Tensions between Serbs and Albanians flare up in Kosovo

Standoff between police and locals threaten the uneasy peace in north of the volatile Balkan state

Maryrose Fison

Sunday, 30 October 2011

Acrowd stands on tiptoes trying to peer over a 6ft wall of rubble. On the other side, a green tent balances on uneven tarmac. The Serbian tricolour of red, blue and white flutters in the air.

Inside the tent, middle-aged men watch news images of a violent confrontation between soldiers and civilians. The rest of the tent is empty but for a handful of pencil sketches drawn in the wobbly hand of a young child.

To the locals, the wall is a political statement and a physical barrier against a government it does not recognise. Tensions are rising here, for this region is now experiencing the worst level of civil disruption since Kosovo declared independence in 2008.

Ethnically divided Mitrovica in northern Kosovo is home to a population of 60,000 ethnic Serbs. The mountainous region has become one of the last remaining Serb enclaves in Kosovo since the mainly Albanian government in Pristina declared the former Serbian province independent.

International opinion is still divided over the legal basis for Kosovo's status. The US, the UK and Germany are among the 70-plus countries that have recognised it. But five EU countries as well as China and Russia steadfastly refuse. While Pristina considers northern Kosovo a part of Kosovo, the area has remained under the de facto control of Serbia since the war in 1999.

The currency of exchange for food and taxis is the Serbian dinar, as opposed to the euro used in the rest of Kosovo. Serbian, rather than Albanian, is the lingua franca, and public institutions such as hospitals are funded by Serbia's public sector.

Though unpalatable to the Kosovo government, this situation came to be understood as the unofficial compromise necessary to ensure widespread stability in a volatile region. Yet a single political decision made three months ago now threatens to unravel this fragile peace arrangement.

The trouble began when Kosovo's Prime Minister, Hashim Thaci – himself the subject of allegations ofinvolvement in organ trafficking, which he has always denied – deployed the country's mainly Albanian riot police and customs officers to checkpoints in northern Kosovo. Mr Thaci justified the move as necessary to enforce a trade ban on goods from Serbia, responding to an equivalent ban on goods from Kosovo in Serbia. But it was interpreted differently by the local populace, which saw the move as an affront to civil liberties and a precedent with the potential to result in submission to Albanian rule.

A 100-strong mob of angry Serbs stormed the two customs checkpoints where the Albanian officers had been deployed, setting fire to one and vandalising another. One Albanian police officer was killed.

Swift diplomatic action brought the area under control again, but over the past three months the locals have erected a different form of civil protest. More than a dozen roadblocks have gone up, the most prominent of which stands on Mitrovica's main bridge dividing the Serbian north of the city from the Albanian south. "I am willing to die for this cause," Brajan Vukicevic, a Serbian father of three, says outside the barricade. "I do not give a damn if it's winter or summer. We have fire to keep us warm and we have a heart for Serbia and all we are doing here is defending the state of Serbia."

"Everyone in this world has a right to live in freedom and a right to peace," says Ljubisa Petrovic, 51. "I would die for my children. I want them to live in freedom. Given what has happened in Kosovo over the past 13 years, we [have] decided to live in our motherland. We don't want to live in a country which is built on the misfortune of others. We want to stay included in Serbia as we have been until now."

Yet the Nato peacekeeping troops in Kosovo say the position is not sustainable. The presence of roadblocks along the region's main access routes, they say, impedes access for emergency vehicles and the transport of goods. Last week 40 civilians were reported injured in a violent standoff between Serb protesters and Nato troops as the soldiers attempted to dismantle one barricade in the village of Jagnjenica, outside Mitrovica.

The heightened state of patriotism is visible on almost every street in Mitrovica. On the façade of a shop near the bridge barricade, the Serbian eagle emblem is emblazoned across a plaster wall. Superimposed over it is the silhouette of a crowd looming with outstretched arms.

Yet it is not just Serbs who are agitated. Local Albanians living as a minority in the north speak of their own fears and point to past atrocities. An Albanian who spoke to The Independent on Sunday on condition of anonymity explained that he removes the Kosovo numberplate from his car when travelling in the north to avoid attack.

Isak Beka, a 40-year-old Kosovo Albanian who works on the south side of Mitrovica but lives in the north, says his freedom is also limited. "Albanians are not well received in the north. We can't drive our cars freely. We can't go to the local cafés," he says.

Yet it is perhaps the young generation who could heal age-old grievances. Inside the protesters' tent, the children's drawings flap against the canvas wall. Three faces of different nationalities smile out from the paper. Beneath them, a paper chain of stick figures holding hands encircles a wonkily drawn image of the globe.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/tensions-between-serbs-and-albanians-flare-up-in-kosovo-2377796.html

Misha Glenny: Tadic inviterd MI6, CIA, FBI to hunt down Radovan & Ratko...

Misha Glenny: Tadic inviterd MI6, CIA, FBI to hunt down Radovan & Ratko...

 

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11967   Go to 18 minute mark...

 

• 25/10/2011 3:00

Why does the International Criminal Court keep silence on Gaddafi`s death?

Muammar Gaddafi

© RIA Novosti

11:50 24/10/2011

This story by Dr. Alexander Mezyaev, International Law Department of Governance Academy (Kazan`), Strategic Culture Foundation expert, was published in International Affairs magazine.

The alleged killing of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has brought several crucial issues of international law to the forefront. Though it is evident that many pieces of video footage featuring Gaddafi`s last hours are fake, still there are some which may prove real. It is easy to explain why fake videos have been made: they were aimed to suppress courage in the rebels, and – if we suggest that the video showing Gaddafi`s killing are fake – to prevent a new wave of uprising set for the nearest future. But my task now is to analyze the footage showing Gaddafi`s bloodied body from the point of view of international law, no matter whether the videos were fake or real, but relying on the fact that the footage was considered genuine by the global media and NATO leaders.

For the past few days we have been shown the footage of a man, who looked much like Gaddafi, being brutally killed. The world`s major political factions have reacted differently. But the reaction of the International Criminal Court deserves special attention.

Russia`s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called for a thorough investigation in to Gaddafi`s death. Even the world`s leading human rights organization, Amnesty International, commented on the event. Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court keeps silence. Why?

At the moment Gaddafi was captured he was still alive. After the capture he was dead – the video footage shows him having a bullet hole in his left temple. This is enough to qualify his killing as a war crime.

In March the UN Security Council (UNSC) admitted that Libya was in grip of an armed conflict, which means that all the sides involved in the conflict should abide to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, including Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Its Article 3 says: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria". Otherwise, all actions causing the death of a captive should be viewed as a 'serious violation' of the Convention. The word serious in this context is a legal definition which serves to differentiate between common violations the ICC does not have to deal with, and  grave crimes which rightly fall under the Court`s jurisdiction. So, what was demonstrated on TV about Gaddafi`s death, is a serious violation of the norms of international law.

The reasons for the ICC to keep silence about the situation are quite obvious: on having started the hearings into Gaddafi`s death, they will by all means have to investigate numerous reports on crimes committed by the National Transitional Council (NTC). The easiest thing the ICC could do in this situation would be to say that the Court was founded to deal with the gravest crimes, while the killing of one person is not the case. But they can`t say that, first of all because the case has already been classified as 'serious crime', and, secondly, as the Gaddafi case has been opened already. The last thing the ICC is now expected to do is to qualify the killing as an obstacle to exercise justice. They can't keep silence any longer. Gaddafi`s murder is not a private case but a part of a bigger case, which has been launched earlier. Certainly, the death of a key defendant impedes the investigation, but those who killed him can be identified in the video.

The UN General Assembly rejected Muammar Gaddafi`s appeal to investigate the killings of all state and government leaders of UN member countries throughout 65 years of the organization`s history. It proves that in most countries the authorities do not want publicity on those killings. But if Gaddafi was alive and put to trial, he could have testified on a number of very controversial issues, including the Lockerbie bombing, as well as on some other operations carried out by the West against Libya and other countries. Thus, having put Gaddafi on trial, the ICC would have become the least interested in bringing the process to the logical end.

But the Court is silent on Gaddafi`s death. On the day when the ousted Libyan leader was killed, the ICC addressed the Republic of Malawi in southeast Africa to explain why it failed to arrest the Sudanese president Omar Al-Bashir during his visit to Malawi last Friday in accordance with the order issued in 2008. Why the ICC does not demand the same from the Libyan authorities?

Remarkably, the official accusations once unveiled by the ICC against Gaddafi include 'the use of lethal force', 'manslaughter', 'cruelty and torture'. The question is why Gaddafi`s case should be viewed differently from what has been going on in the neighborhood. The ICC definitely has the reason.

http://en.rian.ru/international_affairs/20111024/168045085.html

James Bissett: NATO Still Getting It Wrong In Kosovo

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/NATO+still+getting+wrong+Kosovo/5595475/story.html

Ottawa Citizen
October 24, 2011

NATO still getting it wrong in Kosovo
By James Bissett*


In the three years since Kosovo, urged on by the United States, declared its unilateral independence, there has been no final resolution of this long-festering wound in the heart of the Balkans.

After the expulsion of the Serbian military from Kosovo in 1999 there was a systematic purging of the non-Albanian population and a rampage of revenge killing, and destruction.

In March, 2004, the Albanian mobs burned or dynamited more than 204 Christian churches and monasteries - some of them heritage structures dating back to the 14th century. This veritable orgy of devastation was accomplished under the watchful eyes of NATO troops who did nothing to stop the violence.

On Sept. 15, the Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, visited Pristina, the capitol of Kosovo, and again repeated the usual refrain that NATO was there to maintain a secure and safe environment and emphasized that "We will continue to do so - firmly, carefully, and impartially."

Less than two weeks after his departure from Kosovo on Sept. 27, his impartial NATO troops opened fire with live ammunition on a crowd of Serbian civilians demonstrating against the establishment of Kosovo customs posts along the border between Serbia and northern Kosovo, effectively cutting them off from Serbia proper. At least six of the demonstrators were wounded. The standoff continued over the weekend.

This incident took place at the same time our NATO leaders were vigorously protesting the shooting of protesters in Syria and Yemen.

So far, there have been no apologies from the NATO leadership and no demands for a full inquiry.

Kosovo, since its so-called liberation from Serbia, has become a failed state with massive unemployment, crime and corruption prevalent, and a leadership deeply involved in the importation of heroin and arms, and human smuggling - not to mention serious allegations about the harvesting of human body parts.

Nevertheless, Kosovo is the stepchild state of the U.S.-led NATO powers, and therefore must be seen to be a success. NATO cannot admit to failure.

After all, we are told 80 countries have recognized its independence. Little mention is made that there are 113 countries of the United Nations who refuse do so - including Greece, Cyprus, Spain and Slovakia - all members of NATO.

There is a larger than life statue of president Bill Clinton in Pristina. Shortly after the occupation of Kosovo the Americans constructed the enormous Camp Bondsteel. Kosovo is their baby and at all cost it must be accepted as a sovereign state. Unfortunately, the costs are high and may well spell the demise of NATO as a respected champion of the rule of law and democratic freedom.

Canada was involved in drafting Article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty that stated that NATO would never use or threaten to use force in the resolution of international disputes and would always act in accordance with the principles laid down by the United Nations Charter. Alas, we never hear anything more about Article 1.

After the collapse of the Soviet empire, Article 1 came to be seen by the United States as an obstacle in preventing NATO (read the United States) from intervening in out-of-area disputes and in using force to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives, frequently under the guise of humanitarian intervention.

The first opportunity of doing this was the bombing of Serbia on the false grounds that Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic was planning to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of its majority Albanian population and that genocide was taking place there.

Without consulting the United Nations and in violation of its own treaty, NATO bombed Serbia for 78 days and nights and was successful in tearing away an integral part of that country's territory.

The United States and some of the NATO countries, including Canada, have gone further by recognizing the declaration of independence of Kosovo, despite UN Resolution 1244 that reaffirmed Serbia's sovereignty over that province.

By doing so they have opened Pandora's Box and issued an open invitation to the many groups and tribes around the world aspiring for their own state to do so by simply declaring independence. Can anyone really blame the Palestinians for expecting anything less?

*James Bissett is former Canadian ambassador to the former Yugoslavia.

Kosovo: Can You Imagine? | Boris Malagurski (2009) - YouTube

Kosovo: Can You Imagine? | Boris Malagurski (2009) - YouTube

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nHWsWOgtiw  29min

RE: Report linking Kosovo leader, organ harvesting being probed

I want to thank all of you for the information on Nasir Oric.  I decided I would concentrate my letter strictly on Hashim Thaci and the fact that the US State Department will not let a little thing like organ harvesting interfere with our love fest for Thaci.  

 

My letter is in response to "Report linking Kosovo leader, organ harvesting being probed," that was published in The Montreal Gazette.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Report+linking+Kosovo+leader+organ+harvesting+being+probed/5587264/story.html

 

IfI do not hear from them within a reasonable amount of time, I will post it.

 

Stella

 

NATO evil turns against Serbs

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/19-10-2011/119378-nato_serbs-0/#

19.10.2011 20:08

NATO's next stop? It will have to be somewhere where there are Islamist terrorists to side with, somewhere whose population can be easily bombed, meaning somewhere defenceless and somewhere where the worst dregs of society can be turned into governors, politicians and ministers. Where could that be?

When we speak about Serbia and Kosovo, let us get certain things right from the start. Facts: Kosovo is Serbian. The Serbian nation has always included Kosovo. Kosovo is the heart that beats at the centre of the Serb psyche. The ones who planned for a Greater Albania were Hitler and Mussolini. Kosovo is Serbia. Kosovo always was Serbia, Kosovo always has been Serbia and Kosovo always will be Serbia, however many lines they draw on maps.

The history book proves NATO wrong

"Gradual and unconditional" independence for Kosovo, ripping the heart out of Serbia, a meddlesome and intrusive, unwelcome and unasked-for act of blatant arrogance from non-Balkan peoples. This is the legacy of NATO the world over.

The Albanian government has claimed at various times that the Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians, the original inhabitants of this region, and that therefore they have a right to this Province of Serbia.

However, for anyone who bothers to do any research, this is utter nonsense. However much one adulterates the word "Illyria", one does not get anywhere as near to "Albania" as the "Albani", a tribe which had lived on the Caspian Sea and which many centuries after the Illyrians had been conquered by the Romans, moved westwards into their mountainous refuge, where these tribes remained as the "Shqiperi" or "eagle people". Polybius (200 - 118 BC) writes that the Albani and Illyrians spoke two distinct languages and needed interpreters to understand each other. Indeed, it was under the Ottoman domination of the Balkans that the Albanians settled definitively in the area which is Albania today. Besides, the Illyrians never referred to themselves as a single people or group of peoples, simply because they were not, neither did they speak a common language.

A study into the ethnic composition of Kosovo over history shows very clearly that the Serbs are the original inhabitants and therefore have a birthright to retain Kosovo. It was the Serbian army, led by prince Lazar, which fought the heroic battle of Kosovo Polje (Blackbird Field) on June 28, 1389, gaining an honourable draw against the might of the Ottoman Turks, but being so weakened that by 1459, all of Serbia had been occupied. However, Kosovo Polye stood firm in the hearts and minds of generations of Serbs for hundreds of years as their rallying cry.

NATO's violence

With the Serbs now penned into Northern Kosovo, the northern part of their own province, that terrorist mafia filth NATO backs (similar to the filth it backs in Libya) has run amok. These are the rapists, terrorists, murderers, looters, arsonists and torturers, organ traffickers which NATO cavorts with then labels "Minister" or some such nonsense. When was Hashim Thaçi "minister" of anything? He has been accused of organ trafficking and NATO calls him "Prime Minister" of Kosovo, a country that does not exist. Why not call him King of Saturn, or better still, King of Mercury and send him and his Shiptari terrorists there to burn in Hell?

To protect this filth, NATO forces have given the Serbs a further 24 hours to take down their road barricades, set up to protect the Serbs and to allow ambulances to pass, to get them to hospital after Albanian mafia thugs dressed as policemen strafe civilians with gunfire; these barricades were set up to ensure that anti-Serb elements were not placed at the only escape routes Serbs would have into Serbia if the long-awaited ethnic cleansing (backed by NATO) went ahead and drove them out of Kosovo, their own homeland.

It would be a bit like forcing all US citizens out of, say, Virginia and replacing them with Arabs, or telling the English that Kent was not to be French, or telling the French that the English possessions of the Medieval era were to be returned, a bit like giving Italy's Trieste to Slovenia, giving the Sudetenland and Rhineland back to France, telling Portugal it is part of Spain or giving Spain's Galicia to Portugal.

The Kosovo mafia terrorist leader, accused of organ trafficking, Hashim Thaçi, can bray like a donkey or bleat like a goat about the "rule of law" being applied, but what rule of law were he and his Ushtria Çlirimtare ë Kosovës applying when they were beheading Serbs and raping women, including Albanian girls?

Correct - the law of the jungle, where apes belong.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Pravda.Ru

 

 

Kosovo – whose reality?

You are here: TransConflict » News Archive » Kosovo – whose reality?

Kosovo – whose reality?

Posted on October 21st, 2011 in the category Kosovo by TransConflict

1 Comment

Though Kosovo Serbs have been called upon to accept the 'reality' of an independent Kosovo, it is the reality of past and present experience that continues to motivate their peaceful resistance.

By Milos Subotic

On February 17^th 2008, the Kosovo's provisional institutions of self-government under UN Security Council Resolution 1244 unilaterally declared independence on the basis of the notion of self-determination. Whilst Kosovo Albanians on the streets of the capital, Pristina, and in other cities celebrated, a crowd of Kosovo Serbs from the divided city of Kosovska Mitrovica gathered on the north side of the main bridge on the River Ibar to peacefully protest against the declaration, plus the mistreatment suffered by all non-ethnic Albanians residing in Kosovo.

As a result of ethnic cleansing in 1999 and March 17^th 2004, approximately 200,000 Serbs were expelled from their homes. Every year, roughly 350 displaced persons return; meaning that at the present rate, it will take the next 572 years for the process to be complete. The failure to uphold Serb rights in this regard is one of the international community's most pertinent shortcomings.

Nor are steps being taken to ensure the conditions for return exist. On October 20^th, three Serbs were shot in the village of Dobruša near the town of Peć; one was killed and two others wounded. They were visiting land they owned, but which had been usurped by a Kosovo Albanian. According to one of the victims, "after a short conversation, the Albanian said he had to do something and would be back soon. He went to his vehicle, took out a rifle, and started to shoot".

Though the case will be taken over by EULEX, their record is extremely disappointing. There are several other higher-profile cases of ethnically-motivated violence towards the Serb community – including the massacre of 14 Serbian farmers in Staro Gracko during harvest time, plus the terrorist attack on the Nis Expres bus near Podujevo which killed 12 and wounded 40 – for which no one has ever been prosecuted.

After the long honeymoon since declaring independence, Kosovo Albanians must now contend with the reality that Kosovo remains one of the poorest places in Europe; with 45% living below the poverty line of €43 a month, some 18% in extreme poverty and extremely high unemployment of 47.5% according to a UNDP report. Its health and social welfare systems are limited and poorly maintained, whilst corruption is widespread and organized crime endemic. Kosovo's prime minister, Hashim Thaci, has been accused of involvement in human organ trafficking by the Council of Europe's special rapporteur, Dick Marty, whilst many members of the government are under investigation by EULEX.

In spite of all this, the international community continues to call on Belgrade and Kosovo Serbs to accept the reality of an independent Kosovo. As the examples outlined above emphasize, however, this is a reality that no-body should be forced to accept. In dropping the insistence of 'standards before status', the international community sent a clear message to Pristina that it did not have to uphold international human rights standards.

Nonetheless, in the last few months, EULEX and KFOR have clearly and regularly violated the mandate granted to them by UN Security Council Resolution 1244 in attempting to impose this 'reality' on the north of Kosovo. By using teargas on peaceful protestors and jamming communications, KFOR is denying the right of Kosovo Serbs to democratically express their opposition.

The Kosovo 'reality' as experienced by Serbs, however, provides a strong motivation for further peaceful resistance. Whilst Kosovo Albanians were granted the right to self-determination, it is hard to understand why Kosovo Serbs – as their supposed equals – can not enjoy the same rights.

Milos Subotic is an international relations officer at the University of Pristina in Kosovska Mitrovica. He served two terms as chairman of the Democratic Youth of Kosovska Mitrovica, the youth wing of the Democratic Party. He is a former member of the local parliament and has worked for many international organizations in Kosovo, including the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the international NGO 'Spark'. Milos is also an expert in the field of higher education policy.

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

 

Kosovo: Serbs demand withdrawal of EU mission, return of Serb forces

last update: October 19, 17:40

 

Zubin Potok, 19 Oct. (AKI) - Four Serb municipalities in northern Kosovo on Wednesday demanded withdrawal of European Union mission (Eulex) from the newly proclaimed state and return of a contingent of Serb army and police as provided by the United Nations Security Council resolution 1244.

The councilmen of four municipalities at a joint meeting in northern town of Zubin Potok unanimously voted to demand from Belgrade to deploy one thousand policemen and soldiers in the north, as provided by the UN resolution and to renounce hospitality to Eulex which they accused of siding with majority Albanians.

Kosovo Serbs, who make majority population in the north, oppose Kosovo independence declared by Albanians in 2008 and have set up barricades in protest against placing of Kosovo police and customs at two border crossings with Serbia, Brnjak and Jarinje.

Nato forces stationed in Kosovo (KFOR) gave local Serbs ultimatum to remove barricades by Tuesday, but the councilmen ruled the barricades would remain until Kosovo police and customs withdrew.

They voted, however, to allow KFOR convoys free passage to supply its troops in the north. Kfor has been hesitant to use force lately, after a Kosovo policeman was killed in clashes in July and several people were wounded last month.

Serb leaders held a meeting with Kfor representatives Wednesday afternoon, but no agreement was reached. It was not immediately clear what action Kfor may take. It had earlier warned it reserves the right to remove barricades by force.

According to Belgrade media, Serbian president Boris Tadic has assured Kosovo Serbs that Belgrade would not desert them, but at the same time demanded that Kfor should be granted free passage.

Tadic himself said it would be "irresponsible" to discuss publicly what his message contained. He has set as his primary goal Serbia's membership in the EU and is keen at non offending the EU whose 22 out of 27 members have recognized Kosovo.

The resolution 1244 still treats Kosovo as being officially a part of Serbia and provides of 1,000 Serb policemen and soldiers to return there. But no government since democratic changes in October 2000 has dared to ask for implementation of that clause.

Wednesday demand by Kosovo Serbs was the most daring request in that respect and puts Tadic on the spot. Belgrade fears such actions may hurt Serbia's hopes to get a status of an official candidate for EU membership in December.

 

http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English/Security/Kosovo-Serbs-demand-withdrawal-of-EU-mission-return-of-Serb-forces_312556554100.html

Serbia Parliament: U.S. ambassador blocked by Radikali

Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 10:05 AM http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2011&mm=10&dd=19&nav_id=550782  Radicals blocked the U.S. ambassador Source: Beta    19 Oct. 2011 Belgrade - SRS MPs have caused the incident in the Serbian Parliament blocking the entrance to the U.S. Ambassador Mary Warlick and members of the Group of Friendship with the United States.   Radicals protest the arrival of U.S. Ambassador to the Parliament of Serbia (Beta) The Assembly was to be a meeting of the Parliamentary Group of Friendship with the United States and U.S. Ambassador Mary Warlick on the occasion of 130 years of cooperation with the United States. Beta The Ambassador has arrived in the Assembly and entered the hall with several members of the Friendship Group. Part of the group members failed to enter the hall, as the radicals blocked the entrance. They wanted the banners to enter the hall, but the security prevented. Radicals after fifteen to twenty minutes removed the front door and hall. As they stand they pointed out the slogan "Children will not forgive you", "Stop killing Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija "," Bloody Mary "(Bloody Mary). "NATO = crime," "murderers, stop killing Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija", "20 years of U.S. crimes against the Serbs", "Blade Mary" ... Beta SRS MP Boris Aleksic was after the incident, criticized the government for receiving Ambassador Warlick in the Serbian parliament at the time when, as he said, NATO is preparing to attack Serbian barricades in Kosovo and Metohija. He said that is why the Radical members gathered outside the hall where " authority having relations with the United States. " Aleksic said that his colleagues wanted to send a clear message that "the United States conducted 20 years of crimes against the Serbian people and that we are now ready to once and for all finish with the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija." "We were not allowed to enter the meeting. What hide from deputies? they do not hide from deputies from the citizens, "said Aleksic. "They came from the U.S. Embassy to tell them how to behave when U.S. tanks move barricades on Serbian Kosovo. We will not allow them to," said Aleksic. SRS front of the MPs sang the national anthem of Serbia and the song "St. Vitus", "Sprem'te is, Sprem'te" and songs about the SRS leader Vojislav Seselj, on trial in The Hague.

 

New Russian Presence Complicates Kosovo Impasse on Border

New Russian Presence Complicates Kosovo Impasse on Border

A new ingredient has been introduced by Serbia into the standoff on the border with Kosovo in the form of a Russian base.

By Aryeh ben Hayim

First Publish: 10/18/2011, 8:00 PM

 

Russia has just set up a "humanitarian base" in the Serb city of Nis only 100 km away from the border with Kosovo.

The establishment of the Russian base, coincidentally, comes less than a week after Serbia felt snubbed by an EU commission report that did not mark progress on Serbia's joining the EU. Serbia felt it had taken a painful decision by arresting and extraditing two Serbs --Ratko Mladić and Goran Hadžić-- to the Hague to face war crimes charges. It felt that this measure was unappreciated

The Russian base will now figure in a month-long crisis surrounding the attempt by the government of Kosovo to establish border checkpoints on its northern border with Serbia. Ethnic Serbs have established roadblocks made of rocks, mud and logs to prevent access to the border points.

As Kosovo has tried to seal the border the Serbian towns are busily building parallel roads extending to the border to prevent Kosovo from blocking unimpeded access to Serbia. NATO that operates a KFOR peacekeeping force in Kosovo gave a deadline for the removal of the roadblocks but when it sent a convoy early this morning to one of the roadblocks it was turned back.

Serbian President Boris Tadić commented on the crisis. "We expect international factors to show international responsibility because there is also the Serb reality in Kosovo and not just the Albanian one."

After the setback to the European option nationalist parties in Serbia are weighing in in support of their compatriots in Kosovo and using the issue against the coalition. With Russia now close by another joker has been tossed into the picture.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/148896#.Tp37xvIg-T8

Tensions linger along Kosovo border

Tensions linger along Kosovo border

 

Serb-manned roadblocks have become a potential flashpoint on disputed NATO-patrolled frontier.

 

Last Modified: 16 Oct 2011 11:43

NATO peacekeepers have issued an ultimatum to Serbs to remove roadblocks on the border between Kosovo and Serbia, as a tense standoff threatens to trigger renewed violence in the region.

A trade row spilled over into violence in late July, when Kosovo's government in Pristina ordered its security forces to take over two crossings on the border with Serbia to enforce a newly imposed ban on Serbian goods.

FROM THE BLOGS

Kosovo's continuing limbo By Barnaby Phillips in The Europe Blog

Serbs in northern Kosovo reacted angrily and an ethnic Albanian police officer was killed and four injured in ensuing clashes.

Serbs form a majority in the two northern provinces of Kosovo. Albanians form the majority in most other areas.

Local Serbs have for weeks been manning 16 barricades blocking the main access roads to the border gates.

The commander of NATO-led forces in Kosovo (KFOR) said his troops would remove roadblocks near sensitive border crossings on Monday, if local Serbs fail to do so voluntarily.

Kosovo unilaterally declared independence in 2008 but Serbia still considers the breakaway territory its southern province.

Al Jazeera's Barnaby Phillips reports from the Kosovo border.

Source:

Al Jazeera and agencies

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/10/201110167539819979.html

EU to takeover former Yugoslavia

14.10.2011

 

The European Union is going to grow through the republics of former Yugoslavia. Following Slovenia and Croatia, Montenegro may soon become an EU member. The long-awaited status of a candidate country was given to Serbia, but it was made clear that without a settlement of the Kosovo issue Serbs will not be able to enjoy the membership.


The movement toward the former Yugoslavia was started by the EU in the mid-1990s. However, at the time there were talks only about the most advanced of its republics, Slovenia. The rest of them were either healing the wounds of war, or every now and then would get involved in armed conflicts. As a result, Slovenia, still the most prosperous not only among the republics of Yugoslavia, but also among all former socialist countries, joined the EU in 2004, and three years later - the euro area.

Two million-strong Slovenia did not cause the European Union any particular problems. The income levels are higher than in Portugal, and nearly the same as in Greece. The Slovenes have developed industry and agriculture, beautiful ski and sea resorts. In addition, the percentage of ethnic minorities there is substantially below 10 percent.


Next in line was Croatia. Being (same as Slovenia), a predominantly Catholic country, it is in civilizational terms similar to countries in Western and Central Europe. Unlike with most other residents of the Yugoslav republics, visas for Croatian were abolished by the EU 15 years ago. But before the end of the 1990s Croatia was ruled by the authoritarian regime of Franjo Tudjman. There acceptance of Croats in the EU in 2005 has failed. The country has not yet given the Hague Tribunal all war criminals that "excelled" in the course of the 1991-1995 war.

Gradually, all wanted Croatian war criminals have taken their place in the Hague tribunal, and the negotiations ensued. Ultimately, this summer it was decided to take Croatia into the EU starting July 1 of 2013. This country is not rich and its GDP per capita is 61 percent of the EU average, unemployment stands at 20 percent. However, in Poland, Hungary, Latvia, and Lithuania the income numbers are approximately the same, and such EU member states as Bulgaria and Romania have the numbers that are few orders of magnitude lower.


At the moment, the Croats are only a few steps away from the membership in the EU. In December a special agreement with the EU is to be signed. Then, Croatia will have to introduce a visa regime with Russia and Ukraine (require for all new EU members) and bring a few other items of legislation in line with the European standards.
On October 12th it became clear that the EU will not limit itself with the two most prosperous republics of Yugoslavia. The EU Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fule released a report which shows that all post-Yugoslavian countries are considered potential recruits by the EU. Obviously, they will not get membership all at once, and their levels of readiness to join the EU are different.

To date, the closest to the European future is Montenegro, whose population is just over 600 thousand. The European Commission has already recommended to begin talks with it for admission to the EU. The only thing that can interfere with the Montenegrins in the negotiation process is the high level of corruption and organized crime. The Europeans made it clear that they would not put up with the Montenegrin clan system of the authorities.

How beneficial for Europe a possible membership of Montenegro would be? In civilizational terms, this Orthodox country is far more removed from the "core" of the EU than Croatia and Slovenia. In terms of income it is about the same as Bulgaria and Romania (11 thousand dollars a year per capita). The country cannot boast developed industry and agriculture, but has wonderful seaside resorts (Bar, Budva). The level of the resort infrastructure is still below that of Croatia (and Slovenia in particular).

In terms of ethnic relations today's Montenegro is relatively stable. Albanians make up approximately four percent of the population, Slavic Muslims - nearly 14. However, their relationship with the title Orthodox nations is far from ideal. This titular nation was not very successful in "self-determination." Less than 45 percent of the country considers themselves Montenegrins, and nearly a third - the Serbs. The EU will have to deal with the country unstable in many ways.

The report of the EU and the Serbian leadership may be considered a relative victory. Contrary to many gloomy forecasts, the country received their candidate status for the EU membership. It seems that the European Commission has partially kept their promise that after the capture of war crimes suspects and transferring them to The Hague Serbia substantial talks with Serbia will be started. The former military leader of the Bosnian Serbs Ratko Mladic and the former head of the Croatian Serbs Goran Hadzic were sent to the Hague, and the Europeans "relented."

However, Serbian membership in the EU is not guaranteed. Before substantive negotiations may be started, it needs to resolve Kosovo's status. The situation is at a true deadlock. Most EU member states have recognized Kosovo's independence, but some refuse to do so. The Serbian leaders insist that they will not give the area even in exchange for the European future. The situation in Kosovo has recently escalated. The negotiations on Serbia's EU membership seem to be postponed.
   

In addition to Kosovo, Serbia has a problem with other ethnic minorities. Dissatisfaction with their situation is increasingly expressed by 60,000 Albanians from the Presevo Valley, 200, 000 Slavic Muslims in the Sandzak region, and 400 thousand Hungarians from the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. Recently they were joined by 60,000 Romanians. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has demanded in the summer that the Serbian authorities "respect the rights of minorities." 

Candidate status for EU membership before Serbia was granted to Macedonia. However, negotiations with it cannot be started because of a dispute over its name. Greece refuses to recognize the country called the Republic of Macedonia, fearing their claims on the homonymous province. Macedonians are not willing to change the name to "Republic of Skopje" and the Greeks do not intend to withdraw their veto on the negotiations. Now "the case of the name" is examined the Hague tribunal, but no solutions have been reached as of yet.


Macedonia's issues are not limited to the name. Nearly a quarter of the population is Albanians. 10 years ago, they already took up arms, and the NATO forces have put out an armed conflict not without difficulty. The subject of separation of the western areas populated by the Albanians remains on the agenda. In addition, Bulgaria refuses to consider the Macedonian language as a separate one, considering it a dialect of Bulgarian. It is understandable why the EU is in no hurry to take Macedonia into its ranks.

The worst of all is the case with the European integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). The European Union put much effort to ensure that this former republic is relatively strong. However, only local Muslims are willing to centralize. Head of the Republic of Srpska, Milorad Dodik, speaks openly about frailty of BiH. The local Croats require a special allocation of Croatian national unit by blocking the creation of all-Bosnian authorities.
As a result, the country cannot even apply for membership in the European Union. The European Commission stated that the country has not yet formed a government at the state level, and the lack of a common vision of its political leaders continues to block the holding of key reforms related to the EU. The European prospects of the Bosnians that cannot even boast Montenegrin income level remain murky.

Objectively accepting into its ranks the former Yugoslavia, the EU is obtaining a huge headache in the form of undeveloped economies and international conflicts. Yet, was it not the "locomotive of the EU" Germany that at the time made a considerable contribution to a fire that broke out the war in Yugoslavia? France, Britain and Italy were not without sin either. Absorption of the EU post-Yugoslavian space is the only way to somehow control what happens there.
So the EU will do everything to have all the republics of Yugoslavia in its composition. In the end, a geopolitical vacuum in Europe is something unacceptable, and the Europeans do not want to share their own influence in the Balkan underbelly with anyone. But the cost of joining of the Balkans may be such that the Greek crisis on their background may pale in comparison.


Vadim Trukhachev

Pravda.Ru

http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/14-10-2011/119330-eu_yugoslavia-0/

Robert Fisk: Democratic governments don't deal with terrorists – until they do

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-democratic-governments-dont-deal-with-terrorists-ndash-until-they-do-2369660.html

 

Robert Fisk: Democratic governments don't deal with terrorists – until they do

 

The Independent, 13 October 2011

 

In three decades, the Israelis have freed 7,000 prisoners in return for 19 Israeli prisoners

Once upon a time, we lived in a world where democratic governments did no deals with "terrorists". No country promoted this nonsense more than Israel. And no Israeli leader repeated the mantra so often as one B Netanyahu Esq. After all, America never "gave way" to "terrorists". No deals would ever be done by Britain.

Indeed, if France were to release 1,000 prisoners for one French hostage – heaven forbid – Obama, La Clinton and Cameron would be loud in their fury at French cowardice. But yesterday there came not a squeak from Washington or London about Israel's latest "deal" with its supposedly "terrorist" enemies: 1,027 Palestinians for one Israeli soldier.

 

 

Of all nations on earth, Israel regularly "gives in" or does "deals" over "terrorist" demands more than any other. A quick trip down memory lane: in 1985, Israel released 1,150 prisoners for three captured Israeli soldiers in Lebanon. In 1998, for the remains of an Israeli soldier killed the previous year, Israel released 65 prisoners and the bodies of 40 dead Hezbollah men. I watched the grim procession of the latter to a south Lebanon village where the bodies reeked so badly that families were sick at the stench as they wept in mourning.

In 2004, I watched the arrogant figure of Samir Kantar – convicted of murdering a policeman and an Israeli civilian and his four-year-old daughter – stride across the Lebanese frontier from Israel a free man (along with two tractor loads of Hezbollah bodies, released in return for an Israeli agent lured into Beirut by Hezbollah). He was proclaimed a hero in Lebanon.

And so it goes on. In three decades, the Israelis have freed 7,000 prisoners in return for 19 Israeli prisoners and the remains of four dead Israeli soldiers. Quite an exchange rate. Ironically, Israel's latest "deal" – 1,027 Palestinians for one Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, captured in Gaza in 2006 – suggests that one Israeli life equals 1,300 Palestinian lives; this was almost the exact number of Palestinians killed in Gaza in the 2008-09 invasion when 13 Israelis were killed.

Oddly, Israel never explained – and most journalists never asked – why its soldiers simply could not discover where Shalit was held in Gaza. It must have been Israeli military incompetence on a massive scale – unless the missing soldier was taken briefly through the Gaza tunnels to Egypt. Perhaps, when he is released, he will tell us.

In the past 30 years, the hostage swaps have been engineered by the International Red Cross, the German intelligence service, the United Nations and now the Egyptians. Hamas, crowing as usual at its "success", might choose to hold its tongue. Arrangements currently suggest that in return for Shalit they will receive 500 Palestinians now and 527 Palestinians "later". More than 10 years ago, the UN engineered a similar swap. Half the Lebanese prisoners came home during the hostage swap; then the Israelis decided to keep the other half.

The UN's special negotiator told me personally that when he pointed this out to then-UN Secretary General, the latter said of the remaining prisoners: "Forget them." No doubt Hamas can be equally as ruthless. Since they are now trying to force journalists and others to obtain "visas" before visiting their Republic of Gaza, we may not know.

In any case, it's a dirty and outrageous business, doing deals with "terrorists". Do not utter the word hypocrisy. And don't expect Obama to say a word. After all, the poor man is seeking re-election.

Like Robert Fisk on The Independent on Facebook for updates

‘Kosovo plays NATO off against Serbia’

'Kosovo plays NATO off against Serbia'

permalink email story to a friend print version

Published: 10 October, 2011, 13:24
Edited: 10 October, 2011, 18:46

KFOR soldiers stand guard at Jarinje border crossing between Serbia and Kosovo (AFP Photo / SASA DJORDJEVIC)

(88.2Mb) embed video

The atmosphere in Kosovo has been tense for months, and the international organizations set up to be impartial, clearly seem to be taking sides in the conflict, Serbian First Deputy PM Ivica Dacic told RT.

­RT: How do the recent events in the north of Kosovo characterize the plans of Kosovo authorities to reaffirm the so-called independence of the region?

Ivica Dacic: The latest events in the north of Serbia show two facts: first, that Pristina is about to set up customs around what they think is the independent state of Kosovo. On the other hand, they show that there are international unions and a whole number of states that approve Pristina's intentions. We are facing a situation here when international forces deployed in Kosovo in fact serve Pristina's needs rather than maintain a neutral position. This is why Serbia opposes this attempt to introduce a customs and administrative line on the border with Serbia. Serbia is all for dialogue and for negotiations.

I think that Kosovo is only making matters worse by addressing other states. While I have said many times that Serbia is all for a peaceful resolution of the arguments around Kosovo, Serbia also has to take care of its people living in Kosovo. Nobody can expect or demand of Serbia, for any goal – even to join the EU – to state that it is not interested in Serbs or that it has no interests in Kosovo. This is why Serbia demanded a session of the UN Security Council – a demand backed by Russia – but the Security Council was unable to take a decision. It was due to the resistance of Western states who think that the Kosovo case is closed. Kosovo proclaimed its independence unilaterally; those countries agreed with it and now they think there's nothing more to talk about. Well, I think there is. There is still room for negotiation, and all resolutions must be fair.

RT:Would a decisive Serbian stance lead to another surge of violence against Serbian population of Kosovo, ultimately increasing the flow of Serbian refugees from Kosovo?

ID: Over 200,000 Serbs moved to Serbia from Kosovo, fleeing NATO air raids and the subsequent deployment of NATO and KFOR forces. At the moment, there are some 200,000 Serbs there, and it is crucial for Serbia, it is a key national interest that they stay in Kosovo. Of course, Serbia has its red lines that it will never allow Pristina to cross: for example, to use force against Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija, which would spur a new wave of the conflict and lead to more ethnic cleansing and more refugees. Serbia has made it known to the international community that its patience cannot be tried with attacks against Serbia and the Kosovo Serbs.

According the EU Security Council, Serbian police and the Serbian army may not be stationed in Kosovo. On the other hand, Serbs are constantly being oppressed, which may lead to a new wave of ethnic cleansing. Thus, it is very important that peace remains and sincere dialogue continues.

We need to find a way out of the situation where on the one hand, there are countries that acknowledge the one-sided proclamation of independence, and on the other hand, there is Serbia, which does not recognize the Pristina initiative.

RT: Do you think that the northern part of Kosovo may fall under Serbian jurisdiction?

ID: This is a position that I have expressed for a long time: that I support the historical component of the agreement between Serbs and Albanians. We need to fine-tune and confirm administrative borders, which means that if Albanians have the right to say they don't want to be part of Serbia, then the Serbs have the right to say they don't want to live within an independent Kosovo. It is obvious that despite the fact that we all want to live in peace as one multi-ethnic civil state, there are great contradictions between the Albanian and Serbian parts of Kosovo.

Albanians and Serbs have fought for ages over those lands. This is why the only possible solution is to live in peace and put an end to all problems by either dividing the land in such a way that Serbian parts of Kosovo remain within Serbia, or by putting that part under international governance and removing it from the jurisdiction of Pristina. I think this is the only fast and correct solution.

RT:Most NATO and EU countries have recognized Kosovo's independence. To what extent can the NATO peace-keeping forces and the EU-delegated mission be impartial and objective in a situation like this?

ID: It is a delicate and well-justified question. When EULEX was sent to Kosovo, it guaranteed, and the European Union guaranteed as well, that it would be neutral. But the mission's recent actions have proved that the reality is far from neutral. When the president of EULEX announces the mission's intention to observe the laws of Kosovo, it testifies to their breaching of their neutrality status obligations. My experience suggests – and I have been in politics for 20 years already – that the partiality of big European states is evident. They are biased and pursue double standards in their politics. Unfortunately, this is the reality we have to face. We have to counter this sad reality or find ways out of the situation. Of course, the plans of Hashim Thaci are actually built around KFOR and EULEX, therefore, if Serbia opposes Thaci, this means it opposes KFOR and EULEX and has to wage war with the rest of the world once again. They are trying to prove that Serbia is opposed to the international community. All in all, I think you were right to say that – it is true that we would like KFOR and EULEX to fulfill their mission in a more neutral and discreet way.

RT: What, do you think, the inability of the UN Security Council to pass an adequate resolution on the situation in the north of Kosovo proves?

ID: It is obvious that the countries which have the right of veto all support the Albanians, it's clear, and they won't let any resolution brought forward by either Serbia or Russia pass. In any case, we don't want the UN Security Council to take our side – we only want it to be impartial and to further control the work of the international mission, ensure KFOR is neutral and not with the Pristina authorities. All things considered, it is obvious that the Security Council is at a stalemate position – on one hand, it cannot pass resolutions that would distress Pristina, and on the other hand, it cannot decide to grant Kosovo independence because before such a decision is taken, a political solution to the existing problems should be found. They say Serbia's stance is no longer relevant, it is unimportant – but it is not, if they want a peaceful decision, of course! If the problem of Kosovo is to be dealt with efficiently, the option of an agreement with Serbia has to be considered. As it is now, a new practice is emerging in international politics – any part of a sovereign country is free to proclaim its own independence with no regard to the attitude of the country it is part of. A Pandora's Box has been opened and it is still unclear how we should put the lid back in place. I think it has to be accomplished by signing an agreement with Serbia.

RT:Do you think the EU is in a position to put pressure on Serbia in order to make it recognize Kosovo's independence?

ID: Serbia is interested in joining the EU. This interest lies primarily in the economic sphere. On the other hand, the EU has never told Serbia it has to recognize Kosovo's independence. And the EU has repeatedly stated it is not going to impose such a decision on Serbia. But some pressure does exist, this is obvious, and it is exercised where minor issues are concerned – all this is likely to evolve into a direct recognition of Kosovo's independence in the long run. This is the issue of customs control and the elimination of Serbian institutions in the north of Kosovo. And if Serbia agrees to do it, it will be virtually an act of recognition of Kosovo's independence. I believe, it is clear that Serbia will never sacrifice its national interests for the sake of admission to the EU.

Serbia may hold talks with the EU on a range of issues, like other states – on trade quotas, political system, justice and combating crime, fishing issues Norway has been discussing with the EU. But these talks cannot be focused on a part of Serbian territory.

RT:One of the preconditions of Serbia's accession to the EU was the arrest and extradition of General Ratko Mladic to The Hague Tribunal. What does Serbia think of the legal proceedings? How is the trial going? Is Serbia satisfied with it?

ID: I think the EU has already forgotten about The Hague Tribunal, and the conditions it set for Serbia: that it should detain Mladic to enter the Union, and now Kosovo has become a central issue. A ground to put pressure on Serbia can always be found. Serbia has handed 46 people over to The Hague Tribunal, and all were convicted by it. We think the Tribunal has based its every decision on the assumption that all Serbs are to blame for the problems of ex-Yugoslavia. In most trials that have taken place lately, Serbs were in the dock. It was necessary that my country found Mladic, this is true, but it is also necessary that we prove his innocence in court. This should be done in the best interest of the state, because such cases have started to cast a shadow over the reputation of the country. Everyone who committed military crimes should be held responsible, but this responsibility cannot be collective, it cannot be assumed by a whole nation, a whole country.

We have the example of Croatia, where national heroes, generals of the Croatian army were convicted. And you see that Albanians are seldom among those who have to face punishment for the military crimes they committed against the Serbian population. The Hague Tribunal did not want to hear cases of organ trafficking involving Albanians who abused Serbs. It's time to ask the question: what global picture was The Hague Tribunal striving to draw of itself and other states of the world? The Tribunal is perceived as highly partial and discriminatory in Serbia, at least by common citizens. But despite all this, Serbia has met the commitments it made.

RT: And the last question, Mr. Minister: Kosovo has been a de facto independent state for three years already. Let's be realistic: how strong is the possibility that it comes back to become part of Serbia once again?

ID: We should be realists if we want to engage in serious politics – we should foresee all possible developments. Today, we have several options: the first, or Pristina, option – Kosovo is independent and has no further interest in Serbia whatsoever; the second, Serbian, option is stipulated by the Serbian Constitution – Kosovo is part of Serbia. We expect Kosovo to come back and let us take it under our wing. Neither the first, nor the second option is realistic, a compromise should be found. I think, when searching for a compromise, we must consider defining the status of Serbs living in the north of Kosovo as well as their monasteries, and try to regulate the relations between the Albanian and the Serbian people in general. I think this is the best and quickest way to resolve the problem.

http://rt.com/news/kosovo-serbia-eu-dacic-427/

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/world/europe/death-of-war-crimes-witness-casts-cloud-on-kosovo.html?_r=1&ref=europe

Advertise on NYTimes.com

Death of War Crimes Witness Casts Cloud on Kosovo

By MATTHEW BRUNWASSER

Published: October 6, 2011

 

PRIZREN, KOSOVO — The death of a key witness in Germany in the war crimes trial of one of Kosovo's most powerful politicians has cast doubt on the effective prosecution of the case and threatens to derail local and international efforts to establish the rule of law here.

 

ntimidation, fear, clan loyalties and a culture of silence have long impeded the development of a functioning justice system in Kosovo, analysts say, and the death is seen as a major setback.

The witness, Agim Zogaj, 53, a former commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army who kept meticulous diary notes of alleged war crimes, was found dead last week, hanging from a tree in a park in the Western German city of Duisburg.

Mr. Zogaj was said by his family to have been under witness protection from the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, or Eulex, for his testimony against Fatmir Limaj. Mr. Limaj is a lawmaker in Kosovo's governing party and a top former commander with the Kosovo Liberation Army and is seen by many Kosovars as a hero of the country's liberation.

In September, a Eulex judge placed Mr. Limaj under house arrest for one month while awaiting trial on war crimes charges of killing and torturing Serbian and Albanian prisoners in the central Kosovo village of Klecka. Mr. Zogaj was the commander responsible for the security of camps in the village, and many of the charges are based on his witness statements.

The police in Duisburg officially ruled the death a suicide after the autopsy last week, and Mr. Zogaj was buried in Prizren on Monday.

Afrim Zogaj, 46, spoke of "huge psychological pressure" on his brother. "It's not possible that he killed himself," he said, "and if he did, he was forced to do it."

In the family home in Prizren, where Mr. Zogaj's wife and three children lived while their father was in hiding, the blame was placed squarely on Eulex.

"Eulex is responsible for my husband's death," said his widow, Ganimeti Zogaj. "They didn't treat him well. They didn't provide anything for him at all."

Eulex has declined to comment on the death and issued a short statement expressing regret at the loss of life and explaining why it could not say more.

"Witness protection and security are extremely sensitive issues," it said, and we cannot "and will not confirm nor deny any operational details."

According to his brother, after an assault on the family home in March, Agim Zogaj was shot in the hand and leg and decided to testify and seek witness protection from Eulex. Eulex sent Mr. Zogaj to Duisburg to live with his brother.

When Eulex officials took him away from the family home after the attack, "they said, 'We will take care of him, he's our responsibility,"' said Idriz Zogaj, 75, the father.

Afrim Zogaj said Eulex had provided his brother no physical security in Germany

Vehbi Kajtazi, legal affairs reporter at Koha Ditore, a leading national daily in Kosovo, said: "The trust in Eulex has been destroyed. All the witnesses in the case will now start looking for ways to avoid testifying."

Mr. Kajtazi said the fallout would affect the entire judicial system.

"Witness protection was unreliable here even before this case" he said. "This is the worst signal you can send to future potential witnesses."

Intimidation and even killings of witnesses are nothing new or shocking in Kosovo, said Avni Zogiani, who leads Cohu, an anti-corruption nongovernmental organization.

"The E.U. is recklessly hunting for a symbolic success in Kosovo," Mr. Zogiani said. "They want to show European public opinion that the E.U. can have a foreign policy success while ignoring what is happening on the ground in Kosovo."

In the war crimes trial of the former Kosovo prime minister Ramush Haradinaj, 34 of 100 witnesses were allowed to conceal their identities, the most of any case at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, prosecutors said at the time. Eighteen had to be subpoenaed because they refused to appear, and others, once inside the courtroom, said they did not dare testify. He was acquitted of all charges in 2008, but in 2010 a partial retrial was ordered.

 

Why Kosovo but not Palestine?

Why Kosovo but not Palestine?

 

Serbia was historically more aligned with Russia, while Israel serves US foreign policy interests in the Middle East.

 

Zoltan Grossman Last Modified: 06 Oct 2011 07:02

inShare2

 

Former President Clinton supported Kosovo's independence by launching a NATO bombing campaign against Serbia [GALLO/GETTY]

In his September 21 speech to the United Nations, President Obama announced that he would veto UN recognition of a Palestinian state, because its independence was not a result of a negotiated settlement with Israel.

He said that "peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together long after our ... votes have been tallied ... That's the lesson of Sudan, where a negotiated settlement led to an independent state. And that is and will be the path to a Palestinian state - negotiations between the parties."

But President Obama neglected to mention a recent prominent example of unilateral independence, the State of Kosovo, which was recognised by the United States three years ago - even though its statehood did not come about through a negotiated settlement with Serbia. If an independent state of Palestine should only be recognised with Israel's approval, then why did the US recognise the independence of Kosovo in 2008, over the objections of Serbia?

Why recognise Kosovo but not Palestine?

Serbs view Kosovo as the cradle of their national identity, where the Ottoman Empire defeated them in 1389. Kosovo maintained a Serb majority for centuries, but in the late 1800s it became a seat of Albanians' national awakening, and eventually gained an ethnic Albanian majority. It became part of Serb-dominated Yugoslavia after World War I, and (after the Axis occupation in World War II), the Yugoslav Communist government made Kosovo into a province within the republic of Serbia, recognising the rights of its Kosovar Albanian majority. In 1989, Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic vastly reduced Kosovo's autonomy, citing threats to the Serb minority, as the opening move in his nationalist crusade for a Greater Serbia.

"So far 83 UN member states (including the US) have recognised Kosovo - 44 fewer than the total member states that have recognised Palestine."

Like Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat first declared Palestinian sovereignty in 1988, Kosovar Albanian leader Ibrahim Rugova first declared Kosovo independent in 1990. No foreign powers recognised Kosovo at that time, but 127 UN member states have since recognised the State of Palestine.

Civil war erupted between Serbian forces and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1998, and more than 2,000 people died in the fighting. KLA fighters targeted ethnic Serb civilians in the province, as well as moderate Kosovar Albanians, and Serbian forces targeted Albanian civilians. In February 1999, President Clinton led NATO in a bombing campaign against Serbia, triggering Milosevic's plan for the "ethnic cleansing" (or forced removal) of Kosovo's Albanian majority, which began after the bombs started falling.

When the KLA came to power with backing from NATO troops in June 1999, it in turn ethnically cleansed thousands of Serbs, Roma (Gypsies), Turks and Jews from its territory, based on the accusation that these groups had sided with Serbian forces.

These minority groups had been living in Kosovo for centuries, unlike the Israeli settlers who are mostly recent transplants imported to Palestinian soil. When Serbia had settled some Serb war refugees in Kosovo from other ex-Yugoslav republics during the 1990s, Washington condemned the program as an attempt to shift the demographics of the province. The few Serbs living in Kosovo since 1999 have been subject to periodic pogroms, and a Serb enclave in the north has periodically threatened to rejoin Serbia, generating instability in the new state.

Whereas the prevailing mythology in the United States is that Clinton bombed former Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing, people in the Balkans understand that US forces intervened against Serb ethnic cleansers, but intervened on the side of Croat and Albanian ethnic cleansers. After the fighting was over, NATO rubberstamped the results on the ground of these forced removals, and deemed the silence of the graveyard a "lasting peace".

Kosovo's parliament redeclared independence in 2008, in a move that was boycotted by Kosovo Serb delegates. So far, 83 UN member states (including the US) have recognised Kosovo - 44 fewer than the total members states that have recognised Palestine. Serbia asked the International Court of Justice to rule on the secession, and last year the Court issued an advisory opinion that unilateral declarations of independence are not prohibited under international law.

So what's the difference?

President Obama has promised to veto the Palestinian bid for statehood in a hypocritical move [GALLO/GETTY]

Serbia has a stronger legal case than Israel to object to unilateral independence, and not only because of the Kosovo's expulsion of most Serbs. Kosovo was not only recognised as a part of Yugoslavia before the 1990s, not as a Yugoslav republic of its own, but as a province within the republic of Serbia. On the other hand, the West Bank and Gaza (not to mention Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem) have never been recognised as a part of Israel. In addition, after coming to power, KLA fighters blatantly endangered the security of neighbouring states, by seeking to militarily "liberate" ethnic Albanians in western Macedonia and Serbia's Presevo Valley.

The difference is that Kosovo is under occupation by a foreign military alliance that backs the self-determination of its ethnic Albanian majority. The West Bank and East Jerusalem are under the occupation of a foreign military force that seeks to prevent the self-determination of its majority Palestinian population, and seeks to settle its own population in their place.

Serbia and Israel have remarkably similar messages toward the West. They contend that their military occupations have been justified to prevent a repeat of the genocide directed against them in World War II. (The Palestinians had nothing to do with this genocide, though Croatia and Albania were allied with the Axis Powers.)

"Serbia and Israel present themselves as bulwarks defending Western civilisation against Islamist extremism."

Serbia and Israel present themselves as bulwarks defending Western civilisation against Islamist extremism, even though both the Palestinian and Kosovar national movements began with secular ethnic-based identities, and include members of Christian minorities. Serbia and Israel have also used ancient religious justifications (such as shrines and archeological sites) for their military presence in lands where they do not have a demographic majority.

The difference is that the Israeli lobby in Washington is far stronger than the Serbian lobby. Milosevic's massive ethnic cleansings of Kosovar Albanians (as well as Croats and Bosnians) were more recent and televised than Israel's forced removal of Palestinians from their ancestral lands, in what they term the Nakba (Catastrophe) of 1948.

The KLA has long been implicated in heroin trafficking to raise funds for the cause and cash for personal enrichment. Former KLA commanders, including Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, have even been accused of trafficking in human organs. Kosovo is also a notorious center of sex trafficking in the Balkans, especially as Western troops have been stationed there. Whatever the veracity of any of these particular charges, none of them have prevented US support for Kosovo's independence.

The difference is that the Palestinian national movement has not been implicated in such international crime syndicates. We can be sure that if any Palestinian leaders were accused of just one of these crimes, the Israeli lobby would trumpet the charge loudly as an argument against a Palestinian state, and the White House would echo the claim.

Palestine and Israel have come down on different sides on Kosovo independence. Senior adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Yasser Abed Rabbo, cited Kosovo's example for unilateral independence when he said, "Kosovo is not better than us. We are worthy of independence before them and we ask for backing from the United States and European Union."

Meanwhile, Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman categorically refused to recognise Kosovo, claiming that its independence is a "sensitive issue" that should be part of  "a really comprehensive and peaceful solution" established through negotiations. So both the Palestinians and Israelis are consistent in their consideration of Kosovo's example. The party that is not consistent is the United States, which with one hand recognises a new state, and with the other hand blocks another new state.

The difference may be that, since the days of Woodrow Wilson, Washington tends to support the unilateral self-determination of peoples only if they are white Europeans. More to the point, Israel serves US foreign policy interests in the Middle East, but Orthodox Christian Serbia has historically been more aligned with Russia.

The United Nations has not recognised Kosovo because it would set a negative precedent for unilateral secession around the world. Many states in the Arab League and European Union, on the other hand, view Kosovo as a positive precedent for Palestine. Some governments may oppose sovereignty for both Kosovo and Palestine. But the US is virtually alone in its backing for the State of Kosovo, while at the same time hypocritically blocking a State of Palestine.

Americans should start asking President Obama: If Kosovo has a right to exist, why doesn't Palestine also have a right to exist?

Zoltan Grossman is a professor of Geography and and Native American & World Indigenous Peoples Studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. He is a civilian Member of the Board of GI Voice, an antiwar veterans group that runs the Coffee Strong resource center for soldiers outside Fort Lewis. He can be reached at grossmaz@evergreen.edu.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

A version of this article was first published on Counterpunch.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/10/201110292016107881.html