have always been  challenge for NATO and western power centers.

 

What we have been witnessing over the past decades, is that US/NATO has for years now been expanding and reinforcing presence through its branches in Far East and Indo-Pacific like Quad and some newly born alliances, in attempt. Seen from Europe, US/NATO expansionist strategy is directed to the East, to Russia, Caspian Sea and Middle East. Seen from Far East and Indo-Pacific the same strategy is directed to the West. Asia and Siberia seem to be real objective, from both geographic positions. USA/NATO exploits similar, or the same means and methods: spreading fear, insecurity and disorientation, demonstrating power through series of massive "defenders" exercises, offering protection of scarred ones, use of separatism, terrorism and human rights and soon.  We know of their theses that China represents "systemic" challenge and Russia malign influence. This only means that they have no solutions for their own problems or courage to face new reality. So far, they opt to continue living in the past as privileged ones instead to adapt accepting new reality called – equality and live in togetherness.

 

Interviewer: Ms. Wang Wenwen

 

 

March 08, 2024

How Madeleine Albright Got the War the U.S. Wanted

counterpunch.org

How Madeleine Albright Got the War the U.S. Wanted

Gregory Elich

23–30 minutes


Twenty-five years have passed since the U.S.-orchestrated NATO attack on Yugoslavia. As the United States readied its forces for war in 1999, it organized a peace conference that was ostensibly intended to resolve differences between the Yugoslav government and secessionist ethnic Albanians in Kosovo on the future status of the province. A different scenario was being played out behind the scenes, however. U.S. officials wanted war and deliberately set up the process to fail, which they planned to use as a pretext for war.

The talks opened on February 6, 1999, in Rambouillet, France. Officially, the negotiations were led by a Contact Group comprised of U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia Christopher Hill, European Union envoy Wolfgang Petritsch, and Russian diplomat Boris Mayorsky. All decisions were supposed to be jointly agreed upon by all three members of the Contact Group. In actual practice, the U.S. ran the show all the way and routinely bypassed Petritsch and Mayorsky on essential matters.

Ibrahim Rugova, an ethnic Albanian activist who advocated nonviolence, was expected to play a major role in the Albanian secessionist delegation. Joining him at Rambouillet was Fehmi Agani, a fellow member of Rugova's Democratic League of Kosovo.

U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright regularly sidelined Rugova, however, preferring to rely on delegation members from the hardline Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which had routinely murdered Serbs, Roma, and Albanians in Kosovo who worked for the government or opposed separatism. Only a few months before the conference, KLA spokesman Bardhyl Mahmuti spelled out his organization's vision of a future Kosovo as separate and ethnically pure: "The independence of Kosovo is the only solution…We cannot live together. That is excluded." [1]

Rugova had at one time engaged in fairly productive talks with Yugoslav officials, and his willingness to negotiate was no doubt precisely why Albright relegated him to a background role. Yugoslav Minister of Information Milan Komnenić accompanied the Yugoslav delegation to Rambouillet. He recalls, "With Rugova and Fehmi Agani, it was possible to talk; they were flexible. In Rambouillet, [KLA leader Hashim] Thaçi appears instead of Rugova. A beast." [2] There was no love between Thaçi and Rugova, whose party members were the targets of threats and assassination attempts at the hands of the KLA. Rugova himself would survive an assassination attempt six years later.

The composition of the Yugoslav delegation reflected its position that many ethnic groups resided in Kosovo, and any agreement should take into account the interests of all parties. All of Kosovo's major ethnic groups were represented in the delegation. Faik Jashari, one of the ethnic Albanian members of the Yugoslav delegation, was president of the Kosovo Democratic Initiative and an official in the Provisional Executive Council, Yugoslavia's government in Kosovo. Jashari observed that Albright was startled when she saw the composition of the Yugoslav delegation, apparently because it went against the U.S. propaganda narrative. [3] Throughout the talks, Albright displayed a dismissive attitude towards the delegation's Albanian, Roma, Egyptian, Goran, Turkish, and Slavic Muslim members.

U.S. mediators habitually referred to the Yugoslav delegation as "the Serbs," even though they constituted a minority of the members. The Americans persisted in trying to cast events in Kosovo as a simplistic binary relationship of Serb versus Albanian, disregarding the presence of other ethnic groups in the province and ignoring the fact that while some ethnic Albanians favored separation, others wished to remain in multiethnic Yugoslavia.

After arriving at Rambouillet, the secessionist Albanian delegation informed U.S. diplomats that it did not want to meet with the Yugoslav side. Aside from a brief ceremonial meeting, the two groups had no direct contact. The Yugoslav and Albanian delegations were placed on different floors to eliminate nearly all contact. U.S. mediators Richard Holbrooke and Christopher Hill ran from one delegation to the other, conveying notes and verbal messages between the two sides but mostly trying to coerce the Yugoslav delegation. [4] Albright, Jashari said, would not listen to anyone. "She had her task, and she saw only that task. You couldn't say anything to her. She didn't want to talk with us and didn't want to listen to our arguments." [5]

Luan Koka, a Roma member of the Yugoslav delegation, noted that the U.S. was operating an electronic jamming device. "We knew exactly when Madeleine Albright was coming. Connections on our mobile phones were breaking up and going crazy." [6] It is probable that the U.S. was also operating electronic listening equipment and that U.S. mediators knew everything the delegations said in private.

One day, it was Koka's birthday, and the Yugoslav delegation wanted to encourage a more relaxed atmosphere with U.S. mediators, so they invited them to a cocktail party to mark the occasion. "It was a slightly more pleasant atmosphere, and I was singing," Koka recalled. "I remember Madeleine Albright saying: 'I really like partisan songs. But if you don't accept this, the bombs will fall'." [7] According to delegation member Nikola Šainović, "Madeleine Albright told us all the time: 'If the Yugoslav delegation does not accept what we offer, you will be bombed.'" Šainović added, "We agreed in Rambouillet to any form of autonomy for Kosovo," but secession remained the red line. [8]

From the beginning of the conference, U.S. mediator Christopher Hill "decided that what we really needed was an Albanian approval of a document, and a Serb refusal. If both refused, there could be no further action by NATO or any other organization for that matter." [9] It was not peace that the U.S. team was seeking, but war.

As the conference progressed, U.S. negotiators faced an alarming problem: the Yugoslav delegation had accepted all of the Contact Group's fundamental political principles for an agreement, balking only at a NATO presence in Kosovo. On the other hand, the secessionist delegation rejected the Contact Group's political principles. Something had to be done to reverse this pattern.

On the second day of the conference, U.S. officials presented the Yugoslav delegation with the framework text of a provisional agreement for peace and self-rule in Kosovo, but it was missing some of its annexes. The Yugoslavs requested a copy of the complete document. As delegation head Ratko Marković pointed out, "Any objections to the text of the agreement could be made only after an insight into the text as a whole had been obtained."

Nearly one week passed before the group received only one of the missing annexes. That came on the day the conference had initially been set to end. The deadline was extended, and two days later, a second missing annex was provided to the Yugoslav delegation. [10]

When the Yugoslavs next met with the Contact Group, they were assured that all elements of the text had now been given to them. Several more days passed, and at 7:00 PM on February 22, the penultimate day of the conference, the Contact Group presented three new annexes, which the Yugoslavs had never seen before. According to Marković, "Russian Ambassador Boris Mayorsky informed our delegation that Annexes 2 and 7 had not been discussed or approved by the Contact Group and that they were not the texts drafted by the Contact Group but by certain Contact Group members, while Annex 5 was discussed, but no decision was made on it at the Contact Group meeting." The Yugoslav delegation refused to accept the new annexes, as their introduction had violated the process whereby all proposals had to be agreed upon by the three Contact Group members. [11]

At 9:30 AM on February 23, the conference's final day, U.S. officials presented the full text of the proposal, containing yet more provisions being communicated for the first time. The accompanying note identified the package as the definitive text while adding that Russia did not support two of the articles. The letter demanded the Yugoslav delegation's decision by 1:00 PM. [12] There was barely enough time to carefully read the text, let alone negotiate. In essence, it was an ultimatum.

Quite intentionally, U.S. mediators included provisions in the final version of the text that no sovereign nation could be expected to accept. Neoliberal economic interests are always front and center when U.S. officials are involved, and they surely were not unaware of Kosovo's abundant reserves of mineral resources, ripe for exploitation. The first point in Article 1 of the Economic Issues section of the text states: "The economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles." Western investors were favored with a provision stating that authorities shall "ensure the free movement of persons, goods, services, and capital to Kosovo, including from international sources." [13] One may wonder what these stipulations had to do with peace negotiations, but then the talks had far more to do with U.S. interests than anything to do with the needs of the people in the region.

The document called for a Western-led Joint Commission, including local representatives, to monitor and coordinate the implementation of the plan. However, if commission members failed to reach a consensus on a matter, the Western-appointed Chair would have the power to impose his decision unilaterally. [14] Local representatives would serve as little more than window-dressing for Western dictate, as they could adopt no measure that went against the Chair's wishes.

The Chair of the Implementation Mission was authorized to "recommend" the "removal and appointment of officials and the curtailment of operations of existing institutions in Kosovo." If the Chair's command was not obeyed "in the time requested, the Joint Commission may decide to take the recommended action," and since the Chair had the authority to impose his will on the Joint Commission, there was no check on his power. He could remove elected and appointed officials at will and replace them with handpicked lackeys. The Chair was also authorized to order the "curtailment of operations of existing institutions." [15] Any organization that failed to bend to U.S. demands could be shut down.

Chapter 7 of the plan called for the parties to "invite NATO to constitute and lead a military force" in Kosovo. [16] The choice of words was interesting. In language reminiscent of gangsters, Yugoslavia was told to "invite" NATO to take over the province of Kosovo or suffer the consequences.

Yugoslavia was required "to provide, at no cost, the use of all facilities and services required" by NATO. [17] Within six months, Yugoslavia would have to withdraw all of its military forces from Kosovo, other than a small number of border guards. [18]

The plan granted NATO "unrestricted use of the entire electromagnetic spectrum" to "communicate." Although the document indicated NATO would make "reasonable efforts to coordinate," there were no constraints on its power. [19] Yugoslav officials, "upon simple request," would be required to grant NATO "all telecommunication services, including broadcast services…free of cost." [20] NATO could take over any radio and television facilities and transmission wavelengths it chose, knocking local stations off the air.

The plan did not restrict NATO's presence to Kosovo. It granted NATO, with its "vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia]." [21] NATO would be "granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tools, or charges." [22]

The agreement guaranteed that NATO would have "complete and unimpeded freedom of movement by ground, air, and water into and throughout Kosovo." Furthermore, NATO personnel could not be held "liable for any damages to public or private property." [23] NATO as a whole would also be "immune from all legal process, whether civil, administrative, or criminal," regardless of its actions anywhere on the territory of Yugoslavia. [24] Nor could NATO personnel be arrested, detained, or investigated. [25] Acceptance of the plan would have brought NATO troops swarming throughout Yugoslavia and interfering in every institution.

There were several other objectionable elements in the plan, but one that stood out was the call for an "international" (meaning Western-led) meeting to be held after three years "to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo." [26] It was no mystery to the Yugoslav delegation what conclusion Western officials would arrive at in such a meeting. The intent was clearly to redraw Yugoslavia's borders to further break apart the nation.

U.S. officials knew the Yugoslav delegation could not possibly accept such a plan. "We deliberately set the bar higher than the Serbs could accept," Madeleine Albright confided to a group of journalists, "because they needed a little bombing." [27]

At a meeting in Belgrade on March 5, the Yugoslav delegation issued a statement that declared: "A great deceit was looming, orchestrated by the United States. They demanded that the agreement be signed, even though much of this agreement, that is, over 56 pages, had never been discussed, either within the Contact Group or during the negotiations." [28]

Serbian President Milan Milutinović announced at a press conference that in Rambouillet, the Yugoslav delegation had "proposed solutions meeting the demands of the Contact Group for broad autonomy within Serbia, advocating full equality of all national communities." But "agreement was not what they were after." Instead, Western officials engaged in "open aggression," and this was a game "about troops and troops alone." [29]

While U.S. officials were working assiduously to avoid a peaceful resolution, they needed the Albanians to agree to the plan so that they could accuse the Yugoslav delegation of being the stumbling block to peace. U.S. mainstream media could be counted on to unquestioningly repeat the government's line and overlook the real architects of failure. U.S. officials knew the press would act in their customary role as cheerleaders for war, which indeed, they did.

British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook revealed the nature of the message Western officials were conveying to the Albanian delegation when he said, "We are certainly saying to the Kosovo Albanians that if you don't sign up to these texts, it's extremely difficult to see how NATO could then take action against Belgrade." [30] Western officials were practically begging the secessionists to sign the plan. According to inside sources, the Americans assured the ethnic Albanian delegation that disarmament of the KLA would be merely symbolic and that it could keep the bulk of its weaponry so long as it was concealed. [31]

Albright spent hours trying to convince Thaçi to change his mind, telling him: "If you say yes and the Serbs say no, NATO will strike and go on striking until the Serb forces are out and NATO can go in. You will have security. And you will be able to govern yourselves." [32] That was a clear enough signal that the intent was to rip the province away from Yugoslavia and create an artificial state. Despite such assurances, Thaçi feared the wrath of fellow KLA members if he were to sign a document that did not explicitly call for separation. When U.S. negotiators asked Thaçi why he would not sign, he responded: "If I agree to this, I will go home and they will kill me." [33] This was not hyperbole. The KLA had threatened and murdered a great many Albanians who, in its eyes, fell short of full-throated support for its policy of violent secession and ethnic exclusion.

Even NATO Commander Wesley Clark, who flew in from Belgium, could not change Thaçi's mind. [34] U.S. officials were exasperated with the Albanian delegation, and its recalcitrance threatened to capsize plans for war. "Rambouillet was supposed to be about putting the screws to Belgrade," a senior U.S. official said. "But it went off the rails because of the miscalculation we made about the Albanians." [35]

On the last day at Rambouillet, it was agreed that the ethnic Albanian delegation would return to Kosovo for discussions with fellow KLA leaders on the need to sign the document. In the days that followed, Western officials paid repeated visits to Kosovo to encourage the Albanians to sign.

So-called "negotiations" reconvened in Paris on March 15. Upon its arrival, the Yugoslav delegation objected that it was "incomprehensible" that "no direct talks between the two delegations had been facilitated." In response to the Yugoslavs' proposal for modifications to the plan, the Contact Group informed them that no changes would be accepted. The document must be accepted as a whole. [36]

The Yugoslav position, delegation head Ratko Marković maintained, was that "first one needs to determine what is to be implemented, and only then to determine the methods of implementation." [37] The delegation asked the Americans what there was to talk about regarding implementation "when there was no agreement because the Albanians did not accept anything." U.S. officials responded that the Yugoslav delegation "cannot negotiate," adding that it would only be allowed to make grammatical changes to the text. [38]

From the U.S. perspective, the presence of the Yugoslav delegation in Paris was irrelevant other than to maintain the pretense that negotiations were taking place. Not permitted to negotiate, there was little the Yugoslavs could do but await the inevitable result, which soon came. The moment U.S. officials obtained the ethnic Albanian delegation's signatures to the plan on March 18, they aborted the Paris Conference. There was no reason to continue engaging with the Yugoslav delegation, as the U.S. had what it needed: a pretext for war.

On the day after the U.S. pulled the plug on the Paris talks, Milan Milutinović held a press conference in the Yugoslav embassy, condemning the Paris meeting as "a kind of show" meant "to deceive public opinion in the whole world." [39]

While the United States and its NATO allies prepared for war, Yugoslavia made last-ditch efforts to stave off bombing, including reaching out to intermediaries. Greek Foreign Minister Theodoros Pangalos contacted Madeleine Albright and told her that Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević had offered to engage in further negotiations. But Albright told him that the decision to bomb had already been made. "In fact," Pangalos reported, "she told me to 'desist, you're just being a nuisance.'" [40] In a final act of desperation to save the people from bombing, Milutinović contacted Christopher Hill and made an extraordinary offer: Yugoslavia would join NATO if the United States would allow Yugoslavia to remain whole, including the province of Kosovo. Hill responded that this was not a topic for discussion and he would not talk about it. [41]

Madeleine Albright got her war, which brought death, destruction, and misery to Yugoslavia. But NATO had a new role, and the United States further extended its hegemony over the Balkans.

In the years following the demise of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, NATO was intent on redefining its mission. The absence of the socialist bloc presented NATO not only with the need to construct a new rationale for existence but also with the opportunity to expand Western domination over other nations.

Bosnia offered the first opportunity for NATO to begin its transformation, as it took part in a war that presented no threat to member nations.

Bombing Yugoslavia was meant to solidify the new role of NATO as an offensive military force acting on behalf of U.S. imperial interests. Since that time, NATO has attacked Libya and engaged in military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a variety of nations in Africa. Despite NATO's claim that it is "committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes," the record shows otherwise.

Notes.

[1] "Albanian Rebels Say Kosovo Independence Vital," Reuters, October 27, 1998.

[2] "Sećanja aktera neuspelih pregovora u Rambujeu: Da li je bombardovanje moglo da se izbegne?" Nedeljnik, February 6, 2019.

[3] Interview with Faik Jashari and other Kosovo Albanians by a delegation that included author, Belgrade, August 9, 1999.

[4] Bogoljub Janićević, "Priprema za bombardovanje u Rambujeu," Večernje Novosti, March 19, 2018.

[5] Interview with Faik Jashari and other Kosovo Albanians by a delegation that included author, Belgrade, August 9, 1999.

[6] "Sećanja aktera neuspelih pregovora u Rambujeu: Da li je bombardovanje moglo da se izbegne?" Nedeljnik, February 6, 2019.

[7] "Sećanja aktera neuspelih pregovora u Rambujeu: Da li je bombardovanje moglo da se izbegne?" Nedeljnik, February 6, 2019.

[8] "Никола Шаиновић за Курир открио тајну последњег папира из Рамбујеа," Socialist Party of Serbia, February 12, 2019.

[9] Christopher Hill, Outpost: Life on the Frontlines of American Diplomacy, a Memoir, Simon and Schuster, 2014, p 149.

[10] Address to Assembly of the Republic of Serbia by Ratko Marković, broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, March 23, 1999.

[11] Address to Assembly of the Republic of Serbia by Ratko Marković, broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, March 23, 1999.

[12] Address to Assembly of the Republic of Serbia by Ratko Marković, broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, March 23, 1999.

[13] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 4a, Article I, February 23, 1999.

[14] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 5, Article I, section 3, February 23, 1999.

[15] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 5, Article IV, section 5, February 23, 1999.

[16] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 7, Article I, section 1a, February 23, 1999.

[17] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 7, Article I, section 1c, February 23, 1999.

[18] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 7, Article IV, section 2, February 23, 1999.

[19] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 7, Article VIII, section 5b, February 23, 1999.

[20] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 7, Article VIII, section 5b, February 23, 1999.

[21] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Appendix B, section 8, February 23, 1999.

[22] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Appendix B, section 11, February 23, 1999.

[23] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Appendix B, section 15, February 23, 1999.

[24] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Appendix B, section 6, February 23, 1999.

[25] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Appendix B, section 7, February 23, 1999.

[26] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 8, Article I, section 3, February 23, 1999.

[27] "Albright: They Need a Little Bombing," Workers World News Service, June 10, 1999.

George Kenney, "Rolling Thunder: the Rerun," The Nation, June 14, 1999.

 In the Nation article, the quote is attributed to "a senior State Department official." In the Workers World report, further detail is provided: "On the Pacifica program 'Democracy Now' on June 2, Kenney confirmed that the high official was Secretary of State Madeleine Albright."

[28] Broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, 9:15 AM, March 23, 1999.

[29] Transcript, Press Conference by Milan Milutinović, Tanjug, February 23, 1999.

[30] "Cook Warns Kosovo Albanians Over Air Strikes," Reuters, February 21, 1999.

[31] Peter Dejaegher, "Serbs Feel Cheated," De Standaard (Groot-Bijgaarden), March 31, 1999.

[32] Madeleine Albright, Madam Secretary, Harper Collins, 2013, p 406.

[33] Christopher Hill, Outpost: Life on the Frontlines of American Diplomacy, a Memoir, Simon and Schuster, 2014, p 153.

[34] Jane Perlez, "Talks on Kosovo Near Breakdown; Deadline is Tuesday," New York Times, February 23, 1999.

[35] R. Jeffrey Smith, "Albanian Intransigence Stymied Accord," Washington Post, February 24, 1999.

[36] Address to Assembly of the Republic of Serbia by Ratko Marković, broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, March 23, 1999.

[37] Address to Assembly of the Republic of Serbia by Ratko Marković, broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, March 23, 1999.

[38] "Никола Шаиновић за Курир открио тајну последњег папира из Рамбујеа," Socialist Party of Serbia, February 12, 2019.

[39] "Press Conference Held by the President of Serbia," Politika, March 19, 1999.

[40] "Ex-Minister Claims 'Meddling' in Kosovo Prompted Sacking," Athens News, December 1, 2001.

[41] S.J. Matić, R. Dragović , "20 Godina Od Početka Pregovora U Rambujeu: Izbegnuta je okupacija," Večernje Novosti, February 6, 2019.

Gregory Elich is a Korea Policy Institute board member. He is a contributor to the collection, Sanctions as War: Anti-Imperialist Perspectives on American Geo-Economic Strategy (Haymarket Books, 2023). His website is https://gregoryelich.org  Follow him on Twitter at @GregoryElich.      

 

February 10, 2024

Albanians acknowledge Vučić's victory: Kurti was defeated in front of the whole world

b92.net

Albanians acknowledge Vučić's victory: Kurti was defeated in front of the whole world

5–6 minutes


Member of Presidency of Democratic Party of Kosovo, Besa Kabashi-Ramaj, stated that Serbia has superiority in the UN compared to so-called Kosovo, reports Koha.

Source: Alo.rs Friday, February 9, 2024 | 10:58

FOTO TANJUG/ STR/ bg

The member of the Presidency of the Democratic Party of Kosovo, Besa Kabashi-Ramaj, has said that Serbia has superiority in the United Nations where the session of the UN Security Council is being held, called by the Serbian president, Aleksandar Vucic.

Kabashi-Ramaj said that Serbia has superiority in the UN since it is a member and Kosovo is not yet.

"The moment you do not coordinate with the partners who have helped to create our state, then such spaces are created that are used by our enemies, in this case from Serbia, to call a session in a field where they have superiority. In the United Nations they have an advantage because Serbia is a member and we are not yet. Because there, Russia has the right of veto", she said.

According to her, the so-called Kosovo is attending the UN headquarters for the first time, without coordination and support with its international partners.

"In the past, Kosovo has always been coordinated with allies and no basic space has been created for it to be criticized, today is the first time that unfortunately we saw our strategic partner say that Kosovo has not been coordinated with international partners. This is very painful", she added.

The member of the Presidency of the PDK further called the speech of Prime Minister Albin Kurti at the UN Security Council very technical.

"Kosovo was on the defensive in today's session", she concluded.

 

February 01, 2024

International Crisis Group: Constant pressure drove the Serbs away from Kosovo

kosovo-online.com

International Crisis Group: Constant pressure drove the Serbs away from Kosovo; tensions increased since Kurti came to power - Kosovo Online

6–8 minutes


Due to constant pressure, more than 10% of the Serbs left Kosovo last year, and their departure only accelerates the existing trend, warns the International Crisis Group (ICG), noting that one-third of the Serbian population has left Kosovo in the last eight years.

"Emigration of Kosovo Serbs is worrying because it speaks to their level of frustration and because it undermines the most likely path to normalization, in which Kosovo should give them significant governance in exchange for de facto, if not de jure, recognition of Serbia", the report "Toward Normal Relations between Kosovo and Serbia" states.

The report notes that tensions between Kosovo and Serbia increased since 2021, following the arrival of Albin Kurti to power, who escalated tensions in northern Kosovo.

"Kosovo's refusal to grant greater autonomy to the Serbian population is one of the two main reasons for tensions in relations with neighboring Serbia, and the other is Serbia's refusal to recognize Kosovo's status as an independent state, which is crucial for opening the path to membership in international organizations such as the European Union and the UN," ICG points out.

The analysis states that, as disputes persist without resolution, Serbia and Kosovo on the north have achieved some form of overlapping sovereignty – Serbia provides education and healthcare to citizens, while Kosovo is responsible for law enforcement and the judiciary.

"However, Albin Kurti has obviously lost patience with this. Among other things, he sent heavily armed police to the north, imposed an embargo on Serbian goods, suppressed Serbian institutions, and banned the use of the Serbian currency. His government has partially justified these steps with security threats, in the form of Serbian paramilitary formations, which he claims brought military weapons from Serbia in September 2023," the Crisis Group adds.

To facilitate the dynamics of relations between Kosovo and the Serbian population, the EU should encourage Pristina to redirect the work of the police in the northern municipalities to meet the needs of the community.

"The deployment of special forces should not be in the function of everyday police work but should focus on border security and the search for weapons depots. Pristina should send more officers who speak Serbian to the north (as opposed to those who only speak Albanian) and engage on the ground to improve relations with citizens," the analysis suggests.

It is also pointed out that Pristina should work to meet the needs of the Serbian minority in northern Kosovo, especially regarding employment, healthcare, and education.

"If this cannot be done within the framework of the partial autonomy discussed for Serb-majority municipalities, then the EU and member states should press Pristina to develop alternative ways to achieve the same goal," the Crisis Group emphasizes.

It is highlighted that the EU should encourage Pristina to soften its strict security measures in the north, including withdrawing special police, promising sanctions relief, and fewer measures in return.

Pressure should also be exerted on Serbia to fully cooperate in efforts, including KFOR's efforts, to close borders to weapons smuggling and find heavy weapons delivered to paramilitary units of Kosovo Serbs.

"Since the 1999 conflict that separated Kosovo from Serbia, the question of how the government in Pristina (representing the majority Albanian population) will govern the four Serb-majority municipalities in northern Kosovo has remained unresolved. Although Kosovo and Serbia developed a 'modus vivendi' for administering and providing services to these communities, this has been significantly exposed since President Kurti took office in 2021. In line with the governance methods that emerged in the years before Kurti's election, both Kosovo and Serbia could exercise certain sovereign powers over the four Serb-majority municipalities in the north," the report states.

Changes began with Kurti's rise to power, and Pristina started imposing its authority on northern Kosovo with measures that sparked a boycott and mass resignations of the Serbs from positions.

"Kosovo's pressure tactics in the north could generate further violent rejection and also expose another risk: it could undermine the most promising path to resolving the longstanding disputes between Belgrade and Pristina. The Crisis Group has argued that the best path to good relations between Kosovo and Serbia is a compromise where Serbia accepts Kosovo's independence in exchange for Kosovo granting significant self-governance to the Serbian minority. However, demographic changes caused by political tensions risk gradually sliding that agreement off the table as the population of Kosovo Serbs decreases to the point where autonomy may become impractical," the Crisis Group warns.

The report recalls that in 2015, the number of Kosovo Serbs was estimated at 145,000, and by 2023, it had dropped to below 100,000.

"Although the exact numbers are unknown due to the Serbian boycott of the last census held in 2011, Serbian authorities say an additional 13% of Serbs left Kosovo during the past year. Many of these departures are from central and southern Kosovo, where Serbs live alongside the Albanian majority and are well integrated, and the population is rural and older, but some are from the four northern municipalities. It is not difficult to imagine that the trend is accelerating in the north as Pristina increasingly asserts its sovereignty," the ICG underscores.

"The population of Kosovo Serbs is likely to decline both in absolute and relative terms, regardless of what happens in the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, but the rate of change will almost certainly depend on the level of tensions, the perception of security, and politics," the report states.

"Pristina may welcome this demographic change, but it should acknowledge that it comes at a cost: it is in Kosovo's best interest for the Serbian minority to stay in the country and have the opportunity for self-governance because that is the easiest way to build goodwill in Serbia and secure the concession that Pristina most desires – recognition," the ICG emphasizes.

 

January 12, 2024

UK Embassy says Serbia not viewed as Russian proxy

n1info.rs

Beta: UK Embassy says Serbia not viewed as Russian proxy

Beta

~2 minutes


The British embassy in Belgrade told the Beta news agency on Thursday that London does not view Serbia as a Russian proxy as Foreign Secretary David Cameron was reported to have said.

Cameron told the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee that "Russia wants to do more to destabilize the Balkans, wants to do more through its proxies, including Serbia".

The embassy spokespeople said that there are certain elements in the country acting in the interest of Russia and threatening the stability and democratic capacities of the region, adding that the UK will continue to cooperate with Serbia on common priorities.

Beta was told that Cameron was referring to elements in Serbia that he believes are acting in Russia's interest and not to the state of Serbia.

Serbia is an independent, sovereign state and we welcome the clear position of the Serbian government in opposition to the war in Ukraine. We will continue encouraging Serbia to implement sanctions against Russia. We may not agree fully, but we welcome the regular dialogue with the Serbian government on these issue, Beta quoted the embassy sources as saying.

 

January 04, 2024

Why Do Both Russia and the US Support Serbia's Populist Leader?

bylinetimes.com

Why Do Both Russia and the US Support Serbia's Populist Leader? – Byline Times

Nikola Mikovic

6–7 minutes


Newsletter offer

Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.

While Europe was celebrating Christmas and New Year's Eve, Serbian pro-Western opposition held a series of rallies over the alleged electoral fraud. But the fact that both the United States and Russia – despite being geopolitical rivals – openly support Serbia's populist President Aleksandar Vucic, gives the opposition leaders very little hope in their struggle for the annulment of the vote. 

On December 17, the southeastern European country held snap parliamentary and municipal elections, in which the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) won 46.72% of the votes. Ever since, the opposition has held several daily protests, expressing disagreement with the election results. 

Marinika Tepic, one of the opposition leaders, was on hunger strike, demanding the annulment of the country's parliamentary and local elections, while the main opposition alliance, Serbia Against Violence, claims the election was stolen, particularly in the vote for the Belgrade city authorities.

Moreover, international observers from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, said that the SNS had "gained an unfair advantage through media bias, pressure on public sector employees and misuse of public resources". 

Although The Independent broadcasted the opposition rally on December 30, the West does not seem to be unified when it comes to the situation in Serbia. The United States, as the major foreign power operating in the Balkans, seems to have openly backed the SNS-dominated Serbian government. 


After protesters, on December 24, tried to enter Belgrade's city council and clashed with the riot police, the US Ambassador to Serbia Christopher Hill wrote on X that "the legitimacy of democratic processes depends upon transparency and on the readiness of all parties, winning or losing, to respect the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box". He also stressed that "violence and vandalism against state institutions have no place in a democratic society".

Such a statement was a clear signal that Washington, despite urging Serbia to work with the OSCE to address "unjust conditions" surrounding the electoral process, is unlikely to support what Moscow portrays as a "Maidan-style coup attempt" in Belgrade.

 Indeed, both the Kremlin and pro-government media in Serbia have been spreading the "new Maidan" narrative, referring to the expulsion of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych from power in 2014. It is, therefore, not surprising that, following the violent protest on December 26, Vucic met with the Russian Ambassador to Serbia, Alexander Botsan-Kharchenko, who accused Western countries of "trying to retaliate against the Serbian leader" because he reportedly refuses to join anti-Russian sanctions imposed on Moscow following its invasion of Ukraine.

Serbian pro-government tabloids have adopted the same rhetoric, claiming that Germany is involved in the ongoing protests over Belgrade's policy regarding Moscow. In reality, neither Germany nor any other Western country has ever put serious pressure on Serbia to impose sanctions on Russia, but the Kremlin uses such a narrative to create an illusion at home that Putin still has friends in Europe. 

Vucic also benefits from such a Russian rhetoric, since in the eyes of his pro-Russian voters he can portray himself as a "statesman who refuses to follow Western orders and impose sanctions on Moscow".

That is why he is among three European leaders (Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan being two others) who got letters with New Year's greetings from the Russian President. 


The United States, for its part, does not seem to be paying much attention to this charade. Washington remains focused on Belgrade's implementation of the European Union's proposal regarding the normalization of relations between Serbia and Kosovo.

Thus, it is unlikely a pure coincidence that the Serbian government, following Hill's statement, recognised Kosovo-issued license plates, a move that can be interpreted as Serbia's implicit recognition of Kosovo's 2008 unilaterally declared independence. 

Quite aware of that, Kosovan Prime Minister Albin Kurti said that Belgrade's decision was made "in an attempt to reduce the criticism of the international community after irregularities and fraud" in the recent election. But his government seems to have followed Serbia's path and also made a "goodwill gesture". 

According to reports, Kosovo's Chief Prosecutor of the Special Prosecution lifted the arrest warrant against Vucic's ally Milan Radoicic, who played the major role in the September 24 gun battle with the ethnic Albanian-led Kosovo police in the Serb-dominated northern Kosovo that killed four people.

Therefore, both Belgrade and Pristina use the alleged Serbian election irregularities as a bargaining chip, while they quietly work on normalization of relations, which is what seems to be one of the US top priorities in the region.

As a result, Serbian opposition is unlikely to achieve its goals and get the election annulled. Although it advocates faster EU integration, fair elections, freedom of the media, and rule of law, for certain influential political forces in the West, particularly in the United States, stabilitocracy in the Balkans – and especially in Serbia – seems to have priority over democracy.

 

January 03, 2024

Dragan Đilas: How the West lost the plot on Serbia

politico.eu

How the West lost the plot on Serbia

Dragan Đilas

6–8 minutes


Dragan Đilas is the president of the Party of Freedom and Justice and a member of the Serbia Against Violence coalition. He served as the mayor of Belgrade (2008–2013) and the president of the Democratic Party, Serbia's main opposition party (2012–2014).

When Serbia was ruled by Slobodan Milošević, the West — with the United States in the lead — strongly supported democratic change in the country. But now, as Serbia backslides toward autocracy under President Aleksandar Vučić, this commitment seems to have disappeared.

Last week, there were protests on the streets of Belgrade, as citizens marched against deeply flawed parliamentary and local elections in the capital. Afterward, outgoing Prime Minister Ana Brnabić thanked Russian security services for notifying the Serbian government about the planned demonstrations, which were, she claimed, orchestrated by "some Western services."

Briefing the Russian Ambassador to Serbia on the unrest in the capital, Vučić and the envoy also agreed that the protests were organized by the West, while U.S. Ambassador to Serbia Christopher Hill condemned the "violence and vandalism against state institutions" as having no place in a "democratic society."

 It would thus appear that the views of the Russian and the U.S. envoys are aligned, with both seemingly more concerned about the stability of the Serbian government than electoral fraud. And even in today's complex world, such Western support for the Serbian leader, who accuses it of fomenting unrest in his country, is mind-boggling.

The Serbian elections that took place on December 17 were massively rigged, and were denounced by international observers as not having offered voters a choice free of undue influence. In Belgrade in particular, there was evidence of large-scale organized voter migration, bringing in voters from other regions in Serbia and from abroad.

This means the president and his party declared a victory they didn't achieve.

It is Serbia Against Violence, an opposition coalition of which my party is a core member, that won the city election, and we have called for a repeat. Supported by many young people, who have had enough of living in a country where violence is common and institutions don't matter, we invited citizens to protest peacefully until our demands were met, while Marinika Tepić and several other members of parliament went on hunger strike.

December 24 then saw one of the biggest protest so far. Councilors demanded they be allowed to enter their offices in the city assembly, which was not permitted by police. Clashes ensued, and relying on excessive force, police arrested 38 protesters.

In the face of all this, official reactions from the European Union and the U.S. have been muted at best. Initially, European Parliament Rapporteur for Serbia Vladimir Bilčik didn't even notice the election's "major irregularities." And even more strikingly, there was no reaction to the offences and verbal abuse suffered by the international and domestic election observers who publicly spoke about their findings.

Sadly, we have come to expect such behavior from our Western partners. With wars and violence raging in Europe's neighborhood and the Middle East, they don't seem to have the bandwidth to devote to Serbia, and thus pursue a nakedly transactional relationship with Vučić instead.

The transaction is easy to understand. At home, Vučić plays to his populist audience, decrying the West for disregarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia while upholding that of Ukraine. He has refused to impose sanctions on Russia, has arrested or blocked Russian citizens who are opposed to the war on Ukraine from staying in Serbia, and has derogatorily likened the Belgrade protests to Maidan.

At the same time, he fuels belligerent sentiments toward Kosovo, alleging that everybody who disagrees with him is a traitor. And he has controlled most of the media space in Serbia for over a decade.

Abroad, however, Vučić delivers what the West wants to hear. This week, his government started implementing a decision recognizing Kosovo-issued vehicle license plates. The country has increased its production of ammunition that gets sent to Ukraine, substantially shoring up its supplies. And Vučić has also been looking for ways to revive lithium mining — something the EU could significantly benefit from, as it would allow for the re-shoring of a vital resource at a time of growing geopolitical tension and competition.

The deal is great for everybody — except for Serbian citizens.

We are witnessing a steady and relentless deterioration of political rights and civil liberties, the reason why the country was downgraded from "free" to "partly free" by Freedom House a few years ago. Meanwhile, abroad, Serbia is seen as a pariah — a country that has sided with Russia and has no understanding or empathy for the horrors Ukraine is enduring.

But what Vučić's Western interlocutors need to understand is that if they persist in turning a blind eye — like ambassador Hill, who says he is "really looking forward" to continued cooperation with the Serbian government — the country's institutions and reputation will be left in tatters, its direction easily changed at the whim of a leader.

Last May, after a mass shooting in a Belgrade school sparked massive protests, we sent a letter to both EU and U.S. officials warning that Vučić would likely attempt to resolve the crisis by calling an early election without acceptable electoral conditions. And we asked for their help to make sure that the recommendations of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights published after the April 2022 elections were implemented fully.

However, we received no conclusive response. If anything, they were only too happy to praise the flawed steps the Serbian government had taken to create the impression of compliance.

So, if Western democratic governments find it too difficult to live up to the values they espouse, call for repeat elections and insist they take place under conditions that make them free and fair, then maybe it would be better if they just said nothing at all.