‘We may forgive, but won’t forget’: Serbia’s commemoration of NATO bombing victims ignored by West

rt.com

'We may forgive, but won't forget': Serbia's commemoration of NATO bombing victims ignored by West — RT World News

3-4 minutes

---

Thousands of Serbs honored the victims of the 1999 NATO bombings with a commemoration on Saturday, attended by Serbian president and many officials, including the Russian envoy, but with a glaring absence of Western diplomats.

The main commemorative event, held under the slogan "We will forgive, if we can, we will not forget while alive," took place in the Southern town of Aleksinac which suffered heavily in the 1999 US-led NATO campaign.

Darkness and silence fell over the entire city center as the ceremony, attended by President Aleksandar Vucic and his cabinet ministers, opened with deafening sounds of air alarm sirens. At least 3,000 people gathered in front of the stage and the ruins of a building destroyed in NATO bombing, according to Sputnik's correspondent.

"What do we say today, we on whom 420,000 missiles and nearly 40,000 cluster bombs and 1,300 cruise missiles have been dropped?" Vuvic asked. He went on to speak of the deaths and destruction caused by NATO, though adding that his country still seeks a partnership with the alliance.

"Yes, we want a partnership with you, you who have perpetrated terrible crimes on us. We want from the enemy to become friends, just do not expect us to forget that you killed us, or to blame our country for it. We want a partnership, but we will not join NATO. It would be rubbing too much salt into our wounds," Vuvic said.

The Russian Ambassador to Serbia, Aleksandr Chepurin, who also attended the poignant ceremony, noted the glaring absence of representatives of Western states.

"Today once again none of the Western diplomats bothered to attend this ceremony. So they show no repentance and, moreover, believe they did everything right. Looks like the Serbs are not humans to them, but they nevertheless continue to teach us humanism," said Chepurin.

Meanwhile in the capital Belgrade, about 500 demonstrators gathered in front of the Serbian Parliament in an anti-NATO protest commemorating the 19th anniversary of the Yugoslavia bombing. Protesters waved flags and lit flares, while others held banners with anti-NATO messages.

NATO justified its intervention without any approval of the UN Security Council, by accusing the Milosevic government of ethnically cleansing the province of Kosovo. The bombings lasted 78 days, from March 24 to June 10, 1999, and officially claimed at least 758 civilian lives – though Serbian sources say the true figure may be up to five times as much.

READ MORE: 19 years after NATO bombed Serbia, most Serbs won't take apology from alliance – poll

According to a recent poll, 19 year later a majority of Serbs would not accept an apology from NATO for its military intervention, and only 10 percent would wish to see their country become a member the trans-Atlantic military bloc.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

 

 

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/03/21/has-russia-had-enough/

Has Russia Had Enough?

March 21, 2018 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: |  Print This Article

Has Russia Had Enough?

Paul Craig Roberts

This morning I watched a briefing the Russian Foreign Ministry provided for the diplomatic community where international toxic substances experts presented information concerning the alleged nerve agent used in the alleged attack on Skripal and his daughter. This information has been known for some time, and none of it has been reported in the Western presstitute media.

In the briefing the Russians once again relied on facts and existing agreements that govern the investigation of such events and asked why the British were demanding explanations from Russia when the British refuse to comply with established procedures and refuse to produce any evidence of what the British allege to have occurred.

The response from the US and French embassy representatives was simply to state that they needed no evidence to stand in solidarity with their British friends, that Russia was guilty by accusation alone, and that they would hold Russia accountable.

The benefit of this absurd response, which the Russians declared to be shameful, is to make clear to the Russian government that it is a waste of time to try, yet again, to confront unsupported accusations from the West with facts and appeals to follow the specified legal processes. The West simply does not care. The issue is not the facts of the case. The agenda is to add another layer to the ongoing demonization of Russia.

Sooner or later the Russian government will realize that its dream of "working with its Western partners" is not to be and that the hostile actions and false accusations from the West indicate that the West is set on a course of conflict with Russia and is preparing the insouciant Western peoples to accept the consequences.

The Russian official hosting the briefing compared the Skirpal accusation with the Malaysian Airliner accusation and the many others that resulted in instant accusations against Russia and refusal to cooperate in investigations.

The Russian official also drew the parallel of the accusations against Russia with the US and UK false accusations against Serbia, which led to the bombing of Serbia, and to the false accusations against Iraq, for which Colin Powell and Tony Blair had to apologize, that resulted in the destruction of Iraq and the death and displacement of millions of Iraqis.

The Russian official also said, pointedly, that the days were gone when no one challenged statements by the US government. The world, he said, is no longer unipolar. Russia, he said, does not respond to unsupported allegations. He also said that the way the Americans, British, and French are proceeding suggests that the Skirpal affair is an orchestration created for the purpose of accusing Russia.

This conclusion is supported by the history of US and UK interventions. In recent times we have seen the West's orchestrated interventions based on obvious and blatant lies in Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, and the attempts to destabilize Iran and Venezuela. History provides almost endless examples of the lies used by the US and UK to implement their agendas.

Nothing Washington and London say can ever be believed. Is it possible for Russia or any country to work with "partners" who are shameless, short on integrity and honesty, and have proven themselves unworthy of trust?

 

theconversation.com

Britain's role in the Balkans – why Boris Johnson is about to turn pro-EU

Othon Anastasakis

5-7 minutes

---

Here's a paradox from Brexit Britain. This summer, at a summit meeting in London organised by the UK's Foreign Office, a hard Brexiteer – the foreign secretary Boris Johnson – will be the designated advocate of EU membership for the Western Balkan states. A country preparing to leave the EU will preach the accession of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, FYR Macedonia, Serbia, Kosovo, and Montenegro to the European Union. A country seeking to "take back control" from the heavy-handedness of Brussels will advise others to relinquish their sovereignty to that same superstate. What's going on here?

The London summit in July will host the leaders of the six Western Balkan states and those of Britain, Germany, Italy, France and Austria. It's part of the so-called Berlin Process, an intergovernmental initiative introduced by Angela Merkel in 2014 whose goal was to help the development of the Western Balkans by focusing on investment, connectivity, infrastructure and regional cooperation, with the ultimate aim of their joining the EU.

So far, as part of the process, a Regional Youth Cooperation Office has been established to "promote the spirit of reconciliation and cooperation between the youth in the region through youth exchange programmes". An agreement has also been signed for the settlement of bilateral disputes. There is also talk of a Western Balkans Economic Area, where goods, services, investments and skilled workers would be able to move without obstacles.

The Berlin Process includes, from the EU side, the five strongest and most prominent member states. Every summer, the leaders of these countries meet with the leaders from the six Western Balkan countries to reaffirm their commitment to the region's European integration. They also aim to attract pledges for investment and take a family photo during a highly publicised summit.

Delegates arrive at the 2017 summit in Trieste. EPA

Now, following a commitment made in 2014, it's Britain's turn to be the host of that summit. The 2018 meeting is an opportunity for the UK to show that it has something substantial to offer to European affairs despite Brexit. After all, every host so far has shaped the agenda by including their own expertise. In Vienna, three years ago it was civil society engagement, in Paris, two years ago, it was climate change. Last year's summit in Trieste dealt with the rule of law and the fight against corruption.

Delicate balance

Despite its imminent departure from the EU, Britain does still have a useful role to play in the Berlin Process. That might include its security expertise as a strong military nation that remains an enthusiastic member of NATO. With geopolitics becoming increasingly significant for Europe's foreign policy, the Western Balkans is one of the most vulnerable regions of the continent. From a security perspective, the region is highly exposed to risks on the periphery of Europe.

The security risks in the region include a generic fear of return to the wars of the 1990s among some post-Yugoslav states, the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, the rise of organised crime, geopolitical and geo-economic competition from China, Russia, or Turkey.

Then there are the existing bilateral disputes among post-Yugoslav states. All have unresolved border issues – some of them subject to international arbitration. And all these disputes affect stability. None of the states have threatened to use military force against each other to resolve these issues, but any security assistance from abroad to one country may be seen to antagonise the interests of the neighbouring country.

Focusing so heavily on the issue of security can also actually harm political progress. People in the region increasingly experience a backsliding of democracy.

As a recent House of Lords report noted, there is "serious concern that gains made towards good governance and the rule of law are in danger of being lost as countries in the region turn to authoritarian leadership, nationalistic politics and state capture". And a recent report by Human Rights Watch found that most countries in the region still face serious challenges in upholding human rights standards.

Because the primary concern has, for so long, been security in the Western Balkans, such anxieties have, for the most part, fallen on deaf ears in Western capitals. Geopolitical concerns have allowed local leaders and governments to enjoy lax political conditionality for the sake of security and stability – what has been labelled "stabilitocracy". As a result, liberal politics have deteriorated and advances made during the 2000s have eroded.

It's important that any security agenda embraces democracy, human rights, and rule of law – the "holy trinity" of political transformation, which itself is a necessary condition for security and stability in the region. That should be the common goal of both the Berlin Process and the European Commission, the latter having recently adopted a new enlargement strategy for the Western Balkan candidate states. The biggest challenge for Johnson and the Foreign Office, on this particular occasion, is to find ways to cooperate effectively with the European Union, aiming at the inclusion of the Western Balkan countries in the European family, at a time when the UK is excluding itself from it.

 

rt.com

EU blackmail Serbia over Kosovo

16-20 minutes

---

The republic of Kosovo proclaimed its independence from Serbia a decade ago. What consequences has this move brought to the country - and the world? We talk to Jan Kavan, former president of the United Nations General Assembly and former Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Jan Kavan, former president of the United Nations General Assembly and ex-Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic, welcome to the show, it's really great to have you with us. Mr. Kavan,10 years ago Europe had a new state born in Kosovo. Back then you said the proclamation of independence and its recognition was a big mistake. 10 years on, do you still think the same?

Jan Kavan: Yes, I'm convinced it was a mistake. I saw it from the very beginning. In fact, mistake is a very polite and soft term. I would regard the recognition of independence of Kosovo as a gross violation of international law, gross violation of the Helsinki Agreement, of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 that made it very clear that Kosovo at that time should have remained part of the former federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The unilateral declaration of independence clearly violated all these legal provisions and in my own opinion it set a very dangerous precedent for other minorities or secessionist movements to declare a unilateral independence. I was not surprised at all that the declaration of independence of Crimea directly referred to...

SS: That's what my next question is about. Mr. Kavan, I was going to ask you - you also said that recognising Kosovo's independence proclamation and not recognising Abkhazia or Crimea is a double standard - but the Western powers explain that by saying that all these cases are unique and shouldn't be used as precedents for each other. Do you agree with their point?

JK: In my opinion any such political moves create precedents either positive or negative ones. As far as I'm concerned and I'm not the only one, it was perceived by many of my colleagues in the Czech parliament, for example, that the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo created a precedent for Northern [Southern] Ossetia, for Abkhazia,  for Crimea. In the future Catalans in Spain may be inspired by this, or any other similar movements. Therefore, as a former diplomat I strongly believe in following the provisions of international law. And, therefore, if I refer to the Helsinki Agreement I like the idea that break-ups of any such entities should be a result of an agreement between both parties. If Belgrade had agreed to it at that time it would have been ok. Same as when my own country Czechoslovakia divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia it was a result of an agreement between both parts, that, I think, corresponds to international law. But unilateral declaration of independence is wrong.   

SS: I want to talk a bit about Kosovo itself. With Kosovo's separation, the ethnic Serbs in the north vowed to ignore the new state - and for years that's what they did. Sometimes the tensions rose so high that the former president of Serbia has said he's ready to send troops in to protect the Serbian population there. Can there be a conflict between Serbia and Kosovo over the northern territories?

JK: I hope that any conflicts will not take form of a military confrontation, but a conflict that can be solved in negotiations and by political means. But upon my own information the position of the Serbian minority in Kosovo, for example, around Mitrovica, is not the one which would correspond to the EU criteria for treatment of minorities. And I do hope that when the negotiations of both Pristina and Belgrade to join the European Union will proceed further the European Union will ensure that both countries will fully conform to the Copenhagen criteria and other criteria including the criteria for treatment of minorities. Therefore, this must be reflected in the level of education, level of access to their religious buildings, churches, ceremonies etc.  

SS: But, Mr. Kavan, what gives you the hope that they will abide by the Copenhagen normatives?

JK: If they wish to join the European Union the Copenhagen criteria is one of the basic ones. I can't see how they could join the EU if, for example, the level of democracy is violated, if they are convicted or perceived as a corrupt and inefficient country which would ignore the rule of law. So for me the Copenhagen criteria is something unsurmountable. I mean they have to conform, otherwise they can't join the European Union.

SS: Most of Kosovars are ethnic Albanians. Albanian Prime Minister has already voiced the idea of a single president for both countries at some point. Do you think Albania could eventually absorb Kosovo, if the Kosovar state will not get itself together in the near future?

JK: That's a very complex question. If I'm critical of the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo, that doesn't mean that Kosovo should be basically taken over by Albania. I acknowledge, of course, that in both countries the population is ethnically Albanian. However it would throw into the question the very principle we're now discussing. If Kosovo is declared as a sovereign independent country then I can't quite foresee how by the international law they can become a province or part of some federal arrangement with Albania. I think, this would be unacceptable for the government of Serbia. And I hope, it would be unacceptable for most of the international community.    

SS: The Kosovo Specialist Court - a tribunal set up to investigate Kosovo Liberation Army members abuses during the conflict with Serbia - is in danger, the Kosovar parliament is considering suspending it. Since the Prime Minister, the President and the parliamentary speaker are all former commanders of the KLA, do you think there's foul play here, someone wanting to hush things down?

JK: I do hear from some of my friends who live in the region that close to the leadership or at some influential positions in Kosovo there are still members of the KLA who were in the past at least strongly suspected of having committed crimes during the military confrontation. If this is the case they should be tried. I'm a believer in the Hague court but the problem is that not all the people are brought to the Hague. Some who were brought to the Hague in the past were surprisingly released without being tried. Other people received very high and long sentences. So that creates an atmosphere in which the whole question of the application of justice is being thrown into doubt and that is not good for the atmosphere of justice.

SS: Serbia's membership in the EU is resting on Serbia's recognition of Kosovo - but for now, the public opinion in Serbia won't allow that. So Serbia will never join the EU - because it will never recognise Kosovar independence?

JK: I'm aware of this condition and I'm a strong believer in the European Union. And I do believe that both Kosovo and Serbia should become members of the European Union. But I do believe they should become members simultaneously - at the same time, facing same conditions and same criteria of fulfilment of these conditions. The conditions currently put forward by the European Union to the Serbs that they have first to recognise the independence of Kosovo before they could join the EU - I'm very unhappy about it because it gives the impression of an ultimatum, of a pressure, of even a blackmail, if you wish. This is unfair. This creates an unfair position for Serbia in comparison with the position of Kosovo. So I do very much hope that sensible politicians in the European Union will rethink this condition and look for a negotiated compromise between Kosovo and Serbia - compromise, which should be educated and arranged by the EU, by the offices of the EU. As you know, at the moment still five member countries of the European Union have not recognised Kosovo. And I do believe that if such compromise isn't reached you will not have a unanimous acknowledgement of the independence and membership of Kosovo in the European Union by all member states.       

SS: Mr. Kavan, like you've said in the first part of our programme, the EU recognised Kosovo, but lots of EU members didn't - Romania didn't, Greece didn't, Spain didn't. How is Brussels supposed to go about that when talking about a Euro future for Kosovo?

JK: Yes, in addition to the countries you've mentioned also Cyprus and Slovakia didn't recognise the independence of Kosovo. And it's understandable. If you look at those five countries common denominators between them are sizeable minorities on their territories - and therefore an obvious fear that recognition of Kosovo under the current conditions may encourage those minorities to follow the example and declare independence. And I think, Spain today is facing the problem of Catalonia and maybe in the future also with the Basques, and is fully aware of these dangers, and may be one of the countries pressurising Brussels to find a more amenable and more acceptable way of discussing the future of Kosovo. At the moment I don't see how both countries could join the European Union fulfilling the conditions put forward by the EU, i.e. Serbia acknowledging the independence of Kosovo - something which, I fully understand, is unacceptable for them and agree with them. I'm not judging the merits of the case in the past in the mutual history of the two countries. But the actual declaration of independence in my opinion was a violation of international law and I don't see why member countries of the European Union from Serbia all the way to my best friend Slovakia, Cyprus, Spain, Romania etc. should accept the violation of international law that takes place in one part of Europe and would be condemned in other parts of the world, for example, in Asia.         

SS: What do you think made the UK and Germany and France so enthusiastic about an independent Kosovo? What's in it for them?

JK: That's a very good question, but I think you should address such a question to the representatives of France, Britain and Germany. In the past, of course, Germany has been known to support the break-up of former Yugoslavia, they supported the independence of Slovenia and Croatia. Maybe they do believe that such unilateral declarations of independence are an expression of the principle of self-determination which is an important international principle, but it cannot be used to justify other forms of violation of international law. I think that former colonial powers like United Kingdom and France with a history of difficult negotiations of independence of their former colonies should be aware that simplified solutions can create problems for the future - major problems like we now see in Syria, in the Middle East etc. So I would appeal to those countries not to go for the easy solution which is to support the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo.     

SS: The EU was lukewarm to the idea of Scottish and Catalonian independence, even though they went about it the peaceful democratic way, yet Brussels throws all its support behind Kosovo. Why is that, why is Kosovo's independence better than the Scottish or Catalan?

JK: A very good question that goes back to what I said earlier. It creates a precedent. You can't say that something is good in Kosovo and bad for Barcelona or Crimea or whatever. Either the principle is good or the principle is bad, it has to be applied equally. And that is not being done. This is what we protest today. There are a number of members of parliament of the Czech Republic and other prominent figures who are at the moment signing a petition addressed to the Czech government, asking them to renounce their decision of 2008 to recognise the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo. Let's go back to the negotiating table, let's drop all the preconditions and find an acceptable compromise - whether it's a strong autonomy of Kosovo within the region or independence but with certain concessions for Serbia and so on. It's very important not only for Kosovo but in my opinion also for the future of Catalonia. I listened to the leaders of the regional government of Catalonia, I fully see their argument. And I think, the first response of the Spanish government of sending police there which brutally suppressed peaceful demonstration, peaceful expression of will of the Catalans to vote clearly helped those who declared the preference for independence. It was the result of the brutal police's actions, the support for the independence only increased. This is not a way to find a solution, this is a way to create conflicts, problems and tensions. And it's bad not only for Spain, it's bad for the Balkans and it's bad for Europe.      

SS: So, the recent EU Western Balkans strategy includes Kosovo as a potential member - but the Kosovar president Thachi says there is no clear path written out for his country. Does the EU really want Kosovo as member?

JK: It's a very good question. It very much depends on how you define the EU. The EU as the entity of 28 countries don't have a consensual view on this question because, as you know, five member states have consistently refused to recognise the independence of Kosovo. Therefore, they would oppose a membership of Kosovo in the European Union under the current conditions. And, as you know, at the moment only 116 member states of the United Nations have agreed to the independence of Kosovo and even that almost took almost 10 years. For many years it was less than one hundred, i.e. 50 per cent of the membership of the UN. So this is a major problem for Kosovo in the future but it's also a problem for the European Union. The European Union should be honest and consistent and follow its own criteria ranging from self-determination all the way to the respect for international law, respect for the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and the respect for the final act of Helsinki.       

SS: Head of EU Rule of Law mission in Kosovo Malcolm Simmons resigned, saying "he doesn't want to take part in a farce". The mission has been there for years, but without much success in establishing the rule of law. But can a foreign party really do that in any country?

JK: No. A foreign entity cannot do that unless it's a foreign entity representing some kind of occupying power, some kind of power which is stronger than the power of the sovereign government of that country. If a country is independent, if it's truly sovereign then the foreign entity cannot impose its own perception of the rule of law. On the other hand, foreign entities willing to help to establish the rule of law can and should play a positive role in such procedure but only in cooperation with the government of the country, with the parliament of the country, in my opinion, also with the major NGOs and other bodies representing the public opinion.    

SS: I just wanted to tell you that it strikes me that Kosovo is being treated by the West as a little baby. I mean, their attitude is a little arrogant, like they're on a "civilising mission" - first NATO fought the war for it, then it stayed to make sure Kosovars don't misbehave, UN mission ruled it, then it backed the independence and is still doing the legal work, the economic work, the security work for Kosovo. How long is Kosovo going to be EU's toddler?

JK: It's also treating Kosovo as a country which should be automatically loyal to those political forces which helped them to declare unilateral independence, i.e. which helped them to divide from Serbia. But, as I believe, that act was wrong. Just very briefly, I know we don't have much time - at the time I was Minister of Foreign Affairs and I initiated what was called "Czech-Greek Peace Initiative" which was aiming not only to end the bombardment of the former Yugoslavia including Kosovo, but it wanted to create conditions for a negotiated peace that would ensure stability in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia. And this led, in fact, or helped to lead not only to the ceasefire and the declaration of peace but it also led to the UN Security Council Resolution 1244. And I think we should return to the conditions expressed in that resolution which are still being violated. And that means that Kosovo is being treated differently from Serbia and that, I think, is wrong.   

SS: Alright, Mr. Kavan, thank you for this interview. We were talking to Jan Kavan, former president of the UN General Assembly and ex-Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic discussing whether Kosovo has become a self-reliant state ten years after declaring independence. That's it for this edition of SophieCo. I'll see you next time.