Colonized Kosovo: Muslim demands and Western servitude

 

Serbianna

 

http://www.serbianna.com/columns/borojevic/027.shtml

 

 

Colonized Kosovo: Muslim demands and Western servitude

By Boba Borojevic

Ottawa, November 14, 2005 - The violence that started Oct. 27 among Muslim youths in the dreary industrial suburbs northeast of Paris soon grew into a nationwide insurrection in the banlieus, of arson and clashes with police. Prime Minister de Villepin said the nation faced a "moment of truth" over its failure to integrate Arab and African immigrants and their children into its mainstream.

A thousand miles away and 16 months ago, on March 17, 2004, Albanian mobs burned down hundreds of Serbian houses and some thirty Serbian Orthodox churches. They also expelled over 2000 non-Albanians from Kosovo. Some voices in the “international community” tried to explain this violence as the result of Albanian frustration for not getting independence from Serbia. Is there any significant similarity between demands and actions of Albanian Muslims in Kosovo and Muslim "youths" in France?

Dr Srdja Trifkovic, director of the Institute for International Affairs at The Rockford Institute in Illinois says that the difference is two-folded.

The riots in Kosovo in 1981, 1989, in the 1990s and than on several occasions following the NATO occupation but most notably on March 17, 2004, are based in a combination of nationalist and Islamic motives. It would be inappropriate to ascribe them completely to the influence of religious teaching, just as it would be wrong to exclude Islam from the mix of emotions that drive the Albanian political mainstream. Significant segments of the Albanian Kosovo youths active in the KLA and associated groups are primarily driven by the desire to declare independence from Serbia, to expel the remaining Serbs and other non-Albanians, and to have a mono-ethnic Kosovo. Their murderous antagonism is not fully explicable, however, without some reference to the gap that Islam breeds between Muslims and non-Muslims, in the Balkans and elsewhere.

In France by contrast, many of the North African youths of Arabic origin, most of them of an Algerian, Moroccan or Tunisian parentage, want their self-rule within France, rather than independence from France. For at least some of them the ultimate objective is to take over France and the rest of Europe altogether, but for now they have one key political demand that is not sufficiently publicized in the Western media: the acceptance of no-go areas for the police in certain “difficult” areas with a Muslim majority, and de facto autonomy for those areas. Young Muslims want their turf to be governed by themselves, within the boundaries of the French state but definitely outside the French society. Their community leaders, imams and sheikhs, hope that eventually the application of the Sharia law within their communities will be only a matter of time.

The exclusion for the French state, its police forces, judicial and administrative authorities from the areas in which the Muslims comprise a majority would be only the first step. What they are asking for is reminiscent of the Turkish millet system of local authority exercised by different religious and ethnic units within the Ottoman Empire. “It presupposes the right of the Muslims in Europe to be treated as a separate community, guided by its own rules and not subject to the prevailing laws and mores of the secular host society,” explains Trifkovic.

Although many rioters in France have rather vague notions of what they reallt want, Trifkovic cautions that we need to look at the statements by their community leaders, by people who are demanding “negotiations” with the French government. “What we are witnessing is the first step of the intifada that will seek to gradually establish pockets of Muslim-ruled areas that will be inhabited solely by Muslims. We have seen the same progression in North Africa and the Middle East in the early stages of Muslim expansion in the 7th and 8th centuries.”

The reason why western governments and the mainstream media have failed to address the issue of intifada in Europe, Trifkovic says, is that it would imply the recognition that integration and assimilation have failed miserably.

“What we have witnessed in the past 40 years is a massive influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe. We are talking about 20-plus million people – the greatest migration of people ever recorded in history! It far exceeds the European emigration into North America. Even in the late 19th century, in no single year had more than half a million Europeans migrated to the rest of the world, including North and South America, Australia, South Africa etc. This massive migratory onslaught has been accompanied by the demand of the European elite class for the newcomers’ “inclusion,” for the host-nations’ “tolerance” of alien practices and cultural assumptions, for multiculturalism, for an irreversible welcoming mat for the newcomers who have never intended to be integrated. They have compact communities, which can function on their own terms and in their own right without ever learning the language of the host society and without ever accepting any of its cultural assumptions and values,” concludes Trifkovic.

Colonial Attitudes

According to Finish newspapers the appointment of Martti Ahtisaari as an UN Special Envoy authorized by the United Nations and the great powers to lead the talks on the future status of Kosovo is another impressive demonstration of the authority and confidence the former President enjoys among the international community in such matters. Trifkovic sees Martti Ahtisaari as the one of ever-present faceless bureaucrats picked up by the so-called international community when they want a process with the preordained outcome to get underway.

“He was already involved in 1999 in negotiating the agreement in Kumanovo that persuaded the withdrawal of Serbian police and military units from Kosovo before NATO came in. The interregnum assured that most of the Serbian and other non-Albanian population would be expelled by Albanians. His subsequent association with the so-called International Crisis Group (ICG), an organization implacably committed to the concept of the Albanian independence, is not promising at all. The Serbian authorities would have been well advised to declare that his services are not welcome for that reason. The Serbs should have demanded someone more evenhanded, less compromised by bias and by prior political activities. There is no doubt that, had the international community appointed someone who has said that Kosovo should stay within Serbia, the Albanians and their cohorts would have cried murder and demanded that person’s replacement.”

Brelgrade’s negotiating team consisting of the prime minister of Serbia Vojislav Kostunica, president of Serbia Boris Tadic and president of the state union Serbia and Montenegro, Svetozar Marovic, includes vastly different and mutually incompatible personalities and views on how to conduct the negotiations and how the future status of Kosovo should look like, says Trifkovic.

“It is enough to look at the well exploited phrase ‘more than autonomy and less than independence’. Professor Kosta Cavoski, one of the leading Serbian jurists, has explained that there is nothing in between those two terms. You either have autonomy, which means self-rule that falls short of independence, or you have more than that, which means full sovereignty without even a resemblance or pretence of institutional link between Belgrade and Pristina.

“The phrase more than autonomy and less than independence is very damaging for the Serbian side. It implicitly recognizes that whatever Kosovo gets it will be de facto independence, under whatever name. For as long as Belgrade does not have a specific plan, the one that will be based upon already existing models elsewhere in the world, such as the autonomy for Swedes in Finland, the models of coexistence or, to be more precise, the methods of separation of Greeks and Turks of Cypress, the models of territorial autonomy that the Vatican’s institutions enjoy in the Italian republic, for as long as we are always inventing some new models – of which the world remains unaware to this day – we are following one-way street to de facto independence of Kosovo under whatever name,” says Trifkovic.

Constant Pressure on Serbs by Foreign Powers

Belgrade newspaper “Politika’ reported that the American senator Joesph Biden had said at the meeting of the Foreign policy committee of American Senate on November 9, that: “If we do the right thing in Kosovo, it’ll remind Muslims round the world the US helped Kosovo Muslim population to build a strong, independent, multi ethnic democracy."

Biden's opinion does not surprise Trifkovic who said that we had witnessed that attitude in the past decade. "Joe Biden was consistently wrong on every Balkan issue and remains wrong to this day. The senator from Delaware does not understand the Balkans or Islam. Giving Muslims a few morsels in the Balkans in the hope that the US will justify itself for the policy in Iraq and the policy of supporting Israel has been proven false under the Clinton administration. People who still maintain the same cause today are either politically very naïve, or deliberately mendacious, or just plain stupid.

"As for the issue of substance the declaration of either the House of Representatives or the Senate that has no legal binding value, that has no character of policy declaration that the administration has to follow is symbolic and should not be treated by the Serbs as a tool of heavy pressure," says Trifkovic.

When push comes to shove, without Serbia’s agreement an independent Kosovo cannot function. If the Serbs declare that they will not accept Kosovo’s travel documents, customs forms, passports, license plates, etc. it would be impossible for an independent Kosovo to function. The only functional link between Kosovo and the heartland of Europe goes through Serbia to the north and west. And if the Serbs are determined in the defense of their concept of sovereignty, no “independent” Kosovo would be able to function.”

According to Trifkovic, the Serbian side strategy at the moment should be defensive. “The Serbs have no need to accept the deadline of 2006, or any other year. There are crisie in the world such as Middle East crisis that has been subjected to many deadlines in the past. We’ve had Madrid, we’ve had Camp David I, Camp David II, and Oslo and yet it remains unresolved. Why should the Kosovo crisis be subject to any cut-off date? And why should the Serbs negotiate today if the UNSC Resolution 1244 from 1999 remains unfulfilled? Those two issues have not been answered in satisfactory manner,” Trifkovic says. The Serbs can insist on 1244 as the preconditions for negotiations. Belgrade has strong arguments, and that is why the implicit intention of those who want an independent Kosovo is to make Belgrade give up on UNSC 1244,” concluded Trifkovic his interview for “Monday’s Encounter” on CKCU 93.1 FM in Ottawa.

EU Observer: "Many Options but Independence for Kosovo"

 

Please find enclosed the "EU Observer" version of the article "Many
Options but Independence for Kosovo" by Jan Oberg and Aleksandar
Mitic.

Link to article: http://euobserver.com/7/20228

Best regards,
Aleksandar Mitic

Many options but independence for Kosovo

16.11.2005 - 17:44 CET | By Jan Oberg and Aleksandar Mitic EUOBSERVER
/ COMMENT - The Serbian province of Kosovo, largely populated by the
Albanian majority, has failed to meet basic human rights and political
standards set as prerequisites by the international community, but it
should nevertheless enter - in the months to come - talks on its
future status.

This basic conclusion of the long-awaited report by UN special envoy
Kai Eide was approved by the UN secretary general Kofi Annan and fully
supported by the EU and the US. But it fails to demystify the paradox.

From a legal point of view, Kosovo is an integral part of the
sovereign state of Serbia and Montenegro. However, after Milosevic'
clampdown on the province - including taking away its autonomy - and
NATO's partwise destruction of Kosovo and Serbia in 1999, Security
Council Resolution 1244 declared it a territory administered by the
United Nations.

Thus UNMIK (the UN Mission in Kosovo), together with NATO, the OSCE
and the EU make up the authority ever since. However, talks and
negotiations about the future status and "standards" of the territory
shall begin this autumn; UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has recently
appointed former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari to lead this
process.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana recently disseminated ideas of
the European Union taking over law enforcement in Kosovo from the
United Nations as part of a more active engagement in the Balkans.

Bluff from the start?
Only two and a half years ago, the international community had charged
that talks on Kosovo's status could not start before a set of basic
human rights standards was achieved.

Since then, however, as it became clearer that the Kosovo Albanian
majority was unwilling to meet the criteria and the UN unable to
enforce them. There has been a permanent watering down of
prerequisites, until the proclaimed policy of "standards before
status" was finally buried with Mr Eide's report.

Why has it failed? Is it because of fear of Kosovo Albanian threats of
inciting violence if talks on status did not start soon, or was this
policy a bluff from the start?

What kind of signal does it offer for the fairness of the upcoming
talks? Will threats of ethnic violence in case "the only option for
Kosovo Albanians - independence" - is not achieved again play a role?
Or will the international community overcome its fear and offer both
Pristina and Belgrade reasons to believe that the solution would be
negotiated and long-lasting rather than imposed, one-sided and
conflict-prone?

Recipe for future troubles
Advocates of Kosovo's independence such as the International Crisis
Group, Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrooke and various US members of
Congress argue "independence is the only solution."

The US has more urgent problems elsewhere. But full independence
cannot be negotiated, it can only be imposed. "Independent Kosovo"
implies that the Kosovo-Albanians achieve their maximalist goal while
Belgrade and the Kosovo Serbs and Roma would not even get their
minimum - a recipe for future troubles.

It would be also counter-productive for Europe and the US: to side
with the Kosovo-Albanians and isolate Serbia - a highly multi-ethnic,
strategically important, constitutional state with a market of 10
million people - would be foolish. Keeping on punishing Serbia and
Serbs collectively for former President of Serbia Slobodan Milosevic's
brutality would be immoral.

An "independent Kosovo" would set a dangerous precedent for the
region, not least in Bosnia and Macedonia, for international law and
for European integration.

And if Kosovo becomes independent, why not Taiwan, Tibet, Chechnya,
Tamil Eelam, Kashmir? The world has about 200 states and 5,000 ethnic
groups. Who would like 4,800 new and ethnically pure states? The
future is about human globalization and integration.

Independence would also violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of
1999 on Kosovo. Not even liberally interpreted does it endorse
independence.

The results of Milosevic's authoritarian policies clearly prevented
Kosovo from returning to its pre-1999 status. Belgrade recognises that
today.

Europe's largest - but ignored - refugee problem
The international community on its side refuses to see that the UN,
NATO, EU and OSCE in Kosovo have failed miserably in creating the
multi-ethnic, tolerant and safe Kosovo that it thought the military
intervention would facilitate.

There has been virtually no return of the 200,000 Serbs and tens of
thousands of other non-Albanians who felt threatened by Albanian
nationalists and terrorists in 1999-2000.

Proportionately this is the largest ethnic cleansing in ex-Yugoslavia.
Half a million Serbs in today's Serbia, driven out of Croatia, Bosnia
and Kosovo, make up Europe's largest - but ignored - refugee problem.
The economy of Kosovo remains in shambles 70% unemployment - and is
mafia-integrated.

There is never only one solution to a complex problem. Between the old
autonomy for Kosovo and full independence is a myriad of thinkable
options combining internal and regional features.

They should all be on the negotiation table - for instance, a
citizens' Kosovo where ethnic background is irrelevant, cantonisation,
consociation, confederation, condominium, double autonomy for
minorities there and in Southern Serbia, partition, trusteeship,
independence with special features such as soft borders, no army and
guarantees for never joining Albania.

Least creative of all is the "only-one-solution" that all main actors
today propose - completely incompatible with every other "only-one
solution."

Finally, no formal status will work if the people continue to hate and
see no development opportunities.

If we ignore human needs for fear-reduction, deep reconciliation and
economic recovery, independent Kosovo will become another failed
state, perhaps consumed by civil war.

Kosovo is about the future of that province and of Serbia, but also
about the region and the EU.

Indeed, Kosovo is about global politics. In this 11th hour, the UN, EU
and the US should re-evaluate their post-1990 policies and recognise
the need for much more intellectually open and politically pluralist
approaches than those that have been promoted so far.

Otherwise, political rigidity, lack of principle and wishful thinking
could once again prove to be the enemies of sustainable peace in this
region.

Aleksandar Mitic was Belgrade correspondent for Agence France-Presse
(AFP) from 1999-2005. Jan Oberg is Director and co-founder of the
Swedish Transnational Foundation, TFF, a think tank in peace research
and conflict mitigation.

 

Serbia pushes Russia aside despite long-standing friendship, turns to EU

11/16/2005 15:47

Serbia believes that it is the European Union, which is to play the leading role in the regulation of the Balkan conflict President of Serbia Boris Tadic arrived in Moscow with an official visit. The Serbian leader discussed a wide range of questions with Vladimir Putin: from the regulation of the Soviet debt to the former Yugoslavia to bilateral relations between Russia and Serbia in case the latter joins the European Union. The key subject of the talks between the Serbian and the Russian president was devoted to the situation in Kosovo and Russia's role in the regulation of Balkan conflicts. Serbia criticized Russia during and after the NATO-led bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 claiming that Russia had taken an indistinct and inactive position. "Russia's role in the regulation of the conflict is immense. Russia is supposed to identify its position clearly, in the UN Security Council, first and foremost," Boris Tadic said at the press conference after the end of the official meeting in the Kremlin. Vladimir Putin strongly excluded the use of double standards policy pertaining to the expulsion of 200,000 Serbs from Kosovo. "About 200,000 Serbs have to leave Kosovo now, but everyone keeps silence about it," the president of Russia said. Putin stressed out that Western officials referred to the exodus of 30,000 Albanians from Kosovo as a humanitarian catastrophe. Putin assured his Serbian colleague that Russia shared his opinion about Kosovo being the inseparable part of Serbia, even if it enjoys the status of an autonomy. Answering a question from Pravda.Ru about the activities of The Hague Tribunal, Boris Tadic said that responsibility for war crimes committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia should be placed on both Croatians, Muslim Bosnians and Albanians, but not only Serbs alone. "We must cooperate with the Tribunal in The Hague, but we demand the Tribunal should punish everyone for those crimes. I was exasperated about the silence of the international community in March of 2004, when Albanians slaughtered over 30 Serbs and burnt 35 Orthodox churches. Everyone guilty of the crimes must stand trial, we insist on that. Serbs should be given an opportunity to live quietly in Kosovo, and our temples should be recreated. This is our standpoint at the talks regarding Kosovo's status," Tadic said. The possible collapse of the Serbia-Montenegro federation into two separate states is another important subject on agenda of the talks. Montenegrin President Filip Vujanovic has already presented the "Treaty to transform the state community of Serbia and Montenegro into the union of independent and internationally acknowledged states." The head of Montenegro presented this document to the Serbian administration and the president of the Serbia-Montenegro federation, Svetozar Marovic. In addition, Montenegro will hold the referendum of independence in the spring of 2006. The Serbian president expressed his protest against the further disintegration in the Balkans. Despite the long history of friendly relations between Russia and Serbia, the latter believes that it is the European Union, which is to play the leading role in the regulation of the conflict. "We welcome Croatia's and Macedonia's membership in the European Union. We believe that our existence within the framework of the European Union will let us heal the wounds of the long-standing war a lot faster," the president of Serbia said. Brussels should guarantee Serbia's territorial integrity, Boris Tadic believes, otherwise disintegration will take a grip on the whole of Europe. While the Serbian president was setting off for his official visits to Moscow, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Jiri Paroubek visited the cities of Belgrade and Pristina with a special mission. "Kosovo must have the European future," the head of the Czech government said. Mr. Paroubek added that he could only welcome Belgrade's aspiration to become a EU member. To crown it all, Czech ex-president Vaclav Havel set out his wish to become an official mediator at the talks between the government of Serbia and the administration of Kosovo Albanians. Serbian journalists pointed out after the end of Boris Tadic's press conference that the mission of the Czech officials may eventually bring certain progress. The relations between Serbia and the Czech Republic have always been positive since the 19th century. Czech students ruined the press conference of the former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in Brno, protesting against the bombings of Serbia. The Serbian nation remembers those and many other examples of Czech Republic's support to Serbia, whereas the European Union is ready to use these warm memories in its interests," a Serbian journalist told Pravda.Ru. Both Russian and Serbian experts, who accompanied the Serbian president in his visit to Russia, said that Tadic's visit to Moscow had definitely strengthened Russia's

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/365/16477_serbia.html

.

The Mephisto of America

http://www.istina.at/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=697&Itemid=62     
 
Istina, broj 38

13.novembar, 2005.


ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI:

THE MEPHISTO OF AMERICA


            In the largest American newspaper printed outside of America, The International Herald Tribune of October 14, 2005, Zbigniew Brzezinski published a very critical article on President George W. Bush, showing him to have by his policy, especially his war against Iraq, raised a universal hatred of the Islamic world in particular against themselves. As a conceited person, Bush did nothing but apply the ideas, preached during decades by Brzezinski himself, for the American domination of the world.
            ISTINA reproduces from Balkans-info review, www.b-I-infos.com , this article by Komnen Becirovic written shortly after the events in Ukraine at the end of 2004 inspired precisely by Zbigniew Brzezinski simply by the fact that it is the outcome of his strategy for the downfall of Russia. It is to be reminded that this American Pole was the lecturer of such human monsters as Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke, as far as we the Serbs are concerned, and it was he who praised the United States for testing successfully new weapons at the time of the war of NATO against Serbia.

The editor      



KOMNEN BECIROVIC

            What could not be seen or heard on television, radio or in the press about the thirst for freedom and justice of the Ukrainian people, its burning desire to free itself from the Russian slave supervision and join the European Union and NATO, the spontaneous and democratic character of the demonstrations in Kiev, the Russian interference in the Ukrainian concerns, the complete innocence and honesty of the Westerners, the fraudulent poll and the victory stolen to the opposition at the time of the presidential elections that took place in the country in November-December 2004. It was said that the fate of the world depended on the arrival at the head of Ukraine of Victor Iouchtchenko whose face was mysteriously devastated by acne and who was suddenly promoted knight if not martyr of democracy.
            However the gigantic orange Kiev joke, relayed by the media throughout the world, had been conceived, staged and financed by the United Sates of America which continues without slackening to weave its vast conspiracy against Russia while launching libellous media campaigns against it, by encircling it with military bases by means of widening NATO, by moving the ex Soviet people against it while insidiously organizing economic or any other type of subversion from within. The obvious goal is to destabilize and weaken Russia before being in a position to seize its riches, dismember it and erase it from the map of the world.

            Let it suffice, for those who still doubt of it, to reopen the book written eight years ago by the geopolitical expert, the apostle of the New American world order, Zbigniew Brzezinski, The great Chessboard where he develops the ideas of the geostrategic collapse of Russia in the Soviet ex-republics and throughout Eurasia. It is this Polish citizen now naturalized American, who, as an adviser to the President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, designed the Afghan Islamic trap for the Russians without suspecting that the Islamic trap which was to hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union would not be long before boomeranging back against America. So it was worthwhile and Brzezinski did not fail to boast of it particularly in a famous interview with Le Nouvel Observateur on January 15, 1998.

            He thus became the main inspirer of the hegemonic policy of the United States with the spectacular result of the war against the Serbs waged by his enthusiastic disciple Madeleine Korbel Albright and the contribution she made in favour of the expansion of NATO to the East in view of the conquest of Eurasia. However the influence of the Talibans over Afghanistan which had to be reversed at the price of a terrible war, the emergence of the Al-Qaida hydra from within the Islamic world with its apocalyptic attack on Manhattan, on September 11, 2001, as well as other terrorist attacks, the American power stuck in Iraq, the spectre of future wars looming on the horizon against Iran, Syria, North Korea and even Russia, finally the universal anti-Americanism are as many grapes of wrath of the guilty Brzezinski doctrines to the point that this great guru of the American domination of the world may end up by being the author of its downfall, its evil spirit, its Méphisto.  
            His cold, rational and atavistic hatred of Russia, only equal to that of the Nazi ideologists, has appeared in particular about Ukraine which according to him should be detached and estranged from Russia in order to put a final stop to Moscow imperial ambitions: "The independence of Ukraine modifies the very nature of the Russian State. For that reason, this new important slot on the Eurasian chessboard becomes a geopolitical mainspring. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire in Eurasia. And even if it tried to regain such a status, the centre of gravity would then be moved and that mainly Asian empire would then be doomed to weakness and be involved in permanent conflicts with its agitated vassals of central Asia." He also writes: "Without Ukraine and its fifty two million Slav brothers, any attempt made by Moscow to restore the empire is doomed to run against the prolonged resistance of populations who have become finicky about their national and religious identity." Almost like a man obsessed, he continues in that vein throughout many pages when he denounces the divine right of Russia to Ukraine, he almost denies the organic tie binding the two countries, supports the artificial creation of Ukraine within its present boundaries by Bolsheviks determined to fight the famous Russian hegemony, he pleads for Ukraine sovereignty over Crimea given as a gift to the Republic by Khrushchev in 1954, he rejoices of the systematic refusal by the Ukrainian leaders of a natural union between Russia end Byelorussia. On the other hand, he insists on the creation of the Washington sponsored alliance between Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldavia in answer to the agreements reached between Russia and Byelorussia. He never ceases to repeat that Ukraine represents the vital stake in the rollback of Russia, the new strategy to replace that of containment developed by George Kennan in 1947 and applied for almost half a century of cold war.
            Having for main goal to weaken Russia, to cut it from its southern part and the Black Sea, ultimately to draw it back to the limits existing before Pierre the Great and Catherine II, Brzezinski's doctrine does not rest on any geographical, historical or ethnic basis. He deliberately ignores the Kiev Russian epic during the X and XI centuries with the Rurikide sovereigns such as Vladimir the Great who made Russia to be baptized in 988, Iaroslav the Wise who after Charlemagne promulgated the first code of laws in Europe, the famous Rousskaïa Pravda, Vladimir II Monomach, an untiring warrior who victoriously carried out eighty five expeditions and led the Kiev empire to its climax before its destruction by the Mongols. According to this expert of Russia's downfall working for the United States, the battle of Koulikovo in 1380 when Dimitri Donskoï defeated the Tartars and started the liberation process from the Mongolian yoke has never taken place. Neither has the Cossack insurrection led by Bogdan Khmelnitski in 1646 in order to release Ukraine from Polish oppression which led to the creation in 1654 of the Pereslav's parliament called Rada that obtained from the Tsar Alexis Mikhaïlovitch the protection for the part of the country east of the Dniepr river. No mention either in Brzezinski's list of arguments of the Poltava battle in 1709 when Pierre le Grand crushed the armies of Charles XII and his ally, the traitor Hetman Mazeppa in the very heart of Ukraine, thus putting an end after thirty years to the war in the North and to Swedish imperialism! The two liberation wars waged by Catherine II from 1769 to 1774 and from 1787 to 1791 which freed all Southern Russia as well as Bessarabia and Moldavia from Turkish slavery and made it possible to create Odessa and Sebastopol in Crimea has never taken place either! The Ukrainians would have been so oppressed by the Russians that the famous statesmen like Grégory Potemkine and Alexander Bezdorodko, Ukrainian citizens, would never have run the Russian empire! Finally Gogol, one of the giants of Russian and universal literature, born in Poltava, would just simply be a Ukrainian author! Actually, by being deprived of Ukraine, Russia is not only to be deprived of its territories and riches, but also of its history and civilisation!
            The only thing about Ukraine that matters in Brzezinski's mind and which overrides all other geographical, historical, ethnographic or etymological considerations is the Polish wild dream of a Ukrainian nation that was mainly invented by Pantéleïmon Koulich, a writer, and Mikaïl Grouchevski, an historian, then taken up by the Bolsheviks who made use of the latter. They gave reality to the fiction in the form of a Ukrainian republic by usurping vast territories of central Old Russia whereas the Russian word oukraïna or the Serb word kraïna only means borders and refers to the southern Russian lands which Poland long shared with the Tartars. For Brzezinski, this fierce anticommunist, the Bolsheviks and their followers miserably failed in every possible way except for the creation of many republics and that of Ukraine in particular from the ruins of imperial Russia in which they have been marvellously successful. In fact Brzezinski only sees Ukraine through his Polish anti-Russian phantasms putting up a logical appearance at the service of America's penetration into the heart of Russia.
            More than a decade after the elaboration of the program, it has never ceased to be applied and reached its climax last autumn in Kiev thanks to the commitment of such promoters of democracy as George Soros with his Open Society Institute, James Woolsey, the former chief executive of the CIA, with his Freedom House, the above mentioned Madeleine Albright, the ex Secretary of State, with her National Democratic Institute, along with the National Endowment for democracy, one of   CIA numerous offspring. Without being exhaustive, the USAID agency directly connected with the American government must be added to those organisations which proved to be efficient at the time of the so called velvet revolutions which took place in Serbia in 2000 and in Georgia in 2003.
            Obviously Brzezinski is far from limiting his strategy only to Ukraine since he goes as far as preaching the dislocation of the Russian federation itself by means of decentralisation to give the United States a clear field on the great Eurasian chessboard. He writes: " A more decentralized Russia would have less imperialist aims. A more open confederation which would include a European Russia, a Siberian and a far eastern republic would have more facilities." At the same time he praises the democratic merits of Turkey in spite of its repressive policy towards the Kurds and greets the return of its influence in the Caucasus. He continues to play the part of the protector of the Islamic fanatical Chechens and to gesticulate as a man of peace between them and the Russians. He winks at communist China about Siberia. He invites the European Union to join the United States in their campaign to let Russia decline. He admits that the famous responsible strategic partnership offered by Washington to Moscow to run the world together was a red herring meant to deceive the Russian leaders, nationalists and westerners alike starting with Elstine. "Never had the United States the least intention to share their worldwide pre-eminence and even if it had been the case their ego would never have been capable of putting up with it." He writes while rejoicing of the many Russian handicaps among which the inability of former leaders to adopt the policy required by the new situation. And the fearful strategist for the downfall of Russia adds not without cynicism: " As soon as the first disagreements appeared between "the responsible strategic partners", the disparities at every level - political power, financial weight, capacity for technological innovation, power of cultural attraction - proved the inanity of such a  notion. It was enough for many Russians to draw the conclusion that the slogan devised by the Americans was only meant to deceive them."
            While this tactic worked wonder with Eltsine, the United States in collusion with the European Union betting on two major assets to ensure Russia's descent into Hell, namely democracy and the dipsomania and ignorance of the character, things began to change with the arrival of Poutine. His attempts to stop the disaster and his measures aimed at putting the State on its feet again, restraining the power of the oligarchs, recovering the national riches usurped by them, limiting the power of the regional governors in favour of the central power to avoid Russia's balkanisation were qualified by the western Establishment of so many instances of Poutine's authoritarian tendency to drift.       
            The open letter sent to the Heads of State and Governments of the European Union and NATO written by 115 unconditional United States sympathisers shortly after the Beslan tragedy that took place in September 2004 urging the western leaders to stop "embracing" Poutine is only too revealing of the present Russophobia prevailing in the West, and more particularly of the dread to see the Russian giant being able to stand up again after having knelt too long. The exhaustive list of those who signed the letter including such coryphaeus of humanism and democracy as Vaclac Havel, Richard Holbooke, James Woolsey, José Maria Aznar, André Glucksman, Bernard Kouchner can be found on the Voltaire web site which rightly deserves its name on account of its intelligence, truthful spirit and non-conformist attitude.
            However the most extraordinary thing is that Brzezinski, the cold monster, the oracle of the new slavish domination of the world lost his nerve and became so angry as to call the President Poutine Mussolini and compare present Russia with fascist Italy in the Wall Street Journal edition of September 20, 2004 where he writes: "M. Poutine's regime looks in many ways like Mussolini's fascism. The Duce made the trains run on time. He centralized political power in the name of chauvinism. He imposed political control over the economy without nationalizing it.the fascist regime has evoked national greatness, discipline and has exalted the myth of an allegedly glorious past." And so on and so forth, the whole article is infused with the perverse logic according to which an Americanised Pole, with so unpronounceable a name that most of his fellow citizens shorten it in Zbig, can be a great United States patriot and set himself up as a master of patriotism whereas the Russian President could not be so in his own country. At the same time, in his last book The True Choice, he continues, as Faust the tempter, to flatter the imperial demons of America and dangerously set it up against Russia and the rest of the world.
            Obviously Russia must be conscious of it and disregarding the grotesque recriminations and slanders must continue to take the appropriate measures, whether political, economic, military or others, so as to be able, as at the time of Nevsky or Donskoï, to face the new crusaders and Tartars - those of democracy which beseige the country and threaten its very existence.    

Series of Killings Hit KLA Leaders in Balkans

 

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/dfasa110505.htm

Series of Killings Hit KLA Leaders in Balkans; New Extremist Arms Emerge
Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis - November 5, 2005 Saturday

Exclusive. By Valerie Spyroglou, GIS Station South-East Europe.

Two mysterious deaths were unveiled in Kosovo and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) during the past months. They were believed to have resulted from secret operations under the framework to fight against terrorism.

On July 13, 2005, at 15:40hrs local, in the area Gniliance, in the Serbian Province of Kosovo, the commandant of the Albanian UCPMB ("Liberation Army of Presheva [Presevo], Medvegja, and Bujanovac"), Mohamet Tzemaili -- known as "Rebeli" (as heard; correct spelling not known) -- was found dead in his car, in an agricultural district. The death appeared to be an accident. Tzemaili, however, was a tough extremist holding close connections with fundamentalist centers in Bosnia, where he had fought during 1993-1995. "Rebeli" was a member of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA, also known as UCK: Ushtria Clirimtare e Kosoves, Albanian), while later he joined the UCPMB, which is a branch of KLA in south Serbia, in the Presevo valley.

On the same date, at 23:30hrs, a close associate of "Rebeli", Nouri Mazari, was assassinated outside a bar in FYROM, in the city Struga. Mazari was a member of UCPMB, a volunteer in the Bosnian war in the 1990s, and an active member of the Kosovo Islamists.

On July 12, 2005, a group of Albanian extremists attacked the police station in the village of Vranitsa, close to the city of Tetovo in FYROM. None of the six police officers was hurt.

On July 17, 2005, Albanians extremists attacked with explosives the police station of the district of Bit Bazar in FYROM, with no injuries. For this attack two Albanians -- 19 and 20 years old -- were arrested on August 18, 2005.

On September 5, 2005, the police of FYROM in the village Kodovo seized a large cache of weapons and ammunitions and one 75mm anti-tank PAO and two missile launchers. Kodovo was the center of the Albanian revolt in 2001 in FYROM, while recently Kodovo was controlled by Albanian extremists who were requesting the liberation of the Albanian war criminals.

Since May 2005 it has been observed that KLA extremist groups in Kosovo and FYROM have been reactivated. Analysis made by NATO intelligence reveals that the internal situation in Kosovo is very dangerous and new revolts are forecast, on a larger scale than those of March 2004.

The KLA, then, remains active and has regrouped in order to form a standing army of a proposed independent state of Kosovo. The KLA has already created the spearhead for the national unification of the Albanians -- Front Nacionalno Ujedinewe Albanaca (FNUA) -- which has absorbed the Albanian National Army (Anacalbanska Nacionalna Armija: ANA), and the Albanian liberation army (NLA). Additionally, a national committee has been created for the liberation and defense of the Albanian territory. The group was named as Nacionalni Komitet Za Osloboewe I Odbranu Suin Albanskih Teritorija (NKOOAT).

Meanwhile, ANA consists of the following divisions:

(a) Divija "Adem Jaferi" for southern Serbia (Presevo, Medveza, Bougianobats) and northern Kosovo;

(b) Divija "Skenderloeg" for western FYROM;

(c) Divija "Jamerija" for northwest Greece; and

(d) Divija "Magesija" for Montenegro.

Politically, the FNUA consists of committees responsible for Pristina, Tirane, FYROM, Preveza-Greece, and the Albanian diaspora.

The Albanian politicians of Kosovo and the negotiators over the status of Kosovo are now also being threatened by Albanian extremists who have demanded the independence of Kosovo prior to the negotiations.

The Army for the Independence of Kosovo (UPK) was presented in mid-October 2005, and it stated that it followed "the irresponsible work of the Kosovar negotiators" and for that reason five groups had been activated. Also, it said that if the politicians would not support the orders as these have been stated by the people, they would go through very difficult times on the following days. UPK would have to "follow the decisions of their command" [presumably to punish the negotiators].

Copyright Defense & Foreign Affairs/International Strategic Studies Association
Reprinted with permission.

#####

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/kl111105.htm

KOSOVO MOVEMENT CALLS FOR UNIFICATION OF ALL "ALBANIAN TERRITORIES"
BBC Monitoring International Reports - November 12, 2005

Text of report in English by independent internet news agency KosovaLive

Prishtina [Pristina], 11 Nov (KosovaLive) - The National Movement for the Liberation of Kosova [Kosovo] [LKCK] said today in Malisheve [Malisevo] that the only right solution for Kosova is its unification with other Albanian territories, adding that the current solution being prepared is a result of the influence of great powers.

The chairman of party branch in Malisheve, Smajl Latifi, said during a debate with citizens that the LKCK will continue its efforts for unification of all Albanian territories, because according to him this is the only right solution.

"We work for unification of Albanian territories, and every other solution is unacceptable for us " said Latifi, adding that they are also against the temptations to change the national flag and anthem.

Izet Shala, member of the LKCK Presidency said that unification of Albanian territories is a constitutional obligation for Albania, as well.

Source: KosovaLive website, Pristina, in English 11 Nov 05

Copyright 2005 Financial Times Information
All rights reserved
Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire
Copyright 2005 BBC Monitoring/BBC

Posted for Fair Use only.

Amb.Vujacic W.Post letter

'Poisonous Nationalism'


Friday, November 4, 2005; Page A22

In the five years since the downfall of Slobodan Milosevic, Serbia has made great strides in protecting human and minority rights, building democratic institutions and establishing a market economy. These accomplishments have been widely recognized, most recently by the commencement of talks with the European Union toward signing the Stabilization and Association Agreement. So much for what an Oct. 17 editorial described as "poisonous nationalism" in Serbia.

The real problem in Kosovo is Albanian nationalism that has led to the expulsion of more than 200,000 non-Albanians, the burning of 150 churches and the loss of human life despite international governance, monitoring and the presence of NATO-led troops.

Granting independence to Kosovo would dismember a sovereign state, which is against international law and could set a dangerous precedent in the region. Such a move also would be detrimental to the establishment of a multiethnic society. Advocating ethnic self-determination in the name of multiethnicity under circumstances in which the Serbs in Kosovo still fear for their lives is appeasing poisonous nationalism.

What is needed in Kosovo is more international presence, not less, so that the proclaimed standards of democratic civil society are met to a greater, rather than lesser, extent.

Recently, uniformed gangs have appeared in Albanian-dominated parts of Kosovo in defiance of the United Nations, the police force and the international troops.

This is ominous. Violence or threats of violence should not be rewarded by a promise of independence.

IVAN VUJACIC

Ambassador

Embassy of Serbia and Montenegro

Washington



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110301984.html?sub=AR

Is Avian Flu another Pentagon Hoax?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20EN20051030&articleId=1169

 

Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Is Avian Flu another Pentagon Hoax? By F. William Engdahl

October 30, 2005

No sooner are indictments being handed down to Scooter Libby, the Chief of Staff of the Vice President of the United States for lies and coverup of information used deliberately to suppress the fact the Bush Administration had no ‘smoking gun’ to prove Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear arsenal, but a new scandal is surfacing every bit as outrageous and ultimately, likely also criminal. Against all scientific prudence and normal public health procedure, the world population is being whipped up into a fear frenzy by irresponsible public health officials from the US Administration to WHO to the United States Centers for Disease Control. They all warn about the imminent danger that a malicious viral strain might spread from infected birds, primarily in Vietnam and other Asian centers, to contaminate the entire human species in pandemic proportions. Often the flu pandemic of 1918 which is said to have killed 18 million worldwide, is cited as an example of what ‘might’ lie in store for us. On November 1, appropriately enough the day after Halloween, President Bush is scheduled to visit the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda Maryland to announce his Administration’s strategy of how it will prepare for the next flu epidemic, whether from Bird Flu or some other strain. The plan has been a year in the making. On October 28 the Senate passed an $8 billion emergency funding bill to address the growing Avian Flu panic. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, in a moment of candor during the debate on the Senate bill told the press, ‘If it isn’t the current H5N1 virus that leads to an influenza pandemic, at some point in our nation’s future, another virus will.’ In the meantime taxpayer billions will have gone to a handful of pharmaceutical giants positioned to profit. None stands to reap more lucre than the Swiss-US pharmaceutical giant Roche Holdings of Basle. The only medicine we are told which reduce the symptoms of general or seasonal influenza and ‘possibly’ might reduce symptoms also of Avian Flu, is a drug called Tamiflu. Today the giant Swiss pharmaceutical firm, Roche, holds the sole license to manufacture Tamiflu. Due to the media panic, the order books at Roche today are filled to overflowing. Roche recently refused a request from the US Congress to lift its exclusive patent rights to allow other drug manug´facturers to produce Tamiflu with the improbable excuse that it was in effect, too complex for others to rapidly produce. However, the real point of interest is the company in California who developed Tamiflu and gave the marketing rights to its patented discovery to Roche. ‘Rummy Flu’ Tamiflu was developed and patented in 1996 by a California biotech firm, Gilead Sciences Inc. Gilead is a NASDAQ (GILD) listed stock company which prefers to maintain a low profile in the current rush to Tamiflu. That might be because of who is tied to Gilead. In 1997, before he became US Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld was named Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences, where he remained until early 2001 when he became Defense Secretary. Rumsfeld had been on the board of Gilead since 1988 according to a January 3 1997 company press release. An as-yet-unconfirmed report is that Rumsfeld while Secretary of Defense also purchased an additional stock in his former company, Gilead Sciences Inc., worth $18 million, making him one of its largest if not the largest stock owners today. The Secretary of Defense, the man who allegedly supported the use of contrived intelligence to justify the war on Iraq, is now poised to reap huge gains for a flu panic his Administration has done everything it can to promote. It would be useful to know whether the Pentagon’s successor to Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans developed the strategy of biowarfare behind the current Avian Flu panic. Perhaps some enterprising Congressional committee might look into the entire subject of plausible conflicts of interest regarding Secretary Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld stands to make a fortune on royalties as a panicked world population scrambles to buy a drug worthless in curing effects of alleged Avian Flu. The model suggests the parallel to the brazen corruption of Halliburton Corporation whose former CEO is Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney’s company has so far gotten billions worth of US construction contracts in Iraq and elsewhere. Coincidence that Cheney’s closest political friend is Defense Secretary and Avian Flu beneficiary Don Rumsfeld? It is another example of what someone has called the principle of modern US corrupt special interest politics: ‘Concentrate the benefits; diffuse the costs’ President Bush has ordered the US Government to buy $2 billion worth of Gilead Science’s Tamilflu. GMO Chickens come home to roost But Tamiflu conflicts are perhaps just the tip of the iceberg of the Avian Flu story. There is high-level biological research underway in Britain and presumably also the United States to develop a genetic engineering method to make chickens and other birds ‘resistant’ to Avian Flu viruses. British scientists are reportedly genetically engineering chickens to produce birds resistant to the lethal strains of the H5N1 virus devastating poultry in the Far East. Laurence Tiley, Professor of Microular Virology at Cambridge University and Helen Sang of the Roslin Institute in Scotland are involved in developing ‘transgenic chickens’ which would have small pieces of genetic material inserted into chicken eggs to allegedly make the chickens H5N1 resistant. Tiley told the Times of London on October 29, ‘Once we have regulatory approval, we believe it will only take between four and five years to breed enough chickens to replace the entire world (chicken) population.’ The real question in this dubious undertaking is which GMO giants are underwriting the research and development of GMO chickens and who will control their products. It is increasingly clear that the entire saga of Avian Flu is one whose dimensions are only slowly coming to light. What we can see so far is not at all pretty. Global Research Contributing Editor William Engdahl is author of ‘A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Pluto Press and the soon-to-be released book, ‘Seeds of Destruction: The Geopolitics of Gene-ocide’. He can be contacted through his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

To become a Member of Global Research

Pros and cons of Kosovo dilemma

October 30 – November 5, 2005 Issue Number 649

 

Pros and cons of Kosovo dilemma

In a ten point critical and thorough commentary analyst Aleksandar Mitic reasons why Kosovo should not be independent

1)Why should one side get it all, the other side lose it all?

The independence of Kosovo is a maximalist solution in which one side – the Albanian community – gets it all, and the other side – the Kosovo Serbs and Serbia – loses it all. The Kosovo Serbs and Serbia will never accept this solution – it can only be imposed but can never be a result of a compromise. Such a solution also plants on the long run the seeds of injustice, frustration and instability in the region.

2)Why create a completely new state from the scratch?

An independent Kosovo would be a completely unprincipled solution for the borders in the Balkans, after that same independence was refused to some other nations during the 1990s. Let’s take the example of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is, under the Dayton accords, composed of two entities – the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Muslim and Croat entity) and the Republika Srpska (Serb entity). Just as Kosovo, Republika Srpska is a protectorate, with the troops from NATO countries on its soil. Just as in Kosovo, some 90 percent of its population is made of one ethnic community. Strategically, the Serbs as the majority community in Republika Srpska have the same aspirations as the Kosovo Albanians: to become independent. But in Republika Srpska, the international community is tearing down all existing symbols and structures of statehood, even those allowed by the Dayton peace accords. Republika Srpska is in fact, in the process of being absorbed in a centralized state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the proclaimed name of stability, multiethnicity and European integration – but against the will of the majority community. In Kosovo, only 100km south, that same international community is doing a completely opposite thing: it is building a new state from the scratch and treating Kosovo as an “independent state in the making”. Is there any logic in that?

3)Why break up the most multiethnic country in the region?

Just as it rushed with the breakup of the former multiethnic Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, with an independence of Kosovo, the international community could be rushing to break up Serbia, the most multiethnic country in the Balkans. If the majority Albanian community in Kosovo gets independence, what kind of example would that represent for the Muslim majority in the Sandzak region, the Albanian one in southern Serbia, the Serbian one in eastern Montenegro, the Albanian one in western Macedonia, the Serbian one in eastern Slavonia or the Hungarian one in northern Vojvodina?

4)Why endanger international law?

It is clear that Kosovo could get independence only outside the UN Security Council, where at least Russia and China would veto such an option (due to Taiwan, Tibet, Chechenya). A solution without the UN Security Council approval would be a new slap in the face of international law. The framework for the resolution of the future status of Kosovo can be found in the resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council. Under that resolution, “the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”, nowadays Serbia and Montenegro. In Resolution 1244 “self-governing” is mentioned three times, “self-government” four times, “self-administration” one time, “substantial autonomy” three times whereas neither “self-determination” nor “independence” is mentioned in the document. The “sovereignty” of Yugoslavia is mentioned three times.

5)Why would Kosovo be an exception in the world?

Kosovo cannot be an exception in the world. It would be necessary to carefully consider the future status of Kosovo since it would likely have an effect on secessionist movements elsewhere in the region, in Europe and in the world: Basque province, Corsica, Tibet, Taiwan, Kurdistan, Scotland, Quebec, Tamil Eeam, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Kashmir, Southern Thailand, etc. All the secessionist movements in the world will follow with great attention the situation in Kosovo as a possible precedent.

6)Why did NATO intervene in 1999?

Given the developments in Kosovo since 1999, the independence of Kosovo would, sooner or later, most probably lead to a monoethnic Albanian Kosovo. As such, it would completely undermine the arguments of those who supported the NATO bombings in 1999 in the name of the “multiethnicity” of Kosovo. The bombing of 1999 would historically be seen as a campaign for the independence of Kosovo, which is light years away from the proclaimed goals of a “humanitarian intervention”.

7)Why punish the democratic Serbia?

The democratic authorities in Belgrade are firmly on the pro-European road. They have opened negotiations on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with the EU – a first step towards full membership —, they are adopting European laws and reforms proposed by the international financial institutions. They have established an efficient cooperation with the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague (all those indicted for the 1999 war crimes in Kosovo are in The Hague).

Serbia has fulfilled all security demands required in the process of reforms: it has respected from A to Z the articles of the 1999 Kumanovo accords with NATO on the retreat of security structures from Kosovo; it has shown restraint and close cooperation with NATO in the management of the Albanian uprising in 2000-01 in southern Serbia; it has succeeded in preventing the spillover of violence from Kosovo to the rest of Serbia during the March 2004 massive anti-Serb violence in Kosovo; it has been praised by Western diplomats for its management of ethnic tensions in southern Serbia and in the Vojvodina province; it has reformed its military and police structures along the lines of the standards of the OSCE and the Partnership for Peace. It is proposing a compromising solution for the future status of Kosovo.

Why punish it with the loss of a part of its territory, a birthplace of the Serbian state, which is still today home to some 1,300 Serbian monasteries, churches and other Orthodox objects – many of them jewels of medieval architecture. What kind of consequence would an independence of Kosovo have on democracy in Serbia? If the Albanian side gets a maximum of its demands just so that it does not provoke new tensions and conflicts, who can guarantee that Serbs would peacefully watch and accept the loss of Kosovo? Does that mean that the threat of barbarism and violence is winning over interethnic cooperation and tolerance?

8)Why create a second Albanian state?

The independence of Kosovo and its likely monoethnic character would mean the creation of a second Albanian national state in the world: the nation of “Kosovars” in fact does not exist in the European meaning of the word. There are Albanians, Serbs and other communities who live in Kosovo. On the other side, according to the UNDP, there are some 5,000 different ethnic groups living in some 200 countries of the world. Under the figures of the study “Minorities at Risk”, some 509 ethnic groups in the world consider themselves as politically discriminated. A huge number of them are dreaming of autonomy. Why would one nation – the Albanian one – get two independent STATES?

9)Why impose independence as “The only solution for Kosovo”?

The key objective should be to give the Kosovo Albanians a maximum of opportunities and real means to manage their future without feeling threatened, but also without threatening the interests of other groups, the security and the shaky stability of the region. Within the principles of the international community (no return to the situation from before 1999, no joining to neighbouring states, no partition), there is a series of options that look much more like a compromise that an imposed solution of independence.

A sustainable and just solution is one that lies between the standard autonomy for Kosovo - unacceptable for the Albanian aspirations - and the full, “conditional” or “immediate” independence - unacceptable for the Serbs and the Serbian state. Between these two, there is a myriad of thinkable options - for Kosovo in the region and internally inside Kosovo: substantial autonomy, confederation, Kosovo as a Euro region, the Hong Kong model (one state – two systems), South Tirol, Bavaria, etc.

10)Why create new states in a “Borderless Europe”?

If the entire southeastern Europe is going towards European integration and membership in the European Union – where borders are no longer “important”, if this process is underway and will be finished in the decade to come, why create a new state in the heart of Europe? Why create new borders at such high cost if those same borders will be brought down in the matter of several years? Where is the logic of European integration in the independence of Kosovo?

(Aleksandar Mitic is Chief Analyst at the Institute of Serbia and Montenegro in Brussels and Lecturer at the University of Belgrade)

"Kosovo: Many Options But Independence"

 

 TFF 

 Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research 

 Transnationella Stiftelsen för Freds- och Framtidsforskning 

 http://www.transnational.org 

 Vegagatan 25 

 S - 224 57 Lund 

 Sweden 

 Phone +46 46 14 59 09 

 Fax + 46 46 14 45 12 

 Email TFF@transnational.org 

 Public not-for-profit charity 

 Organisationsnummer 845001-4637 

 TFF Guide, News & Themes 

 http://www.transnational.org/sitemap.html 

 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ 

 

Kosovo: Many options
but independence

 

PressInfo # 228

 October 27 2005

By

Jan Oberg, TFF director & Aleksandar Mitic, TFF Associate

The Serbian province of Kosovo, largely populated by the Albanian separatist-minded majority, has failed to meet basic human rights and political standards set as prerequisites by the international community, but it should nevertheless enter in the months to come talks on its future status.

This basic conclusion of the long-awaited report by UN special envoy Kai Eide was approved by the UN secretary general Kofi Annan and fully supported by the EU and the US, but it fails to demystify the paradox.

Only two a half years ago, the international community had charged that talks on status could not start before a set of basic human rights standards was achieved.

Since then, however, as it became clearer that the Kosovo Albanian majority was unwilling to meet the criteria and the UN unable to enforce them, there was a permanent watering down of prerequisites, until the proclaimed policy of "standards before status" was finally buried with Mr. Eide's report.

Why has it failed? Is it because of the fear of the Kosovo Albanian threat of inciting violence if talks on status did not start soon, or was this policy a bluff from the start?

What kind of signal does it offer for the fairness of the upcoming talks? Will threats of ethnic violence in case "the only option for Kosovo Albanians - independence" - is not achieved again play a role? Or will the international community overcome its fear and offer both Pristina and Belgrade reasons to believe that the solution would negotiated and long-lasting rather than imposed, one-sided and conflict-prone?

Advocates of Kosovo's independence such as the International Crisis Group, Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrooke and various US members of Congress argue "independence is the only solution." The U.S. has more urgent problems elsewhere. But full independence cannot be negotiated, it can only be imposed. "Independent Kosova" implies that the Kosovo-Albanians achieve their maximalist goal with military means while Belgrade and the Kosovo Serbs and Roma would not even get their minimum --- a recipe for future troubles.

It would be also counterproductive for Europe and the U.S.: to side with the Kosovo-Albanians and isolate Serbia - a highly multi-ethnic, strategically important, constitutional state with a market of 10 million people - would be foolish. Keeping punishing Serbia and Serbs collectively for Milosevic's brutality would be immoral.

An "independent Kosova" would set a dangerous precedent for the region, not least in Bosnia and Macedonia, for international law, for European integration. And if Kosovo, why not Taiwan, Tibet, Chechenya, Tamil Eelam, Kashmir? The world has about 200 states and 5,000 ethnic groups. Who would like 4,800 new states? The future is about human globalization and integration.

Independence would also violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of 1999 on Kosovo. Not even liberally interpreted does it endorse independence. Independence would reward Albanian extremists who have been behind the ethnic cleansing campaign against the non-Albanian communities, encourage those who exported violence from Kosovo to the neighbouring southern Serbia and to Macedonia. The 'disarmed' protectorate of Kosovo was a major player in all that.

The results of Milosevic's authoritarian policies clearly prevent Kosovo from returning to its pre-1999 status. Belgrade recognizes that today. The international community on its side refuses to see that the UN, NATO, EU and OSCE in Kosovo have failed miserably in creating the multi-ethnic, tolerant and safe Kosovo that it thought the bombings would facilitate. There has been virtually no return of the 200,000 Serbs and tens of thousands of other non-Albanians who felt threatened by Albanian nationalists and terrorists in 1999-2000.

Proportionately this is the largest ethnic cleansing in ex-Yugoslavia. Half a million Serbs in today's Serbia, driven out of Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, make up Europe's largest - but ignored - refugee problem. The economy of Kosovo remains in shambles - 70% unemployment -and mafia-integrated.

Would you be reading this now, if it wasn't useful to you? Get more quality articles in the future

There is never only one solution to a complex problem. Between the old autonomy for Kosovo and full independence is a myriad of thinkable options - combining internal and regional features. They should all be on the negotiation table: a citizens' Kosovo where ethnic background is irrelevant, cantonisation, consociation, confederation, condominium, double autonomy for minorities there and in Southern Serbia, partition, trusteeship, independence with special features such as soft borders, no army and guarantees for never joining Albania. Least creative of all is the "only-one-solution" that all main actors today propose - completely incompatible with every other "only-one solution."

Finally, no formal status will work if the people continue to hate and see no development opportunities. If we ignore human needs for fear-reduction, deep reconciliation and economic recovery, independent Kosovo will become another failed state, perhaps consumed by civil war. Even an ethnically pure, only-Albanian Kosovo is no guarantee for regional stability. It could soon become a dangerous burden on the EU.

Kosovo is about the future of that province and of Serbia, but also about the region and the EU. Indeed, Kosovo is about global politics. In this 11th hour, the UN, EU and the U.S. should re-evaluate their post-1990 policies and recognize the need for much more intellectually open and politically pluralist approaches than those that have been promoted so far. Rigidity, lack of principle and wishful thinking could once again prove to be the enemies of sustainable peace in the region.

 

TFF has been conducting conflict-mitigation work in all parts of ex-Yugoslavia since 1991. TFF teams served in the 1990s as goodwill advisers to both Yugoslav governments and the Kosovo-Albanian leadership of present President Ibrahim Rugova.

---

Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

News From the Milosevic Trial

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/hague.htm

Slobodan Milosevic Freedom Center

Last updated:
October 25, 2005

Mr. Nice Loses His Mind and Accuses Milosevic of "Allowing" the NATO Bombing
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - October 25, 2005

Judges Deny Milosevic's Request for More Time
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - October 20, 2005

Another Prosecution Witness Discredited
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - October 19, 2005

NATO Bombing Caused Kosovo Exodus
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - October 18, 2005

Serbs Betrayed By UN Decision On Kosovo

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B510B8DD5-9B1F-45E5-8E74-395C6BB0284C%7D)&language=EN


Prensa Latina (Cuba)
October 25, 2005


Serbs Dissatisfied with UN Decision on Kosovo


Belgrade - The UN announced conditions are ripe for
negotiations on the future of Kosovo, but although
Albanians are the majority, the Serb government
insists it is the cultural cradle of the nation and
cannot be independent.

Kosovo has been under international control since 1999
when NATO subjected Serbia to 78 days of uninterrupted
aerial attacks in a supposed humanitarian intervention
[on behalf of] Albanian terrorists.

Although supposedly the Albanians were expelled en
masse, according to Serbian official records it was
the indiscriminate NATO bombing that caused them to
flee.

When it was over, organized crime, despite the 20,000
NATO soldiers present, obliged more than 250,000
Serbians and other non-Albanian ethnic communities in
Kosovo to leave the province.

Ex-President of Finland Martti Ahtissari was announced
by the UN Security Council Monday as official
representative of Secretary General Kofi Annan for
negotiations of the future of Kosovo.

The UN special envoy, Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide, has
evaluated the international standards for Kosovo and
recommended immediate discussions with all concerned
parties, believing it will not help anyone to postpone
the process.

Eide, while admitting that neither the Kosovo police
nor its legal system is able to cope with the ethnic
violence or organized crime, and said it is necessary
to maintain international political and military
presence in the region.

Inter-ethnic relations are very bad in the province,
he said, with frequent battles and no freedom of
movement.

In addition, the [non-]Albanians have not returned and
10,000 Serbian suits of illegally confiscated property
are pending, Eide explained.

It is generally recognized that more Serbs left the
province for lack of security than returned, and they
need more institutional support to begin life again,
as well as guarantees to preserve the Serbian cultural
patrimony in Kosovo, the UN special envoy noted.

Defining Kosovo by Tim Judah

Defining Kosovo by Tim Judah

With talks on the disputed UN-administered Serbian province of Kosovo poised to begin in December, all sides are hedging their bets - Belgrade to maintain its sovereignty over the province as possible and Pristina to win nothing short of full independence - while observers worry of rising tensions that could lead to more bloodshed.

By Tim Judah for ISN Security Watch (10/10/05)

Talks on Kosovo’s status will, more than likely, begin in December and move to some sort of climax possibly as early as next spring. However, as one of the most senior diplomats involved in the Kosovo issue has told ISN Security Watch, “turbulence can be expected”.

After six years under UN jurisdiction it is safe to say that the disputed province is now moving towards a new chapter in its history, but it remains unclear what the outcome of the talks will be.

The disputed province

Kosovo’s future status is bitterly disputed between Serbs and Albanians. Of its 2 million people, more than 90 per cent are ethnic Albanians who have consistently demanded independence. The Serbian government’s current policy is “more than autonomy but less than independence”.

While the province enjoyed relative autonomy under the Yugoslav Communist government in the 1970s, the 1980s were characterized by rising ethnic tensions, with both Serbs and Albanians complaining of discrimination. In August 1987, as the Communist regime was taking its final breath, rising Serbian politician Slobodan Milosevic visited the province, setting the stage for what was to become a bloody conflict. In 1989, Milosevic stripped Kosovo of its autonomy. Mass unrest and the slaughter and forced removal of Kosovo Albanians ensued during the war of 1998-1999.

Since the end of the Kosovo war in 1999, after NATO’s military action against Serbs, the province has been under the jurisdiction of the UN, although technically sovereignty has remained with Serbia.

In the months that followed NATO’s military action in 1999, large numbers of Kosovo Serbs fled the province to Serbia. The minority that decided to stay have since lived in enclaves, some of them guarded by international forces. Serbian Orthodox religious sites and institutions have been under the constant threat of attack by Albanians since then.

Lessening the blow to Serbia

The decision to begin talks in December comes days after the EU agreed to begin talks with Serbia on a Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA), the first step towards EU membership for western Balkan nations. Diplomats have told ISN Security Watch that they decided not to let the outstanding issue of Ratko Mladic - the fugitive wartime Bosnian Serb army general wanted by the UN’s war crimes tribunal in The Hague - stand in the way of those talks.

Instead, they are hoping that the good news of the conclusion of an SAA agreement next year may help counteract the simultaneous bad news of the final loss of Kosovo and the secession of Montenegro from the state union with Serbia.

On 7 October, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote to the UN Security Council recommending that long awaited talks on the province’s future begin soon.

Annan’s recommendation was made in a letter, which accompanied a report on the situation in the province made for him by Kai Eide, Norway’s ambassador to NATO.

In the document, Eide said progress in implementing a series of standards devised by the UN, which cover everything from free elections to minority rights, was “uneven” but pointed out that “there will not be any good moment for addressing Kosovo’s future status…nevertheless an overall assessment leads to the conclusion that the time has come to commence this process”.

Annan said he would initiate preparations for the appointment of a special envoy to lead the future status process - preparations that are already advanced - and it is widely expected that former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari, who has considerable Balkan experience, will be chosen for the job.

The UN Security Council is now scheduled to meet on 18 December to discuss Kosovo.

According to diplomatic sources, the UN envoy will have three deputies: one from the US, one from the EU, and one from Russia.

The next phase

Following a series of interviews with ISN Security Watch over the last few weeks in London, Belgrade, and the Kosovo capital of Pristina, it is possible to envisage the talks scenario, at least for the next few months. Most of those who talked to ISN Security Watch on this topic did so on condition of anonymity.

Security Watch sources believe that the person chosen to head the talks, along with his deputies, will initiate a period of shuttle diplomacy in December.

The initial round of talks will not be face to face, but it is possible that working groups could be set up to look at several specific issues. After a period of intensive shuttling, the envoy may then withdraw with his team to compose an initial draft agreement on Kosovo.

Once this draft is completed, it is expected that Serbian and Albanian negotiators could be summoned to meet, rather like the failed 1999 talks at Rambouillet outside Paris.

Austria takes over the EU presidency from Britain at the beginning of next year and diplomats have suggested that Vienna should be used by the UN Kosovo envoy as a base.

That remains to be seen but, what is conceivable says Veton Surroi, the Kosovo Albanian publisher, opposition leader, and member of the Kosovo Albanian negotiating team, is that the face-to-face discussions begin in “let us say, a castle in Austria in May”.

One very senior diplomat outlined a scenario in which he expected the Serbian delegation would fight extremely hard to make sure that all the safeguards they want for Kosovo’s Serbs and the Orthodox Churches and monasteries were securely in the final document.

In this, they will have been given a boost by the fact that Eide has already recommended much of what they say they want.

For example, he has suggested an extensive decentralization plan in which Kosovo Serbs would be given competences “in areas such as police, justice, education, culture, media, and the economy”. He has also recommended that “protective space” should be created around Serbian Orthodox religious sites and institutions and that ways should be found to place them “under a form of international protection”.

The fact that the Serbian side may well succeed in getting much of what it wants in terms of the internal organization of Kosovo does not of course mean it will succeed in getting what it wants in terms of the broader picture.

Serbian government policy, as outlined by Sanda Raskovic-Ivic, the head of Serbia’s Coordination Center for Kosovo, is that Kosovo can have judicial, executive, and legislative autonomy, but that sovereignty must remain with Serbia.

In the scenario outlined for ISN Security Watch, what may happen is that after Serbia has succeeded in packing the draft agreement with all the safeguards it seeks and in having its interests acknowledged in certain areas, the Serbian delegation may then refuse to endorse the plan because it also points the way to Kosovo’s independence at a sooner or later date.

Reluctantly, perhaps the Albanians then would be compelled to accept more in terms of Serbian rights in Kosovo than they would have done otherwise, but they would accept this under international pressure as the high price of independence.

Serbia’s leaders, none of whom want to take responsibility for losing Kosovo, can also say that, at this point and having fought as hard as possible, Kosovo was taken away from Serbia but not with Belgrade’s consent.

Defining independence

The question now arises as to what form of independence Kosovo will have, and at what stage. Significantly, the Eide report never uses the phrase “final status”, as opposed to “future status”, and the last lines of the report leave the door open for several options.

While arguing that “the international community must do the utmost to ensure that whatever the status becomes, it does not become a ‘failed status’”, it also says: “Entering the future status process does not mean the last stage, but the next stage of the international presence.”

Although Eide was not asked to comment on the question of ultimate sovereignty he does make various suggestions that broadly chime with mainstream diplomatic opinion about the fate of Kosovo. That is that there should be a follow-up mission to KFOR, the current NATO-led force there, that at least some US troops should remain, and that the EU take on a role in the police sphere at the very least.

Certain elements of the Bosnian model look set to be borrowed, too: for example, the installation of a High Representative with considerable powers, if not across the board, then in the field of inter-ethnic relations. In this sense, the independence that many diplomats and analysts are assuming Kosovo will get will be “conditional”.

It may well be that the document of reference to consult now is the International Commission on the Balkans of last April, which outlines a four-stage transition to full independence over an unspecified period culminating in Kosovo joining the EU.

Belgrade sobering up

Although conditional independence does indeed look likely for Kosovo, its Albanian leaders - who have done little so far to prepare for talks and seemingly have been lulled into a false sense of security by such a widespread assumption - are perhaps more concerned with their place in history than the tough negotiations ahead.

In this they have underestimated the sobering-up that has taken place in Belgrade in the last few months. Although it is true that for the moment it is unclear who will have the last word in Belgrade on what can or cannot be agreed, it is clear that there is now a far more realistic idea of what might be achieved in Kosovo than there was several months ago.

For example, experienced diplomats with a deep knowledge of Kosovo, such as Dusan Batakovic, who currently advises Serbian President Boris Tadic, are now gaming various scenarios for talks and preparing positions.

This does not mean that the Serbian side can stave off the ending of their sovereignty over Kosovo, but it does mean that Serbia stands a better chance of doing so than it did before. One (reserve) aim may well be to see whether the issue of sovereignty can be left open or at least left extremely unclear for the foreseeable future.

Such an option would be unacceptable to the Kosovo Albanians, whose negotiators will be looking over their shoulders at developments back home. In this context, the “joker” in the pack is Albin Kurti, a 30-year old former student leader and political prisoner.

Studying the techniques of the young people who organized the overthrow of their former regimes in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine, Kurti is currently organizing people in a bid to ready them to come out onto the streets to protest against the future talks.

His argument is that talks aim at compromise and that there can be no compromise on Kosovo’s independence. In other words, negotiations can only take place when Kosovo is independent and thus an equal of Serbia.

His slogan - “No Negotiations! Self Determination!” - is already plastered all over Pristina, but his strength is as yet untested. If, however, at a crucial point in talks, one of the Albanian parties - for example, the Democratic Party of Kosovo of former guerrilla leader Hashim Thaci - decides to swing his support behind Kurti then the outcome of talks, especially if a wave of anti-Serbian ethnic cleansing similar to that of March 2004 also breaks out again, cannot be predicted.


Tim Judah is a senior international correspondent for ISN Security Watch. He is also the author of The Serbs: History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia and Kosovo: War and Revenge, both published by Yale University Press.
http://kosovareport.blogspot.com/2005/10/defining-kosovo-by-tim-judah.html

Kosovo: The need for a neutral peace envoy

Kosovo: The need for a neutral peace envoy 11 October 2005

At long last, it appears as if the process to determine the final status of Kosovo is about to begin. After several months spent on the ground reviewing the situation, Kai Eide, the Norwegian diplomat appointed to prepare a study of conditions in Kosovo, has returned his report to the UN Secretary-General. It makes for troubling reading. Although improvements are noted in various areas, it is clear from the text that there are a wide range of concerns about the pace of reform and development in the province. For example, the report notes that while structures of governance have been established, there is no Serbian representation due to a Serb boycott. Moreover, the Serbian community has retained its own health and education structures. As a result the interethnic situation in the province is 'grim', with little respect for property rights. As for the economy, again improvements have been made. However, unemployment remains high and the situation is still 'bleak'. On the topic of law and order, the report notes that the police appear unable to handle the widespread corruption, organised crime and interethnic problems that exist. Indeed, the report refers to the police and judiciary as 'fragile institutions'. And yet, despite the concerns expressed about developments in the province, Kofi Annan appears to have agreed with the assessment made by Eide that the start of final status talks must begin in the near future. Speaking to the press in Switzerland, Annan made it clear that he would like to see formal negotiations begin soon. Indeed, the report has been sent over to the Security Council, which will take responsibility for deciding the next steps. This is almost certain to mean a seal of approval for the start of formal negotiations. Once he has secured permission from the Security Council to begin negotiations, the first task facing the Secretary-General will be the appointment of a special envoy to lead the talks. The choice is critical. Whoever is appointed will be at the forefront of efforts to broker a deal between Belgrade and the Kosovo Albanians. This will be far from easy. There is currently no common ground between the two sides and little appears likely to develop. While the Serbs have said that they are prepared to consider anything but independence, Albanian leaders in Kosovo have stated that they will accept nothing short of full statehood for the province. Already, potential candidates to handle this tricky process are emerging. The most prominent name so far suggested is Martti Ahtisaari, the former president of Finland. On the face of it, this would seem to be a good choice. Over the past decade, Mr Ahtisaari has carved out a reputation as a strong advocate for international peace and has taken a lead role in trying to bring stability to the Balkans. He is also familiar with the Kosovo situation, having led efforts to broker an end to the 1999 Kosovo Crisis. However, despite his credentials, Mr Ahtisaari is seen by many as a tainted candidate. Specifically, concern has been expressed about the fact that he was, until 2004, Chairman of the International Crisis Group (ICG), a leading think tank that has been at the forefront of efforts to promote an independent Kosovo. Since then, he has retained a position as chairman emeritus of the organisation, which, through reports and editorial pieces, has strongly advocated statehood for the province. Critics have also pointed out that another of the leading lights of the ICG is Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander who led the bombing of Kosovo, who has also written several pieces supporting independence and was endorsed by the US Albanian community in his run for the US presidency in 2004. In view of this, it is little wonder that Belgrade has raised serious questions about Mr Ahtisaari. For example, Sanda Raskovic Ivic, the President of the Co-ordination Centre for Kosovo, the main body of the Serbian Government handling Kosovo, has openly raised concerns about his impartiality. It is likely that more questions will follow from across the Serbian political spectrum. Of course, none of this is to say that Mr Ahtisaari is not an accomplished diplomat. His experience in this regard is beyond question. Nor is his standing being challenged. Instead, the appointment of someone who is so closely linked with an organisation that has so openly and strongly called for an independent Kosovo naturally taints his candidacy. Under other circumstances, Mr Ahtisaari may have been an ideal choice. However, in this case the Secretary-General needs to find someone whose impartiality, either real or perceived, cannot be challenged so easily.

Recent Commentary and Analysis

Croatia: The continuing problem of property restitution

Turkey: Growing concerns about EU membership

Cyprus: Renewing the peace process

http://www.civilitasresearch.com/publications/view_article.cfm?article_id=63