Milorad Dodik: Purely Islamic state set up in Europe

Purely Islamic state set up in Europe

permalinke-mail story to a friendprint version

Published 04 June, 2009, 11:25

In Kosovo, a Muslim state has been allowed to spring up in the heart of Europe, says Milorad Dodik, the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska, one of the two parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

RT: What you make of the latest allegations against you? Do you think that they are politically motivated largely because of your ties to Russia?

Milorad Dodik: Of course the last thing you mentioned is a factor, but the main issue is the fact that foreigners, mainly westerners, have created institutions which they wish to keep under their control. Both the prosecutor's office and the criminal investigation unit, SIPA, are under their control, and in the past, whenever they wanted to destroy someone politically, they would use those instruments to try to discredit him. There have been several instances where high public officials, who were unsuitable from the standpoint of western officialdom, were prosecuted on concocted charges, only ultimately to be acquitted by the court.

A notable example is that of Mr. Sarovic, a Serbian member of the Presidency, against whom the prosecutor's office filed charges under pressure from Paddy Ashdown. He was kept in prison for a year and then ultimately exonerated in court. So there is a clear pattern where politicians who are not to the liking of the West are first demonized in the media, and then prosecuted on trumped up charges in an effort to destroy them politically.

This time around they miscalculated, and they failed to take into account our determination, and mine in particular, to see this through to the end. We will show them to be wrong. It is relevant to point out that the director of SIPA asked that the officials who were involved in this witch hunt be dismissed because they tried to set up an illegitimate parallel structure under the control of foreigners. This demonstrates that the main troublemakers here in Bosnia and Herzegovina are foreign factors, who are trying to hold on to their control and influence. Clearly, it is very convenient for them to keep their well-paid jobs in Bosnia and Herzegovina instead of being transferred to Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan, where they would encounter real hardships. This is why they keep trying to find or fabricate problems.

So this story about me that they've fabricated must be seen in that context, and it will, of course, ultimately fail when it is properly scrutinized by the judicial system. Their goal is to show that there are issues and criminal structures in Bosnia and Herzegovina which make their continued presence here indispensable. It makes no difference to them that they have hurt me, my party, and the republic of Srpska, because they are not here to support and strengthen local institutions, but to undermine them and to turn them into obedient tools.

RT: How would you describe the economic and political relationship today between the Republic of Srpska and Russia, as one of the guarantors of the Dayton Peace Accords?

M.D.: Yes, of course, Russia is one of the guarantors of the Dayton Agreement, and we've always viewed with joy Russia's economic recovery and its return to the world stage as a significant player. That is not at all in dispute. That status, that Russia now has, helps the republic of Srpska by creating a more balanced correlation of forces. The republic of Srpska generally has had a negative connotation in the west and we were always being treated as offenders, even when we had done nothing wrong. So I think that Russia's voice can contribute to clarify things in a more objective way.

Russia's goal in this region is a stable peace that opens the way for co-operation with us. The basic pre-condition, which is the economic strengthening of Russia, has made it possible for Russia to enter other markets including our own, and that is why it came here. And I can frankly say that in all areas where I have worked with the Russians in economic matters, these were the most positive experiences that I've ever had and we've always had the best possible results.

RT: What are your views on Bosnia and Herzegovina joining the European Union?

M.D.: That is an option that we have supported and we can hardly avoid it because the other countries in the region are traveling down that road. We think that joining the EU could contribute to the stabilization of the region. However, we are not prepared to sacrifice our autonomy in the Republic of Srpska for the sake of any process of integration, including that of the European Union. Of course, there are many within the European Union who do not like to hear this, but the fact is that the internal affairs of various countries are not a proper subject of concern for Europe. We realize that certain conditions have to be met on the way into the European Union, and we are not opposed to that. What we reject is using European integration as a vehicle for the restructuring and re-composition of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

RT: How do you see the future of republic of Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

M.D.: That is an open question. It is a question that permeates our everyday and long-term issues, and the position on that question will vary depending on relations within Bosnia and Herzegovina at any given time. The thing that is fundamental for us is the permanence of the Republic of Srpska. It is beyond challenge and it is the Republic of Srpska that must function with all the competencies with which it was endowed by the Dayton Agreement. It must have its own institutions, its own government, its own president and parliament, its own way of life and, of course, its own place within Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is the only way that the framework called Bosnia and Herzegovina can be sustained. Otherwise, if we have to choose between Bosnia and the Republic of Srpska, we will always choose the Republic of Srpska. We are not questioning the framework called Bosnia and Herzegovina: it is a given. It is the result of an international agreement with many signatories, including ourselves. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a member of the United Nations, with corresponding privileges. But within that framework, we want to retain the full measure of our autonomy and to exercise all our rights, and we want to fully safeguard all our interests within Bosnia and Herzegovina.

RT: How do you see Muslims, Serbs, Bosnians and Croats living together in the future? Isn't that something that Tito tried to achieve and failed?

M.D.: All these years there has been talk of living together, but that, of course, has to be on the basis of mutual respect without anybody imposing their own will upon the rest and without anybody being out-voted. And of course, just when we thought the issue of ethnic relations in the former Yugoslavia had been resolved, a brutal war broke out in which no-one was innocent. There are just people who suffered more and those who suffered less, and greater and lesser war criminals. But these are effects that should be dealt with by legal institutions.

Of course, along the way to European integration, we have to make some adaptations, but only on condition that everybody's rights are respected, and that no-one is humiliated and imposed upon in the process.

RT: Is a multi-ethnic state possible again in the Balkans?

M.D.: We heard from people from the West when Kosovo's independence was proclaimed, that living together was impossible there. Allegedly, that was the basic reason for separating Kosovo from Serbia. But now we hear them say that a multi-ethnic life must be built in Kosovo itself. That is a very strange position, because if multi-ethnic life was not possible a year ago, how could it be possible in the future? It is the same here. It depends how you define your basic terms. If by multi-ethnicity you mean peace and security for all, I accept that. That is something that I have to provide for everybody. Peace and security is a pre-condition for everything else. When we talk about the European Union, we cannot say that anyone who joined it has therefore lost their identity or whatever attributes of sovereignty they brought into it. So this is our way of looking at that issue. But if what they have in mind is to wipe out national identity and to promote multi-ethnicity at its expense; that is something that simply will not work at all anymore.

RT: Would the Republic of Srpska ever deal with an independent Kosovo?

M.D.: No, not until Serbia settles its own relations with Kosovo. We had a completely absurd situation where many in the West thought, when Kosovo declared its unilateral independence, that the republic of Srpska was just waiting for that moment to declare its own independence. There was fear of destabilization here, and many were concerned about the possibility of armed conflict as well. But the Republic of Srpska sailed through it all peacefully, aware of what it can and cannot do. We are not a separate country but we can influence the organs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which will never recognize an independent Kosovo. For that decision to be made, the consent of the Serbs is required, and it will never be given. I am not saying that Kosovo should be returned to Serbian sovereignty at any price, but a portion of Kosovo – yes. The portion of Kosovo that is inhabited mainly by Serbs should be allowed to remain in Serbia, following the same principle upon which the Albanians relied in order to separate from Serbia.

RT: It has been proven that the 9/11 attacks on the US were planned in Bosnia and some of the attackers in fact had Bosnian passports. The same is true for Spain and Mumbai. Why are western countries not cracking down more on Islamic fundamentalism in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

M.D.: Clearly the west has an issue with the Islamic world, and they need an oasis where they can say that their conflict is not with Islam as such, but only with extremist organizations. Of course, that relationship is more complex, and oil fields and the like in various Arab countries are also a big factor within it. When western countries recognized the independence of Kosovo, that was touted as proof that the West is not opposed to Islam as such, although, semi-officially, quite a few western officials have stated that they will never allow a purely Islamic state to be set up in Europe.

Of course, there is a paradox, because in Kosovo they have allowed a Muslim state to spring up, but in Bosnia they would not permit Serbs and Croats to separate, leaving Bosnian Muslims in control of a state of their own. Experience has shown that there were a significant number of Mujahideen in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war – about 4,000 – and that they were being trained for operations not only here, but elsewhere, to the point where no important terrorist operation was undertaken anywhere in the world that did not have a link to a Mujahideen unit that had been based in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war. We know that there are still about 140 Mujahideen in the Federation who have married local women and formed families here, and four or five of them were sent to Guantanamo. Now the issue is what to do with them: should they be returned to Bosnia and Herzegovina? A significant number of Bosnian Muslims think they should be allowed to come back here, but we think they should be sent to their countries of origin, although, of course, if that happens, they might have to face charges there. So this is a very complex and frustrating question to which there are no clear answers.

http://rt.com/Politics/2009-06-04/Purely_Islamic_state_set_up_in_Europe.html

Recognition of Kosovo a boon for terrorists - Ltr. by Michael Pravica - The Washingotn Times

yourletters@washingtontimes.com

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/09/recognition-of-kosovo-a-boon-for-terrorists/comments/ (comments)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/09/recognition-of-kosovo-a-boon-for-terrorists/

 

 

Recognition of Kosovo a boon for terrorists

 

March 9, 2010

Thank you for publishing Julia Gorin's excellent column on Albanian blackmail of U.S. leaders vis-a-vis Kosovo ("The blackmail of America," Opinion, Thursday). It was an accurate portrayal of the sort rarely seen in our mainstream media.

The illegal recognition of Kosovo's independence initiated by our government stands as one of the greatest failures and embarrassments of our foreign policy. It continues to haunt us in the form of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Madrid train bombings, attempted attacks on Fort Dix and the London bus bombings (among numerous other examples). That our State Department initially proclaimed the Kosovo Liberation Army to be a terrorist drug-running group and then suddenly switched its position to support the group speaks volumes about our leaders. They were not interested in pursuing true justice and resolving a decades-old conflict but instead were interested in stealing territory from the Serbs to establish the largest U.S. base outside of America (Camp Bondsteel) to use against Russia and to protect the AMBO oil pipeline, being constructed through Kosovo.

By assenting to Albanian extremist demands, we have set an example for the world: The borders of sovereign nations can indeed be altered by terrorism, and international law is meaningless. We have created a terrorist safe haven that will always be a failed, landlocked and impoverished territory with plenty of desperate Muslim extremists and anti-Western recruits. We also have established a road map for irredentists in our own nation.

I strongly encourage President Obama to learn what is really going on in Kosovo and rescind our recognition of Kosovo's independence. Only honest compromise on both sides - not just the long-suffering Serbs - will enable a peaceful resolution to this long-standing conflict. If the Albanians try to blackmail him against doing this, he can wash his hands of the region and let the Serbs and Albanians find a solution on their own.

MICHAEL PRAVICA

Henderson, Nev.

Iran Nabs Top NATO Terrorist with Help from Pakistan

Webster G. Tarpley
TARPLEY.net
February 25, 2010

On Tuesday Feb. 23, Iran announced the capture of Abdulmalek Rigi, the boss of the terror organization Jundullah, which works for NATO. The capture of Rigi represents a serious setback for the US-UK strategy of using false flag state-sponsored terrorism against Iran and Pakistan, and ultimately to sabotage China's geopolitics of oil. The Iranians claim to have captured Rigi all by themselves, but the Pakistani ambassador to Teheran is quoted in The Dawn as claiming an important role for Pakistan. The Iranians say that Rigi was attempting to fly from Dubai to Kyrgystan, and that his plane was forced to land in Iran by Iranian interceptors. This exploit recalls Oliver North's 1985 intercept of the accused Achille Lauro perpetrators, including Abu Abbas, forcing their Egyptian plane to land at Sigonella, Sicily. But other and perhaps more realistic versions suggest that Iran was tipped off by the Pakistanis, or even that Rigi was captured by Pakistan and delivered to the Iranians.

Jundullah, otherwise known as the Rigi organization, is a clan-based Mafia organization that has long infested the Iran-Pakistan border. The Rigis are traditionally smugglers and drug pushers of royalist persuasion, and now they have branched out into terrorism. Jundullah is mounting a Sunni rebellion against the Shiite Iranian regime in Iranian Baluchistan. They have blown up a Shiite mosque, killing 25, and managed to kill 50 in a bombing in Pishin last October, where their victims included some top commanders of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, against which Mrs. Clinton has now declared war. There is no doubt that Jundullah is on the US payroll. This fact has been confirmed by Brian Ross of ABC News, the London Daily Telegraph, and by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. Hersh noted that Jundullah has received some of the $400 million appropriated by the US Congress in the most recent Bush-era regime change legislation targeting Iran.

Jundullah is a key part of the US-UK strategy of fomenting ethnic and religious civil war in both Iran and Pakistan. Jundullah is a twofer in this context, since it can help destabilize both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border. Baluchistan has special importance because any oil pipeline linking Iran with China must go straight across Baluchistan. Jundullah's false flag jihad is a means to make sure that strategic pipeline, which would help solve China's energy problem, is never built.

There is also no doubt that Jundullah functions as an arm of NATO, a kind of irregular warfare asset similar in some ways to the KLA of Kosovo. Rigi is reported by the Iranians to have met with Jop de Hoop Scheffer when he was NATO Secretary General. Rigi has also met with various NATO generals operating in Afghanistan. Who knows — he may have met with McChrystal himself, a covert ops veteran from Iraq.

This capture comes at a moment when Baluchistan is the object of intense US-UK exertions. The current US-NATO offensive in southern Afghanistan targets Marjah and the rest of Helmand province, which directly faces Baluchistan. Many observers were puzzled when the US and NATO publicized the Marjah offensive in advance. Militarist talking heads like General Barry McCaffrey responded that the main goal of the Marjah offensive was not to destroy the Taliban, but to drive them out of the province. It was thus clear from the beginning that the real goal was to drive the Helmand Taliban fighters into Pakistani Baluchistan. Why?

A statement from the Afghan Taliban covered on the RIA Novosti web site suggests that the real goal of the US-NATO offensive in Marjah-Helmand is to attack Chinese economic interests in Pakistani Baluchistan, and especially the port of Gwadar, one of China's largest overseas projects. If the US can push the Taliban into Pakistani Baluchistan and into the area around Gwadar, they will have a pretext for militarization – perhaps through Blackwater mercenaries, who are already operating massively in Pakistan, or perhaps through direct US military involvement in the zone. US jackboots on the ground in Baluchistan would interfere mightily with Chinese economic development plans. They would also allow the US to commandeer Gwadar as the home port of a new NATO supply line into southern Afghanistan, allowing the avoidance of the Khyber Pass bottleneck. The US could also use Baluchistan as a springboard for bigger and better terror ops into Iran, electronic surveillance of Iranian activities, and so forth.

The US and NATO had evidently planned a double envelopment of Baluchistan, with Taliban fighters from Helmand arriving from the north, while the Jundullah escalated their own activity on the ground. Now that Rigi has joined his brother in Iranian jails, Jundullah has been decapitated, and the NATO strategy has consequently been undermined. Iran has bagged a dangerous terrorist foe. Another winner is Pakistan, where The Dawn celebrated the capture of Rigi as "a godsend" and "a lucky break" for Pakistan. By helping Rigi to fall into Iranian hands, Pakistan may have finally found an effective way to counter the US-UK strategy, which notoriously aims at the breakup and partition of Pakistan. The coming Iranian trial of Rigi may go far towards exposing the real mechanism of terrorism in today's world, with the CIA sitting in the dock next to Rigi.

http://tarpley.net/2010/02/25/the-battle-for-baluchistan-iran-nabs-top-nato-terrorist-with-help-from-pakistan/

Bin Laden is Bosnian and Karadzic is in the Dock?

Bin Laden is Bosnian and Karadzic is in the Dock?

03.03.2010 | 02:53

 With friends like Osama Bin Laden among the Bosnians, why should Radovan Karadzic need enemies? As the defence enters the last day of two, we see the utter injustice of the International Criminal Court, a NATO instrument of kidnapping, illegal detention and laundering of NATO war crimes. If it were a serious legal institution, Bush and his cronies would be languishing in a cell. As it is, it has again violated its own Constitution and the case is void.

Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader during the Bosnian war, entered the first of his two-day defence today in front of the ICC at The Hague. Denying two counts of genocide and nine others (murder, extermination, persecution, forced deportation and seizing hostages), he declares that he will "defend that nation of ours" which followed a "just and holy cause". After all, Radovan Karadzic was fighting international terrorism. And who was on the other side? The one the CIA referred to as UBL, himself: Osama Bin Laden.

Claiming that the Serbs were demonised for everything they did and promising to tell the "marble truth", Dr. Karadzic, a psychiatrist, has been accused of orchestrating a campaign to ethnically cleanse areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina in a campaign which included the 44-month siege of Sarajevo and the so-called "massacre of Srebrenica" in July 1995 in which 8,000 Moslem males were killed.

But what is the other side to the coin? Dr. Karadzic claims to "have good evidence and proof" that the Serbs were only defending themselves against the Croatian and Moslem "ethnocentric aims" of Franjo Tudjman and Alija Izetbegovic to carve out their own States and that the 8.000 figure was an invention by his enemies including civilians and soldiers killed by the Moslems themselves.

Furthermore, several Dutch soldiers from the Netherlands battalion in Srebrenica have come forward, declaring they were hated in their own country, that there is complete repression against them and claiming that they did not see any Serbs committing any war crimes, that they had to defend themselves against the Moslems and not the Serbs, and further stating that the Serb soldiers were helping the Moslem women and children (as they had done in Kosovo, where women were fleeing the KLA prostitute rings and trying to reach the Serb lines).

ICC breaks its own Constitution: Case void

The ICC was set up by the Rome Treaty. Under its own Article 55 on Rights of Persons during an Investigation, section 1 (d) it states that a person:

"(d) Shall not be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention, and shall not be

deprived of his or her liberty except on such grounds and in accordance

with such procedures as are established in this Statute."

Why, then was Slobodan Milosevic illegally kidnapped from the Republic of Serbia and taken to the ICC, where he lost his life under illegal detention, which went against every fibre of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia at the time? Why does the ICC not have a massive compensation case pending against it to Milosevic's family?

Under Article 67 on Rights of the Accused, Section 1 (b), it states that a person has the right:

"(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence and

to communicate freely with counsel of the accused's choosing in

confidence;"

Why then did Dr. Radovan Karadzic not have enough time to prepare himself, given that the prosecution submitted 415.000 pages to the trial since October? Who can read 2,766 pages a day and adequately prepare their defence? Given this, the case is void.

What was Dr. Karadzic fighting against?

For one, Osama Bin Laden is the proud holder of a Bosnian passport, according to an independent publication (Dani) which claimed that the Bosnian Embassy in Vienna "granted a passport to bin Laden in 1993" stating then that "High Moslem officials of the Bosnian Foreign Ministry agreed that (the destruction of these files) was of a high priority" and further that "the Bosnian government confirmed it had granted citizenship and passport to a Tunisian-born senior aide of bin Laden in 1997".

What was bin Laden doing? Establishing an Albanian operation, setting up terrorist camps (in Bocina Donja near Maglaj in Bosnia), training Islamic fighters to carry out terrorist attacks on Serbs and funding the NLA in Macedonia, which controlled the drugs trade through the region. Moreover, Alija Izetbegovic failed to live up to his commitments under the Dayton Agreement (to remove all foreign Moslem fighters from Bosnia), for large numbers of foreign Mujaheddin remained in the area after the agreement.

And Dr. Radovan Karadzic is in the dock?

Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY

PRAVDA.Ru

http://www.moscowtopnews.com/?area=postView&id=1954

NATO Chief Arrives in Moscow To Have Russia Involved in Afghan War

Front page / Russia / Politics

17.12.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru

 

Pages: 1

 

 

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen arrived in Moscow on December 16 for an official visit. The official asked Russia to support NATO troops with arms, military training and a new additional railway channel to maintain the troops in Afghanistan. Rasmussen said prior to his visit to Moscow that he would like to see Russia's further participation in training NATO's military contingent in Afghanistan. He also said that Russia could provide arms and other military equipment for security forces in Afghanistan. In other words, the NATO bloc, which does not seem to be able to cope with Afghan Mujahedeens, would like to receive AK-47 assault rifles, machine guns, guns, grenade launchers, shoulder-carried air defense systems, artillery, armored vehicles, An-32 cargo planes and helicopters. There is nothing surprising about the fact that NATO needs the Russian arms. They are reliable, better and easier to use. The weapons, which NATO troops use, do not function very well under extreme conditions of Afghan natural environment. What may Russia gain from this cooperation with NATO? Does the alliance intend to have Russia involved in its endless war? The USA had a similar experience in the beginning of the 1950s when the nation found itself involved in the war in Vietnam. Pavel Zolotarev, an expert with the Institute for the USA and Canada said in an interview with Pravda.Ru that Russia was interested in establishing cooperation with NATO. "Americans and their allies need to stay in Afghanistan. We only need to help them in a reasonable way, and we should of course sell our weapons to them. When the alliance needs something from us, it is being very nice with Russia, but if there is an intense situation, like it was during the Caucasian war last year, NATO does not want to speak to us at all. "Americans and their allies need to stay in Afghanistan, because the situation there will be destabilized otherwise. We've learned this lesson in 1979 – what happens in Afghanistan if it is left without attention. If Taliban and al-Qaeda win the fight there, it will affect the situation in Russia's Caucasus in the worst way," the expert said. Konstantin Sivkov, the first vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, believes that Rasmussen's requests automatically imply Russia's direct participation in the Afghan war. "How can we assist them in training the allied troops? Russian troops will have to be sent there for that. If they manage to have Russia involved, the Russian administration will be disgraced both inside and outside of the country. This is extremely dangerous taking into consideration what may happen in the Muslim world. The war in Afghanistan is the war against the whole Afghan nation. US officials recently said that there were probably a hundred of al-Qaeda members left. What do they mean by 'international terrorism' then? Afghanistan does not pose a danger to Russia. This country needs our food shipments, and they are ready to be in commercial relations with our country," the expert said. Sergey Balmasov Pravda.Ru

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/17-12-2009/111201-nato-0

The Show Goes On

The Show Goes On

by Nebojsa Malic, March 06, 2010

The show trial of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic continued on March 1 before the Hague Inquisition, but also in the media. Both in the West and in the Muslim world, Karadzic and the Bosnian Serbs have been convicted by the press of vilest atrocities long ago. One could almost feel the frustration of the commentators and reporters that there even has to be a trial in the first place, so strong are their convictions about Karadzic and the Bosnian War. Evidence? Facts? True believers need no such things. Nor do the Hague prosecutors, apparently.

Challenging Cherished Myths

Reading through the coverage of the trial inevitably reveals that reporters and editors aren't so much telling what happened in the courtroom, but trying to argue with Karadzic's defense. Take, for example, Ian Traynor of the Guardian, who "reports" from the trial as if he were the prosecutor rebutting Karadzic's opening statement. Other journalists took a similar approach, typically presenting the accusations as indisputable facts then saying that Karadzic "denied" war crimes.

He did, in fact, challenge the Official Truth about several key episodes of the Bosnian War, saying that there was no genocide in Srebrenica, and that Sarajevo was divided rather than besieged. The Bosnian Muslims, he argued, used civilian buildings as fortifications, and often shot at their own people for propaganda purposes. Moreover, he also claimed the war was a result of Muslim desire to establish dominion over all of Bosnia, driven by a radical Islamic agenda. He says he has evidence to back all of this up. If he does, that is more than the prosecutors, the Tribunal itself, or the media have produced so far.

Consider a feature (video) by Al-Jazeera reporter Rageh Omar, which opened with the images of the grieving Muslims at the Srebrenica memorial and a video montage implying that the Bosnian Serb forces rounded up eight thousand or more Muslim civilians and executed them in broad daylight. Yet actual forensic evidence has found around 3800 bodies, 3600 of which were men aged 15 to 65 — legal age of conscription into the Bosnian (Muslim) Army. And less than five hundred had blindfolds or bindings, indicating executions. But the ICTY and the media continue to claim that the Serbs killed eight thousand people, and declare this to be genocide, based on questionable testimonies and badly mishandled evidence.

A Different Tune

The very same day Karadzic appeared in a Hague courtroom, one of his former adversaries was detained at Heathrow airport. Ejup Ganic, once the right hand of Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic who styled himself the "vice-president" of Bosnia, was arrested by British police acting on a Serbian warrant.

Belgrade is charging Ganic with responsibility in the May 1992 ambush of the retreating Yugoslav Army column in Sarajevo. The crumbling federal army had made a deal with Bosnian and Macedonian authorities to depart unhindered. Izetbegovic's forces violated that deal, and the resulting massacres of retreating Army columns ensured the bitter enmity of many Army officers, who then joined Karadzic's nascent military.

One would think, then, that an opportunity to examine these events in a court of law would be greeted with enthusiasm by the politicians and the press that keep talking about the need for "justice, truth and reconciliation" in the Balkans. Yet the response in the very same media that have covered the Karadzic trial with so much zeal and emotion this week has been completely different when it came to Ganic.

The Economist, for example, dismissed the ambush as a matter of "forty rifles" and bemoaned the damage allegedly done to "Serbia's attempts to rejoin the European fold" by "dragging up the past." Others focused not on what Ganic may or may not have done back in the 1990s, but on the "tensions" and "muddled ties" his arrest may cause, "feeding Balkans hysteria" in a year when Bosnia is having a general election.

What are they implying, that the Karadzic trial has no effect on Balkans relations, or tensions or ties? That the incessant propaganda about the Serbs as genocidal aggressors is good, perfectly normal and desirable while a mere mention that a Muslim could have been responsible for an atrocity is a cause for panic? Talk about a partisan press…

Just Cause?

The Tribunal and the media maintain that the Bosnian Serbs, and Karadzic as their leader, sought to occupy Bosnia and destroy Croat and Muslim populations as part of some grand conspiracy to create an ethnically pure "Greater Serbia." Even a cursory look at the facts indicates that these charges are absurd. Alija Izetbegovic never denied being an Islamic revolutionary. He openly stated that he would "sacrifice peace for a sovereign Bosnia." Karadzic may have mishandled the Bosnian Serb war effort, both strategically and tactically, but there is no doubt that it was the Muslims who sought dominion over the Serbs and Croats, not the other way around.

One of the things Karadzic said in his opening statement was that the Bosnian Serb cause was "just and holy." He didn't actually call the war itself holy — though the distinction escaped many reporters. ICTY translations have been notoriously unreliable. For example, a phrase attributed to Karadzic — "marble evidence" — does not actually exist in Serbian. He could have called evidence concrete, but never marble. So it isn't surprising that Karadzic's description of his "holy" cause — freedom from a Muslim government bent on dominance — is being miscast as some sort of crusade. The Tribunal and the media have twisted words before.

Exercise in Futility

Given that the countries sponsoring the Tribunal have also played a major role in supporting Izetbegovic's drive for a centralized Bosnian state – before, during and after the war — and occupying a portion of Serbia to carve out an "independent," ethnically cleansed "state" of Kosovo, there is no chance of Radovan Karadzic getting anything even remotely resembling a fair trial. Too much political capital has been invested in the Bank of Collective Serbian Guilt for the investors to admit the error of their ways now.

But the persecution of Radovan Karadzic and other Serb leaders isn't going to help the Empire any. Least of all will it inspire gratitude in the Muslim world, a goal several policymakers have openly alluded to in the past. Back in the 1990s, to an Empire in search of a cause it seemed like a no-brainer: claim a "genocide" through hysterical propaganda about the evil Serbs slaughtering innocent Muslims, step in to save the day, and emerge as a knight in shining armor. Over and over the Western leaders, from Bill Clinton to Tony Blair, have repeated this trope. The world's Muslims didn't buy it. Instead, the Muslim public opinion chose to regard the West as an evil, conniving force that stood idly by and watched the slaughter.

Ironically, that was one of the major talking points of the whole hysterical propaganda effort.

http://original.antiwar.com/malic/2010/03/05/the-show-goes-on/

Another excellent commentary by Julia Gorin - click on to link to read the comments.  Stella

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/04/the-blackmail-of-america/

GORIN: The blackmail of America

How the United States became Albania's enforcer

By Julia Gorin

Something happened after President Clinton's 1999 war in Kosovo: It never ended. Its continuation was characterized by anti-Serb arson, kidnappings, bombings of NATO-escorted civilian buses and efforts to kill everyone from schoolgirls to octogenarians, plus the rare peacekeeper who tried to prevent any of this.

Toward the end of 1999, several major newspapers reported on findings that mass graves such as the infamous Trepca zinc mine turned up empty, as did the stadium we were told was being used as a concentration camp. Anyone reading this one-time follow-up also would have learned that the "cleansing" of 800,000 Albanians had more to do with NATO bombs and Kosovo Liberation Army orders than with the outrageous claim that Serbia was trying to empty the province of 90 percent of its population.

But the bombshell postwar story had no legs. No media outlet, human rights organization or congressional subcommittee launched an investigation, and the press moved on, taking the public with it. So Americans don't know that within months of our serving as the Kosovo Liberation Army's (KLA) air force, the Albanian insurgents also tried to seize the Presevo Valley area in southern Serbia and by early 2001 started a civil war in Macedonia, which had sheltered 400,000 refugees during the Kosovo war.

At the same time, the Albanian fighters started to engage NATO troops openly. In February 2000, the U.N. and NATO in Kosovo issued a joint statement that "two young French soldiers, who came here as peacekeepers, are lying in hospital beds suffering from gunshot wounds inflicted on them by the very people that they came here to protect," the CATO Institute's Gary Dempsey reported. He added, "As a candid intelligence officer with the U.N. Mission in Kosovo [UNMIK] explained to me in November, 'We are their tool, and when we stop being useful to them, they will turn against us.'"

In March 2000, The Washington Post reported, "A senior Pentagon official warned yesterday that U.S. troops in Kosovo this spring may have to fight their former allies, ethnic Albanian guerrillas who are rearming themselves and threatening cross-border attacks against Serbia. 'This has got to cease and desist, and if not, ultimately it is going to lead to confrontation between the Albanians and KFOR [NATO Kosovo Force].' "

But that didn't happen. Instead, we came around to seeing things the Albanian way. In November 2005, CNSNews.com explained why: "Rebels have blown up several vehicles belonging to UNMIK and the Kosovo [Police] Service, leading UNMIK to warn employees to check their vehicles for bombs before starting the engines. ... [G]raffiti across Kosovo warned 'UNMIK get out!' ... NATO's Kosovo Force has an emergency plan called 'Operation Safe Haven' in place to evacuate internationals. ... [Ex-OSCE security chief Tom] Gambill believes that Albanian frustration over the independence issue could lead armed rebels to forge an alliance with al Qaeda. Both groups want the international presence out of Kosovo and al Qaeda has a history of attempting to destabilize the Balkans region. ... The threats are played down, Gambill said, because 'it does not suit the internationals to have a serious crisis such as this at the time when they are sending out reports on how much improvement has been made in Kosovo.' "

We didn't want Albanians to start killing us, so we let them keep killing Serbs. Rather than see what would happen if we tried saying "no" to Albanian demands and designs, and risk Americans discerning the real nature of their new best friends - which of course would compound the domestic terror threat - we guaranteed ourselves a bigger, more entrenched and more global problem.

When Kosovo re-entered the headlines in 2008, some started catching on. In March 2008, Northwestern University law professor Eugene Kontorovich wrote in the New York Sun, "An important ingredient of Kosovo's success in achieving self-determination seems to be their constant threats of violence. The Kosovar prime minister ... often warned of 'dangers' and 'unforeseeable consequences' if the province were not allowed to secede. ... As a result, NATO and America have become parties to the carve-up of a sovereign state that they subdued by force. ... For international law, the entire process is a string of humiliations ... peacekeepers are hostages; and sovereignty is trumped by the threat of terror."

"Hostages" precisely describes the West in Kosovo. If anyone wonders why the George W. Bush administration joined the Clintonites in the belief that "independence is the only viable option" and "there can be no compromise," it's because in the gangster's paradise of Kosovo, the United States alternates between hostage and gangster. The Albanians give us ultimatums, and we give the Serbs ultimatums. Our government toes the Albanian line, and our press toes the government line. United Press International's Robert M. Hayden gave a glimpse of it in March 2008: "The problem is not that 'Serb nationalists' are resisting 'the West,' as it is put by those U.S. journalists who honor the First Amendment by parroting the State Department. ... [A political solution] could have been reached with Serbia, but neither the Clinton administration nor that of George W. Bush wanted one."

A clearer picture emerges of the "failed" negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina, to which the Serbian delegation would come with lists of various broad compromises, and the Albanian delegation would look at their watches. Sabotaging the "negotiations" before each round - and redefining the term - Mr. Bush or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would announce that the end result would be independence.

An excerpt from a 1999 Q&A in Time magazine illuminates how far we swerved from our original goals: "The alliance wants Kosovo to be given autonomy within the Yugoslav federation, but opposes the full independence that the KLA is fighting for, fearing that creating a new Kosovar-Albanian state would further destabilize an already volatile region."

Today, however, even the language is reversed: that which we knew would destabilize the region is now promoted as what is needed to "stabilize" the region. And so our military is being used to enforce KLA directives and make the last of the resisting Serbs comply with the new reality.

Most of the last resisting Serbs are in the only remaining part of Kosovo where it is still safe to be Serbian, Northern Kosovska Mitrovica, along the boundary with Serbia. The Serbs there have been open to a partition that would allow them to stay within the internationally recognized borders of their country, Serbia. But we were informed by our Albanian "partners" that a partition was out of the question, ironically invoking "territorial integrity" - which our leaders then repeated.

Rather than Kosovo's diabolical path to statehood, our bureaucrats and media point to Belgrade as the problem, because it backs Northern Mitrovica, where Serbian institutions are still in place. We are warned that the real threat is Belgrade's refusal to recognize the land grab, its turning to Moscow for support and its creation of "parallel institutions." A rich admonition indeed, given that Kosovo's parallel Albanian institutions within the host society were what brought us to the hailed secession itself.

NATO troops have been amassing around Northern Mitrovica, and in a few months, with or without Belgrade finally selling out the Kosovo Serbs (always a looming possibility), we will witness the next act of war by U.S.-led NATO against an ally that has never been a threat to America. We will be enforcing borders that only one-third of U.N. member states even recognize to deliver nothing less than the full territory that our masters demand.

This time, when Americans watch our military "contain" the Serbs, they should recognize it for what it is. The troops themselves would do well to understand what is being enforced with their hands. And when the images gracing American TVs are again exclusively of the "wild" Serbian reaction, meant to depict Serbs as violent and therefore justifying the aggression that caused it, Americans should ask themselves how they might react if coerced to secede from their country by an ethnic group that reached majority status in their area.

In February 2007, Jim Jatras, a former senior analyst for the Senate Republican Foreign Policy Committee, asked a Hungarian member of the European Parliament, "Why are you rewarding Albanian violence with state power?" The member replied, "Because we're afraid of them."

Julia Gorin specializes in Balkans issues and is an unpaid advisory board member of the American Council for Kosovo.

__,_._,___

What's Wrong with Canada?

02.03.2010 Source: Pravda.Ru

 

 

 

This is not a piece I had intended to write today, since I have far more important things to research. However, due to the disparaging remarks plastered by my sparring partner Matt Gurney on the Net after our debate in the John Oakley show broadcast yesterday morning live in Toronto, Canada and due to the insolence and misrepresentation used in these, I have been asked to reply. Opinion pieces do not necessarily respect the views of the editorial staff of PRAVDA.Ru. I enjoyed myself early yesterday on the AM640 John Oakley radio talk show in Toronto and I enjoyed very much speaking with the host, John Oakley. Evidently the feeling was mutual because the feedback I received from the radio show (not one message but several) was not only positive but effervescent, and they asked if I would like to come back. For me, that was that. I smiled, shrugged, had a coffee, prepared a few lessons for my University students and started preparing my editorial about Dr. Karadzic. Not Matt Gurney, my sparring partner (Assistant Editor, Comment and Member of the National Post Editorial Board) who was called to the John Oakley show to spice things up, who managed in twenty minutes to say three things (two of them unfortunately playing into my hands) and who then appears to have spent the entire day writing pages trying to justify himself and claiming how he had pasted me on the show. (??) He seems to be the only person who shares his own opinion. To be perfectly honest, if that makes him happy, big deal. I am far more worried about the terrapin that went missing in my garden three days before I move house and sell up here. However, one thing is crystal clear, and this is that there is a Russophobic cabal in the international media which strikes at the heart of Russians at every twist and demonises Serbs at every turn. And the epicentre right now appears to be in Canada. Let us take, for example, the photo Mr. Gurney chose to illustrate the piece in his newspaper, a picture of a clapped-out Lada with the caption "Lada: Apex of Soviet Achievement". Er…why didn't he choose the world championship winning KAMAZ? Right, we know the answer. And why did the National Post allow him to print it? Let us then warp over to the beginning of the radio show in which John Oakley kindly allowed me to present my piece, and then turned to Matt Gurney. He started straight off by stating that "he (myself) obviously doesn't know very much about the Olympics" and accused me of "complete ignorance" for raising the issue of Canada's competence in holding the Games while mentioning the numerous cases of strange and hurtful decisions against Russian athletes, quite apart from the rumours of harassment which have yet to be investigated. We will come back to that. Claiming that I "crashed and burned" (…erm…Who…who insinuated that Russia attacked Georgia? Kinda weak for a "journalist"?), claiming that I "audibly choked" when I said the Soviet Union "changed" (in fact a momentary silence was provoked by my coming inside due to an aircraft flying low over my head), writing in his piece on February 25th and I quote: "1941 – Germany invades Russia, just as Stalin planned" and then gloating over the Chernobyl disaster chortling in glee as he calls it a "devastating fireworks display" sending a "massive cloud of friendship over Western Europe" we see we are dealing with one ignorant and insolent pith-headed, lame, challenged wannabe pucker little upstart who was out to get Russia since way before his "debate", started it by firing broadsides and then when his opponent started hitting back, fell apart snivelling. And then jokes about kids getting killed. What does he think happened at Chernobyl? See what I mean about the cruelty? What does this guy do, kick the dog to death for doing a whoopsey on the carpet? Coming back to the point made by Matt Gurney at the start of the radio show, nobody is claiming that "Canada" made odd decisions which were the realm of the IOC. What I said and reiterate here loud and clear is that the Games took place in Canada and Canada benefited whereas Russia most certainly did not. Having dealt with Mr. Gurney, let us deal with a more sinister question: What is wrong with Canada? The National Post has as its Assistant Editor and Member of its Editorial Board someone who speaks about journalistic integrity and credibility yet seems confused as to who started the Georgian War, convinced that the USSR actually wanted Hitler to attack (in a war in which nearly 27 million souls were lost), who jokes about the horrific accident at Chernobyl, derides Russian science but then has to suck Big Brother's…sock… because Canada did not get very far in competing with the Soviet Space Program. Furthermore, around 95 per cent of the comments (and death threats…what is wrong with people over there?) I have received from hundreds of Canadians are fraught with spelling mistakes and glaring grammatical errors. How about outsourcing your education system to the Cubans? What is wrong with Canada? Are Canadians really so thin-skinned they cannot take a piece of criticism? Chip on the shoulder? What is wrong with Canada, a country where a journalist in a senior position has apparently the impression that Russia attacked Georgia first (no mention of Georgia having declared a ceasefire and then having slaughtered between one and two thousand civilians in South Ossetia) and where people seem to have a fixation about the Cold War? Why? What did Russia ever do to Canada? Does anyone in Canada know that the Soviet Union entered Afghanistan to counter international terrorism unleashed against the socially progressive regime in Kabul which by the way protected women's rights? Does anyone in Canada know who launched the Mujaheddin movement in the first place? And where did the Taleban movement come from? What have people been taught? Is anyone in Canada aware that the Cold War is over? That the Soviet Union did not collapse but dissolved voluntarily and that this was entirely within the terms of its Constitution? Does anyone know about Georgia's obligation to hold referendums in the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Apparently its senior journalists don't. Or is Matt Gurney the Canukistan version of a joke? Where is all this hostility coming from, and why? What is wrong with Canada? Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY PRAVDA.Ru http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/112450-2/

 

Kosovo – what is wrong with negotiations anyway?

Further negotiations to seek an accommodation based upon forms of shared or overlapping sovereignty may offer the only way forward for Kosovo – thereby avoiding continued stalemate, renewed conflict or outright partition.

By Gerard Gallucci

To hear the negative chorus of voices from Pristina – including the Albanians and the representatives of the Quint (the US, UK, Italy, France and Germany and including the EU and NATO) – it would appear that a fully negotiated settlement for Kosovo status would be the worst possible outcome. They all have vigorously rejected Serbia's suggestion of negotiations after the ICJ decision on Kosovo independence later this year. Why – in the 21st Century and the heart of Europe – are the leading Western democracies arrayed against a negotiated final status agreement?

The short answer is that the Europeans appear not to know what else to do as their attempt to define the outcome by fiat has not worked. The Balkans has always seemed to produce "too much history" for the rest of the continent to consume. In 1991, Europe's inability to help Yugoslavia to a softer landing allowed the conflict there to degenerate into ethnic warfare. Failure to intervene forcefully and urgently to stop the slaughter of civilians in Bosnia and Herzegovina – and especially at Srebrenica – still haunts Europe. And Europe still seems spellbound for this (hopefully) last act of the breakup of the former Balkans state.

The Kosovo issue has deep roots. Ever since the French Revolution and Napoleon unleashed upon the world the reality of the "nation," it has proved impossible to stop it spreading. Any group that comes to see itself as a nation – usually defined in relation to "who we are not" – will most likely at some point demand autonomy or independence. Since the passing of "divine right", political power has been legitimized on the basis of the "people". Though this may take the form of citizenship or class, the most powerful claim is that of blood. Once the claim of blood receives widespread acceptance within a group, it becomes very difficult to overcome or brush aside. In this sense, Kosovo independence was inevitable after 1999 and overdue by 2008, in the face of pent up Albanian demand to get out from under an international tutelage that had run its course. However, the mixing of peoples in the Balkans under the Ottomans – including in Kosovo – makes the fixing of boundaries complex and simple separation impossible.

In 2007, the great powers – all six of the Contact Group (the Quint plus Russia) – failed to settle Kosovo's final status. In response, the Quint decided they did not have to bargain with Belgrade and pushed the negotiator – former Finnish President, Martti Ahtisaari – to devise a "compromise" settlement package that they then sought to impose. The Albanians were not enthused about this package as it provided for an apparently strong form of decentralization for some of the non-Albanian enclaves and for a continued international role in overseeing their independence. They agreed because it was the price of Quint support for independence. But the Serbs, where they could and especially in the north, rejected the package as it recognized independence and put them under the rule of Pristina. After the electoral defeat of the Kostunica government and formation of a new one by President Tadic, the EU thought it would get help from Belgrade in forcing the Serbs to accept the deal. But the EU again seems to have underestimated the bond of blood, not least the political dynamics it creates. Tadic could not be seen to be giving Kosovo away even if he had wished. The EU's bullying tactics – allowing southern Serbs to be intimidated into accepting Kosovo institutions and continuing efforts to impose them in the north – further reduced his manoeuvring space.

So, unless Belgrade and the northern Serbs simply surrender, the Quint is in a bind. They keep the Albanians in-line – the issues of trans-border migration and crime being essential for the Europeans – in large part by promising them all of Kosovo and still cannot deliver. So they cannot be seen to accept the need for further negotiations, nor can they react forcefully when Pristina hints at an irredentist agenda of fomenting further ethnic division elsewhere.

To be fair, some may also see negotiations as simply heading for partition. Some argue that the precedent of ethnic partition would be bad for the Balkans and elsewhere (despite the fact that the separation of Kosovo itself is clearly such a partition). But this may represent more a lack of sufficient inventiveness rather than inevitability. Negotiations may offer the only way forward avoiding continued stalemate, renewed conflict or outright partition.

An emerging, if still minority, opinion within the EU supports further negotiations, perhaps in the context of a joint approach toward EU membership for Serbia and Kosovo. Recently there has been the suggestion of a possible solution in the form of a confederation of cantons for Kosovo. Though perhaps not practical in itself, it does raise the possibility of looking at a formula for shared or overlapping sovereignty. It might be instructive to consider the 1998 peace that finally settled centuries of conflict and war between Ecuador and Peru over territory they both claimed. In a jungle area both marked in blood, they accepted an arrangement offered by mediators that granted an area of one square kilometer at the site of the fiercest fighting (Tiwinza) on the Peruvian side of the border – and in the middle of a bi-national peace park – to Ecuador as a non-sovereign private property. This allowed Ecuador to erect a monument and fly their flag in a place where many of their soldiers died. Kosovo is not a jungle park but any future mediators might think broadly and imaginatively to help the two sides reach an accommodation both can live with. (US Ambassador Luigi Einaudi was instrumental in reaching the Ecuador-Peru agreement. Perhaps he can be urged to try again.)

The ICJ decision is unlikely in itself to settle the status issue. Negotiations are not the enemy. Simple insistence on there being nothing to negotiate cannot be the Quint's only response. Paraphrasing Elvis Costello, what's so wrong with peace, dialogue and understanding?

 

Gerard M. Gallucci is a retired US diplomat. He served as UN Regional Representative in Mitrovica, Kosovo from July 2005 until October 2008. The views expressed in this piece are his own and do not represent the position of any organization. You can read more of Mr. Gallucci's analysis of current developments by visiting http://outsidewalls.blogspot.com

http://www.transconflict.com/News/2010/March/Kosovo_what_is_wrong_with_negotiations_anyway.php

The Scandal of Serbian Government U.S. Lobbying Deals

http://www.balkanstudies.org/articles/scandal-serbian-government-us-lobbying-deals

The Scandal of Serbian Government U.S. Lobbying Deals

by Srdja Trifkovic

Two articles published on this site recently have prompted inquiries from different quarters regarding the lobbying deal between the Government of Serbia and Mr. Milan Petrovic and his Chicago-based APS Inc. In view of the seriousness of the matter and its potential legal implications we feel obliged to acquaint the public with the known facts of this case, which has all the makings of a political scandal in Serbia itself.

Who Is Milan Petrovic? – As the Chicago Sun-Times reported on April 10, 2008, Petrovic was then-Governor Rod Blagojevich's top fundraiser: over the years, Petrovic had raised over $1.9 million for the Governor, or half a million more than Tony Rezko, convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery in 2008. To be precise, during Rezko's trial, FBI Special Agent William Willenborg testified that Petrovic raised $1,963,485 for Blagojevich, outpacing Rezko, who raised a mere $1,437,350

 

According to the Chicago Tribune, "By the time Blagojevich came to power in 2003, lobbying the hospital board had grown into a fertile business… the field was also saturated with lobbyists from Blagojevich's orbit [including] Milan Petrovic, a friend and fundraiser of the governor." Illinois Issues magazine, published by the Center for State Policy and Leadership at the University of Illinois at Springfield, noted that "Gov. Rod Blagojevich's main re-election platform made the spotlight again when the Sun-Times reported the state's new All Kids health insurance program awarded a major contract to McKesson Health Solutions. The company is reportedly represented by a Chicago lobbying firm, Advanced Practical Solutions, led by Blagojevich's top political fund-raiser, Milan Petrovic."

 

The Belgrade daily Borba reported on August 13, 2009, that Milan Petrovic was „involved in numerous affairs and in the state of Indiana he was even disbarred":

 

„A great unknown in the career of Milan Petrovic is the deal he signed with the international giant CH2M Hill which earned $11 million from a contract with the State of Illinois. CH2M Hill suddenly decided in 2004 to become an APS client, although Petrovic's firm APS was founded only a year earlier, as a beginner lobbying group. Why the giant... firm chose Petrovic as an intermediary, although he was drowning in debt, remains unknown to this day. It is noteworthy that Petrovic sought bankruptcy protection on April 5, 2001, and on May 23 of that year he surrendered his law licence to the Indiana Bar because he was under investigation by the Indiana Supreme Court. He admitted knowing of the investigation and that he 'acknowledges the material facts so alleged are true' and b that he would not be able to launch a successful defense if he was indicted. The facts of that case were sealed by the Indiana court and they are not known to the public... Blagojevich's 'money man' donated $20,000 in 2006 to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's reelection campaign."

 

As Bloomberg reported on April 24 of last year („Blagojevich Fundraiser Represented Firm in New Mexico Probe") a client of Petrovic, CDR Financial Products Inc., was under investigation in a federal pay-to-play probe in New Mexico.

 

"Milan Petrovic, who raised $1.96 million for Blagojevich, introduced CDR to Illinois budget and debt officials, according to e-mails obtained under a public records request. He and his lobbying firm also donated $20,000 to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a one-time Democratic presidential candidate who withdrew from consideration as U.S. Commerce Secretary following disclosure of the CDR probe. Richardson 'is a public official I admire,' Petrovic, 43, said in a telephone interview, declining to comment further… In Illinois, Petrovic has also represented Stratton & Associates, a Denver-based consulting firm run by a senior political adviser to Richardson, state lobbying records show. Stratton lobbied on CDR's behalf in New Mexico, according to William Sisneros, chief executive officer of the New Mexico Finance Authority… Petrovic and his firm, Chicago-based Advanced Practical Solutions, contributed $20,000 to Richardson's campaign and political action committees in 2004 and 2005, New Mexico political finance records show. Petrovic's friends, business associates and clients donated at least $50,500 to Richardson."

 

Regarding that CH2M Hill contract, there is no mystery. In a detailed report on Petrovic („A Closer Look at Blagojevich's Top Money Man"), NWI.com reported on December 21, 2008, that on Nov. 30, 2006, the Illinois Toll Highway Authority gave CH2M Hill a $2.26 million contract to do a master plan development for the Northwest Tollway, and in 2007, the Chicago Tribune reported the firm got $11 million in tollway contracts.

 

The Plus Side – To his credit, Milan Petrovic appears to be a strong proponent of ethnic diversity. In 2008 one Shquipe Osmani, of Advanced Practical Solutions, was listed as making a donation of $2,300 to Hillary Clinton. This clearly indicates that, whatever Petrovic may be accused of, he should not be accused of any Serbian nationalist bias, not only in his hiring practices but also in support for the woman who boasts of having nagged her husband into bombing Serbia in 1999.

 

The Reaction in Serbia – According to the Belgrade daily Borba, „Serbia's lobbying in America is in reality a well developed scheme for private misappropriation of money which belongs to the citizens of Serbia." The paper commented the deal with Petrovic on July 27 of last year by saying that the Government of Serbia was paying „obscure firms and second-rate politicians, and that at the same time the public in Serbia knows nothing about the activities of these so-called lobbyists, or their results, and especially not about the way in which huge sums of money are being spent":

 

„Two main outfits for this deal are the above-mentioned firm of... Milan Petrović and '30 Point Strategies LLC,' which taken together cost Serbia $145.000 each month, or $1.74 million a year. To make it all even more suspicious, through those agencies other firms are paid too, such as 'Prairie Avenue Advisers LLC,' which cannot be found on the Internet, with one interesting detail: when its name is entered on... Google, it automatically corrects the last word to advisors, instead of advisers, which merely shows that the person creating this firm in Chicago even does not speak good English."

 

The paper added that Serbian taxpayers' money has been paid to „candidates" from Illinois, including one Footlik Jay (ed.: defeated by Dan Seals in the 2008 Democratic primary in the 10th District). It pointed out that the contract with Petrovic's firm was signet by Tamara Stojčević, secretary-general of the Government of Serbia, on 30 April 2009, on the same day when the Government approved it. The first payment was made and the contract registered with the U.S. Department of Justice (No. 5933) already the following day, „while the gullible citizens of Serbia were firing their grills for the long May Day weekend." According to the paper, the deal with Petrovic was arranged in 2008 at the Democratic Party Convention in Denver by Srdjan Šaper, a trusted member of President Boris Tadic's inner circle, who represented Serbia's ruling Democratic Party at the Convention.

 

Serbia's opposition politicians were outraged. Nenad Prokić, a deputy of the pro-Western Liberal Democratic Party of Serbia, said that the decision of the Government of Serbia to designate the contract with Petrovic as „Secret" (even though it is a matter of public record in the United States) aroused suspicion:

 

„Lobbying is desirable and useful, but the secrecy of the contract may indicate the desire to conceal some aspects of the truth about it. If it is to be legitimate, it has to be transparent... It is necessary to verify whether this is a method of passing money through the window into a family firm."

 

Dušan Janjić, Director of the Forum for Ethnic Relations in Belgrade, has expressed surprise that the Government of Serbia had signed the contract with the firm of Petrovic which is implicated in the affair of Rod Blagojević: „Since that agency is compromised, I think that the Government has made a perillous choice." According to Janjić, this contract shows the extent to which its signers fail to understand the importance of lobbying.

 

Biljana Kovačević Vučo, President of the Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights YUCOM in Belgrade, has expressed indignation at the lack of transparency: „The members of the Government use taxpayers' money as if it was their own, and violate the first principle of democracy that nothing should be clandestine".

 

Vesna Pešić, a member of Serbia's parliament, had tabled a Deputy's Question to the Government asking it to reveal the details of the contract, disputing its „Top Secret" designation on a contract which will inflict a multi-million damage on the taxpayers:

 

„The main problem in this whole story is that the public has not been informed on what the people elected to lead us are doing. Since when is the secretary of the Government authorized to sugn such a non-transparent contract, for which all government ministers claim that they had never seen it in their lives. I have asked the Government about it... but I expect them to remain silent, as they had done before... (President Boris) Tadić certainly knew about this contract, because (Foreign Minister Vuk)  Jeremić knew about it."

 

The story does not end there. It will continue. Watch this space.

The Debacle of Serbia's "Lobbying" in Washington

http://www.balkanstudies.org/blog/debacle-serbias-lobbying-washington

The Debacle of Serbia's "Lobbying" in Washington
By James G. Jatras
Friday, 26 Feb 2010

The lobbying contract between the Government of Serbia and Milan Petrovic's firm appears still to be in force, but it is hard to be sure since there are no discernable activities being performed. And of course that is the real scandal, in which the "yellow" press organs obsessed with my work for Bishop Artemije seem to take no interest.
***********************
Since the suspension of Bishop Artemije of Ras and Prizren from administration of his Eparchy, efforts have been made by some to use my role as a lobbyist in Washington on his behalf as a weapon in the campaign against him. I already have addressed elsewhere the questions, first raised last week by Blic (parroting an Albanian-American source), about the source of the funds used for lobbying in the U.S. and whether their use for that purpose was legitimate application of the ruling Bishop's discretion.

But the more damaging thing about these attacks is the notion that lobbying for Serbia's right to keep Kosovo was somehow a "waste" of money, and that there were no results from it. This is more than a belittlement of the efforts that were expended by my firm and those working with us. It is, rather, a suggestion that it is immoral and futile for Serbia to struggle for her interests by lobbying to change US policy.

When we started in the spring of 2006 we were the only professional (as opposed to volunteer) activity lobbying on behalf of the Serbian cause. Our activities, through a US nonprofit organization we created, the American Council for Kosovo, were not confined to narrowly focused lobbying in the form of quiet meetings with American officials and Congressmen. More importantly, we knew we had to change the terms of debate on Kosovo, from a place where the noble West saved innocent Albanian Muslims from evil Serbs, to a place where the criminal, terrorist UÇK was committing genocide of Christian Serbs. Most of our activities in the U.S. and elsewhere (Britain, Germany, Israel, India, Italy, the EU, Russia, etc.), often in cooperation with The Lord Byron Foundation and with the support of other volunteers, were focused on public opinion. We forced people to look at "the other side" of the Kosovo story, to the outraged howls of the Albanian lobby that we were trying to "hijack" US policy. While we were not able to overturn an American policy misinformed by decades of Albanian (and Croatian) anti-Serb propaganda, I believe were successful in helping to delay Washington's final push for almost two years, giving Serbia a chance to fight back. Our contract, only a part of which was ever paid, was for $100,000 per month, including (about 40% of the total) cost of advertising, conferences, travel, and other expenses.

In evaluating our degree of success, it might be useful to make a couple of comparisons. A few months after we began our effort under the direction of Vladika Artemije, the Serbian government (under Prime Minister Kostunica) hired another firm, Barbour Griffith and Rodgers, to lobby officially on its behalf. That contract was for $60,000 per month, plus costs. As far as has been publicly disclosed, they were not specifically tasked with lobbying on Kosovo, but such concentration can be inferred. Their activities were entirely closed-door meetings, and they did no public activities to make Serbia's case. They were dropped soon after the UDI in February 2008.

In the summer of 2009, Belgrade (the current government) hired another firm, Chicago-based Advanced Practical Solutions, for $85,000 per month, plus most costs. As a professional lobbyist, I don't generally like to throw rocks at a competitor, but APS seems an odd choice. They have no active website and apparently not even a Washington office. APS's President, Mr. Milan Petrovic, is known mostly as a top fundraiser for former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. According to press reports, when "Blago" was governor APS did a nice little business steering state contracts to its clients, mainly in the healthcare field. The operation fell apart with the Antoin "Tony" Rezko bribery conviction, Blagojevich's resignation, and Petrovic's withdrawal from the Indiana bar to avoid imminent expulsion. Maybe APS was hired by the Tadic government because it's a "Serbian firm," although that in itself means nothing. But an online search of US political campaign records finds several contributions to candidates (all Democrats: Blagojevich, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama) by an APS employee named Shqipe Osmani, which doesn't sound Serbian. The APS contract appears still to be in force, but it's hard to be sure since there are no discernable activities being performed. And of course that's the real scandal, in which the "yellow" press organs obsessed with my work for Bishop Artemije seem to take no interest. I wonder why.

I'm sure these figures for lobbying activities in the US must seem astronomical to readers in Serbia, where people are struggling to scrape by. The sad fact is, this is the kind of money it takes to array a battery of experienced media and lobbying professionals, usually with experience as government officials, Congressmen, Senators, and (like me) Congressional staff. These are people who have the access to make a foreign country's - or politician's, or political party's - case heard in Washington's corridors of power.

Many countries a lot poorer than Serbia have made the decision it's an investment they need to make, if only for self-protection. It is a choice Bishop Artemije, to his credit, made when no one else on the Serbian side was willing to step forward. And now there are those who seek to punish him for it, and punish Serbia too. Thats not just a crime, it's a blunder.

An edited version of Mr. Jatras's piece will be published next week by the Serbian-language newspaper 'Vesti' http://www.vesti-online.com