Why NATO bombed Serb TV

Why NATO bombed Serb TV
The Spectator (UK)
December 06, 2005

Did George W. Bush make a tasteless gag about bombing al-Jazeera? Did Tony Blair dutifully laugh? How could two leaders of the free world think it appropriate to jest about whacking pesky Arab journos while a nation Iraq burned under their watch? These are the questions being asked by British journalists who are shocked by rumours of a conversation that allegedly took place between Bush and Blair in April last year. I have a different question: why do these journalists seem more outraged by this President's alleged scurrilous aside about bombing a TV station than they were by an earlier president's actual bombing of a TV station?

Six years ago President Bill Clinton sent cruise missiles to destroy a TV studio and knock off some media workers, and it was no joke. At 2.20 a. m. on 23 April 1999, at the height of the Kosovo campaign, the Nato alliance led by Clinton and Blair destroyed the headquarters of Radio Television Serbia (RTS) in central Belgrade. The missiles destroyed the entrance and left at least one studio in ruins. More than 120 people were working in the building at the time; 16 were killed and another 16 were injured all of them civilian workers, mostly technicians and support staff.

The BBC's John Simpson described seeing 'the body of a make-up artist lying in a dressing room'. That was 27-year-old Yelitsa Munitlak, burned to death in the small room where she applied make-up to the station's newsreaders. She was so badly disfigured that her body could be identified only by the rings she was wearing. One of the RTS technical team, trapped between two collapsed concrete blocks, had to have both his legs amputated at the scene. He died later in hospital.

Today journalists wonder whether Blair laughed at Bush's joke about al-Jazeera, or perhaps even talked the President out of a serious 'plot' to bomb the Arab channel.

Never mind all that. Here is what Blair said after the targeted killing of media workers in Yugoslavia: the media 'is the apparatus that keeps Slobodan Milosevic in power and we are entirely justified as Nato allies in damaging and taking on those targets'.

He was backed by Clare Short, who today poses as an anti-war warrior but who six years ago was Blair's cheerleader-in-chief for bombing Yugoslavia. After the attack on RTS she said, 'The propaganda machine is prolonging the war and it's a legitimate target.' Tell that to the family of Yelitsa Munitlak.

To add insult to grotesque injuries, Nato officials later tried to deny that they had purposefully targeted a studio packed with civilian workers, instead claiming they had meant to bomb the TV transmitter next door. Yet according to the final report of the UN committee to review the Nato bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 'Nato intentionally bombed the central studio of the RTS broadcasting corporation.' And as Amnesty International pointed out, 'intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects is a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court'.

How did British journalists react to this 'war crime'? Not very honourably; certainly with far less rage than they have directed against Bush and Blair for their alleged chat about al-Jazeera. Some in the media who supported the Kosovo campaign kept shtoom about the attack. The broadcasting union Bectu did not even comment on it.

There was almost a celebratory tone in the Guardian's initial coverage of the bombing of RTS. In its first report on the attack (written by Martin Kettle and Maggie O'Kane, both of whom supported 'punishing' the Serbs) the paper repeated Nato's justifications for the attack without question: 'Nato targeted the heart of . . . Milosevic's power base early today by bombing the headquarters of Serbian state television, taking it off the air in the middle of a news bulletin.' It failed to say how camera operators, soundmen and makeup girls were central to Milosevic's 'power base'. Some journalists criticised the bombing of RTS not because it was criminal but because it provided a 'gift to Nato's critics'; in short, it made their 'good war' look bad.

There were honourable exceptions to all this. The National Union of Journalists, for example, vigorously opposed the attack. But too many journalists tried to squeeze this bombing of media workers into their view of the Kosovo campaign as a 'humanitarian' war. Yet the idea that you can burn to death a make-up girl in the name of 'humanitarianism'
is surely as perverse if not more so than the thought of Bush and Blair talking about bringing freedom to Iraq (which presumably includes freedom of speech) while talking about blowing up journalists.

By: Brendan O'Neill
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article_archive.php?id=7013&issue=2005-12-03

Interview with Serbian President Boris Tadic

NIN, 01/12/2005
By Dragan Bujosevic

Interview w/Serbian President
Boris Tadic
“Elections – Now!”

After the two new disputable mandates “reallocated” within G17 Plus, do you regret that you did not first insist on elections and then on resolving the Kosovo problem?

“I am the President of Serbia and the state issues are for me older than those with party dimensions. But, I consider that it is very important that we have political stability for the extremely difficult Kosovo talks, and it would be good to have a government which enjoys support from the majority of the Serbian citizens.”

This Government is now supported by only 15% of the voters.

“The legitimacy of the Government obtained at the 2003 elections is shaken. As a reminder, the key objection that this Government had in regard to the previous one was that a government supported by 25% of the voters had no legitimacy.”

You think that elections should be organized first, and then we should embark on the story about Kosovo’s future?

“I think that would be the best and most useful solution, since the negotiating team should have full power, and full legitimacy. I am certain, on the other hand, that the current Parliament’s composition does not correspond to the mood of the electorate. However, there is a legal way of slating elections, and therefore, the ruling coalition undertakes responsibility for its alarmingly insufficient legitimacy among the people… The current Government stays in power at any cost by, in my opinion, violating the law. But, we are expecting a court decision.”

Although you have told the Blic daily that the elections are not necessary as long as the Kosovo talks are in progress, the DS deputy leader Gavrilovic said a couple of days earlier: elections first.

“Let me clarify that. At the final stage of the Kosovo talks, elections would not be useful. In am certain that for conducting the coming Kosovo talks with full strength and full legitimacy, the elections would be most efficient just at this moment. However, it is not up to me, but the Government and the Parliament, to decide on that.”

Don’t you think that the electorate is totally confused when you first say that the Government snatches mandates, and they you form a negotiating team with it? If they are thieves, then they are thieves?

“The Constitution does not oblige me only to send messages to my voters and those who support my politics, it also obligates me to send clear messages to all the Serbian citizens. I am obliged to cooperate both with the Government and the Parliament, to a smaller extent… However, as the Serbian President, I am also obliged to point at all the violations of the Constitution and law, while fighting, within the law and only with political means, and not by legal or physical violence. I am convinced that this Parliament is rump, and has a big problem regarding its own legitimacy. The Serbian President was elected by the direct will of the citizens, while all the other representatives of the citizens were elected indirectly on party tickets. The citizens do not know who their representatives in the Parliament are, and the situation in Serbia would be far more stable if the MPs were elected directly by the citizens, if we had a majority electoral system, and if the citizens had a recall mechanism for these MPs, like they have for the President of the State.”

Have you proposed to PM Kostunica to call for elections?

“I proposed that both to him and other leaders of the ruling coalition, with one firm stance – that after the early elections, a government of the democratic forces and with full legitimacy should be formed. The response was that it would not be useful at the moment.”

The minority Government is now going to make such important decisions on Serbia’s future?

“I do not understand such political logics. It may lead to temporary and illusive peace, but essentially leads to the disintegration of political processes. The Government resorts to two arguments to defend itself from early elections. One is that early elections would bring the Radicals to power, and the other is that elections are not necessary, considering that the Kosovo talks are already on the agenda. Thus, the inability of the ruling coalition regarding the fight against the radicalization of Serbia is taken as an argument in the international public against the elections, while on the other hand, the Kosovo talks are used as an explanation why the Government should remain until the end of its mandate. Both arguments are, however, incorrect.”

By entering the negotiating team, you pardoned the Government and enabled it to rule at least for another year?

“No. By entering the negotiating team, I fulfil my constitutional obligation to preserve the sovereignty and territorial integrity of this country. With the Kosovo talks, they are more jeopardized than in any other moment over the past 15 years.”

Did the Democratic Party (DS) accept the Parliament’s Resolution by joining the negotiating team, although it abstained from voting for it?

“No. The Resolution is not a negotiating platform. It is the Parliament’s stance on Kosovo and Metohija (KiM), and it says what Serbia does not want an imposed solution, and that it wants a compromise within the constitutional and legal solutions that were defined by Slobodan Milosevic. The negotiating platform cannot include the latter and that is why the DS and I were against this stance, which has no ground either in the political reality or in the stances of the UN Security Council and the Contact Group, which will make a solution at the end of the talks.”

At the beginning of the talks, you say that the Resolution cannot be applied?

“The Serbian Government and the MPs who voted for it know that. The Resolution was adopted as an explanation or justification before their voters, and less as an expression of a real approach in resolving the KiM problem. My approach is different. I think that Serbia has no reason to deceive itself. The institutions like the Parliament or Government are even forbidden to deceive the citizens over what we will face in KiM. I can guarantee that a solution to KiM will not be found within the constitutional-legal principles set by Milosevic. This can be confirmed by the documents of the UN Security Council, which is in charge of the administration in the Province, as well as by the Contact Group’s documents, and others.”

It is known that the even the State Union is formed against this Constitution, so why are you bothered by the detail of its mentioning in the Resolution?

“It is not a detail, but an essential problem which is decisive for the KiM talks. A difficult discussion is being led in the international community over which principle it will cling to. One principle is that there is no return to the time of before 1999, and the second is that KiM will not be any more part of Serbia. If the international community opts for the first principle, we have some room for negotiations. If the second prevails, then the task of the negotiating team is extremely hard. Therefore, I am saying: there is no return to the situation of before 1999, but we offer a solution to a sustainable, intact KiM with the sovereignty of our country, through creating two entities which will enable coexistence. First of all, I am interested in the survival of the Serbs with the guarantee for institutional connections between the Serb entity and the central institutions in Belgrade. Then come the relations with the ethnic Albanian community, which will be the subject of the forthcoming talks.”

But, The Contact Group has another stance as well – that Kosovo’s borders are unbreakable. Thus, it is independent. EU Commissioner Rehn speaks today with SRSG Jessen-Petersen about Kosovo’s entry into the EU; Kosovo without Serbia?

“There are currently four policies for KiM in Serbia. The first says – we can imagine it as independent. The Second says, without false patriotic emotions, that we would rather lose our lives than Kosovo, while we actually only think of the political ratings at the next elections. The third policy says: we do not accept imposed solutions, either conditional or unconditional independence, but it does not say what we want, and it directly leads to an imposed solution. The fourth policy, which is my policy, says what Serbia wants in KiM. That is the only way to prevent imposed solutions. If we only say what we do not want, we increase the possibility for imposed solutions. We should convince the Contact Group members that Serbia’s long-term interest is in accordance with the interests of the international community and all the Contact Group members. The international community has three principles: there is no return to the situation of before 1999, there is no border change of KiM, and there is no annexation of KiM to any country. In all my international contacts, I keep saying that the principle of inviolability of KiM’s borders is acceptable if the principle of inviolability of Serbia’s and the SCG borders is also applicable. If not, then we have a violation of the basic principles guaranteed by international agreements, which would introduce a legal-political precedent, dangerous not only for Serbia but also for many other countries in the region and the world.”

It has been claimed that you harmonized the Resolution on Kosovo with Kostunica’s office three weeks before its adoption in the Parliament.

“It is true that the two offices adjusted the PM’s speech at the UN SC, and I am behind what Kostunica said there. I did receive the draft resolution from the Premier, and said that I had some objections. During my visit to Israel, the Government consulted some other parties, and while I was in Russia, the Government stated that the Socialists and the Radicals had agreed with the draft which I had not accepted. Upon my return from Moscow, I presented my objections directly to D/PM Labus. After that, the Government held consultations on the document and did not accept my suggestions. I want to stress again that the limitation to Milosevic’s time Constitution is out of reality, and the talks are led to change this constitutional-legal framework for KiM, and every citizen and politician is aware of that. There is not reason to deceive ourselves about that. I do not want to give my vote to some political unreality. If this unrealistic clause had been excluded, the DS would have supported the Resolution, but the DS demonstrates responsibility for what will happen in a couple of months.”

Being dissatisfied with the accord between Kostunica and [SRS deputy leader] Nikolic, you announced your plan on two entity in Moscow as a tit-for-tat?

“Not at all. Before my departure for Moscow, I presented my plan to Kostunica, like I had told him earlier what our negotiating goal should be.”

What was Kostunica’s response?

“That it is in line with the policy conducted so far, and that he will analyse all the consequences of such a negotiating team. Finally, the Government agreed with my proposal.”

It has been speculated in the media that you received an unfavourable scenario from the US, and in accordance with it, you changed your stance, i.e., gave up the Resolution and offered two entities.

“If someone knows about some US scenario, I am requesting him to immediately send it to me. I have not received such a scenario. That the US is in favour of a quick outcome is not a news, at least not in the past ten months. But, Washington officially does not plead for any solution. It is a different issue whether some influential circles in America favour an independent Kosovo. Yes, they do, and not only in the US, but also in most Contact Group member countries, and our public should now that, and we should fight against that with legal, political and diplomatic arguments.”

Was [former CCK head] Nebojsa Covic mentioned as a possible negotiating team member?

“Covic constantly talked about KiM with Kostunica and me, but after a conflict with the Government, he was eliminated. I still think that his place is in the negotiating team.”

One of the team members is Professor Fleiner, whose Government (Switzerland) was the only one to support Kosovo independence. Is that a problem?

“He is a man whose stances are close to the interests of Serbia. I do not know whether the Institute for Federalism, at which he works, is on the Swiss Government’s budget. It would be good to check that.”

Does Slobodan Samardzic [Kostunica’s advisor and negotiating team member] receive a scholarship from the Swiss Government?

“I do not know, and it should be checked. It would not be good if it was so. We must protect the interests of the State and every member of the negotiating team. However, prior to that, I would not question the loyalty to the State of any of its citizen, including Slobodan Samardzic.”

There is a noticeable difference between your plan and the one adopted in the Parliament last March. Your plan does not mention the resettlement of people, there is no territorial continuity, and the entity you mention is rather a political term?

“That is a more realistic solution. At the time when [former Serbian PM] Zoran Djindjic drafted a plan for KiM, and what I am now talking about is essentially that plan, the return of the army and police to the Serb entity was anticipated. Unfortunately, although it is stipulated in UN SC resolution # 1244, it is no longer a reality.”

Can your plan be applied as long as the one adopted by the Parliament exists?

“The Parliament is not participating in the negotiations.”

That is true, but its plan is obliging until it has been annulled?

“My plan is the continuation of what is essential; it is only adjusted to a real situation. After all, that is demanded from politicians who hold specific posts. Today in the world, the disputable issues are not negotiated by nations and parliaments, but by individuals elected by the citizens to negotiate. It is now important that both the Premier and President demonstrate capability of taking responsibility and making strong moves in accordance with our interests. The Premier and President are not supposed to be a mere transmission of the Parliament. The Premier is responsible to the Parliament, and the President, to the people. Our job is to impose sustainable solutions. I am ready for such moves, and I am responsible before the people. I would like to reiterate that I am not responsible for the Parliament’s political moves, although I respect and accept what it passes.”

The Resolution, however, stipulates something else: “Government, you will negotiate, but the decision belongs to the Parliament?”

“That is an expression of politics which does not include individual responsibility, and that is a way of conducting politics that smells of the old time. This is how Milosevic ruled, and he always tried to have the citizens justifying his moves through referenda or the will of the Parliament. I respect the Parliament, but it must also accept the authority of the executive power and the Serbian President. A parliament that wants to be an executive power as well, and not only the legislative power, is a parliament which does not understand its place in a democratic state.”

Does the Resolution include a possibility for the PM, if the talks go wrong, to withdraw from the whole process, saying that he has no mandate, and ask for early elections at which KiM would be the only question?

“No responsible politician would do that. There is nothing easier for a politician than saying: I give up. I asked Tomislav Nikolic what he would do if the country faced an ultimatum regarding cooperation with The Hague tribunal. He said he would resign. I do not accept such political philosophy. If you are elected for some work, you should take the responsibility in the most difficult conditions too… When I was elected the President, I knew that I was assuming responsibility for the most difficult solutions, and I am aware of all the risks… “

Aren’t you involved in deceiving the public as well when you say that you will not accept an imposed solution, since, unfortunately, Serbia may be imposed a solution, whether it accepts it or not?

“When I say that I will not accept an imposed solution, I express my political principle that I want to fully fight against any imposed solution. I do that with proposals which are possible and feasible. If I said that I would not accept an imposed solution without saying what I want, then I would seek an alibi for my next political post and would not really fight against an imposed solution. There is no dilemma: any, even the most unfavourable solution, must be carefully analyzed, but we must fight with all political means to defend our legitimate state and national interests.”

NIN

Kosovo: Virtual Rebels

 

TRANSITIONS ONLINE:

Kosovo: Virtual Rebels
by Alma Lama
5 December 2005

TOL

A new armed group threatens violence if Kosovo does not become independent – but are they for real?
PRISTINA, Kosovo | N.K. is a 32-year-old from Decani in western Kosovo who describes himself as being “close†to the masked gunmen of the self-styled Kosovo Independence Army, or UPK. He doesn’t want to see his full name in print.
Pristina media have widely reported that black-clad and masked UPK fighters appeared on some roads in the Peja region, which includes Decani, erecting roadblocks to search cars and check passengers.
As the international community gears to start direct talks between Pristina and Belgrade on the status of the province, the security situation for Kosovo’s minorities remains volatile. Just this past weekend, a bus on its way from southern Kosovo to Belgrade was attacked by someone with a grenade launcher. Luckily, the grenades pierced the bus but did not explode. The incident prompted Kosovo’s UN administration (UNMIK) to raise security measures once again.
OUR FRIENDS FROM THE UPK
N.K., himself a former member of the Kosovo Liberation Army (UCK), smiles and says the UPK “are our friends.†He says they are former UCK members who now feel abandoned by the politicians, including former UCK leaders, amid a very difficult economic situation.
But is the UPK for real? It emerges rather like a ghost from the tales of people with “contacts†to the rebels and investigations by the local police and the NATO-led peacekeepers (KFOR).
Even N.K. thinks the Pristina media are exaggerating a bit when covering his buddies of the UPK. “Decani is a small town, less than five thousand inhabitants, and we know each other very well,†he says, implying that the locals would have a pretty good idea of who’s a member and who’s not.
N.K is unable to say how many people might belong to the UPK, but there seem to be a sufficient number of them to have disturbed the peacekeeping forces in Kosovo. After international forces started overflights with helicopters and unmanned aircraft in the region around Decani and Peja, where some of the fiercest fighting against Serbian forces took place in 1998-1999, the gunmen disappeared from the streets and have since switched to communications through the Internet.
But just because they’ve gone virtual hasn’t made them any less threatening.
On 9 November, the UPK threatened the international community with “events a hundred times more dramatic than those of last March [2004],†when thousands of Serbian houses and historical and religious monuments were destroyed by mobs.
In one of their media statements, the UPK called on the Kosovo assembly to declare independence, or else deputies would have “a hard time in future days.â€
On 16 November, they threatened to launch a military operation on Pristina if independence was not declared immediately. They then seemed to have accepted a resolution passed by the Kosovo parliament the next day which, although it did not declare independence, made clear that independence was the only acceptable outcome of status talks.
The UPK has used similar, though rather less subtle, language with people they stopped on the road.
“We’ll kill all the traitors of the nation and the members of the Kosovo negotiation team if they won’t behave in the right way,†two people wearing military-style uniforms with UPK insignia and black facemasks told D.S., a man from the village of Rogova in Rahovec municipality. The "team" is the Kosovo delegation to the talks on the province’s final status that are about to get under way.
Former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, who is the UN's envoy to the status talks, said last week he hoped direct negotiations can begin early in the New Year.
D.S. said the gunmen stopped him and his nephew in Rogova and forced them to show identity papers. He too doesn’t want his name used because he’s afraid for his safety. “I don’t want any problem with them,†he said.
ONLINE ONLY?
Another source interviewed by TOL had asked a UPK gunman for an interview but was told that the group weren’t interested in giving statements other than those they disseminated on the Internet.
There are good reasons to suspect that the UPK is more of a virtual group than a military formation.
Two years ago, another force called the Albanian National Army also sent threatening communications to politicians via the Internet. But after a short burst of activity the organization seems to have died out.
According to another former UCK rebel from Decani, what is happening in this area is a form of blackmail. “It’s a hidden political issue, nothing else,†he said. “Everything depends on the status of Kosovo; if independence will not be given, the problem [of armed bands] will spread and become very serious,†he said, pointing to what he described as an increasing number of extremists in Kosovo.
KFOR confirmed that armed individuals had been spotted in the Peja region but excluded the possibility they might be part of an organized military group.
The Belgrade daily Vecernje Novosti on 27 October accused Ramush Haradinaj, the former UCK commander of the region and a former Kosovo prime minister currently facing charges at the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, of being behind the mysterious paramilitary UPK, calling him "the sponsor and main ideologue of this terrorist army."
Haradinaj stands accused of crimes against Serbian civilians during the ethnic Albanian rebellion against Belgrade’s rule in 1998-1999. He was released by the ICTY last June, pending trial.
But according to a TOL source in Decani, the armed men in the area are very angry at Haradinaj because he failed to help them after the war.
The UPK appeared on the scene just a few days after an article in the Kosovo daily Koha ditore, in which Mikan Velinovic, a former wrestler and writer of aphorisms, claimed to be the commander of the Serbian Antiterrorist Liberation Movement, or SOAP, a group he claimed had 7,500 members that were unarmed but ready to act if necessary. “Every Serb is a member of this organization, because we are threatened by terrorists,†the paper quoted Velinovic as saying.
Fears are flying high that the opening of status talks will provide incentives for extremists on both sides to make trouble.
Ramadan Qehaja, a security adviser to Prime Minister Bajram Kosumi, is concerned that the situation might be exacerbated by foreign secret services present in Kosovo, especially from Serbia. “Elements of the Serbian Interior Ministry are active in Kosovo, especially in the northern part,†he told TOL, saying that the fact that Kosovo did not have a regular secret service made it very difficult to monitor the presence of other secret services.
Political analyst Shkelzen Maliqi also told TOL that the threat of extremism was a convenient pretext that the sides could use to their advantage, but that the threat by these groups was real. “I fear the organized groups of Serbs and Albanians that are out of control. Serbs especially, because they have much more motivation and discontent. But Albanians at the same time may be determined to get their revenge if there’s a domino effect.â€
For UNMIK spokesman Neeraj Singh, messages, real or fake, like that the UPK delivered to Kosovo's status negotiators are to be expected given what’s at stake in the status talks.
“Despite the comments in the media, the threats, electronic messages, and other forms of pressure, the status of Kosovo will not be decided on the street or through the Internet, neither from Pristina nor from Belgrade,†Singh told a press conference in remarks that were echoed by KFOR commander Giuseppe Valotto.
Alma Lama is a journalist for the public Radio Television of Kosovo and a correspondent for Osservatorio sui Balcani.

The status of Kosovo

 

 

The status of Kosovo International Herald Tribune SUNDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2005 Hashim Thaci argues that Albanians in Kosovo are entitled to independence from Serbia ("My people deserve their independence," Views, Nov. 26).   Thaci's main argument for independence is that his Albanian people have suffered so much. But while Slobodan Milosevic's policies were indeed ruthless and indefensible, Thaci's historical account lacks vital elements of Albanian nationalism and separatism, including the fact that Serbs and other minorities in Kosovo have suffered over the last six years.   Thaci claims that minorities will be protected in an independent Kosovo. But the percentage of Serbs left in Kosovo has dropped dramatically in recent decades - including the nearly 200,000 Serbs who left the province in the wake of the 1999 war. Thaci was a leading politician at the time. In contrast, Serbia has remained multi-ethnic. The "old nationalism" that Thaci blames on the Belgrade of today is not exactly eradicated in today's Kosovo.   The world has about 200 countries and thousands upon thousands of ethnic groups. Should we have thousands of new countries, one for each ethnic group? Thaci mentions Serbian war criminals, but there are indicted Kosovo-Albanian war criminals too.   Thaci would like Kosovo to join the European Union with protection from NATO as part of a demilitarized area. The idea of demilitarization is news to us.   Jan Oberg, Lund, Sweden Aleksandar Mitic, Brussels     Hashim Thaci had the nom de guerre Snake. That, in itself, is very telling.   Thaci, a former leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which was once branded a terrorist group by the U.S. government, has now apparently morphed into a sage purveyor of advice via your prestigious newspaper. So, what is behind this sudden transformation?   It is more than obvious that the ongoing terror tactics against the Serbs and other minorities in Kosovo, perpetrated first by the KLA and then by its successor criminal offshoots, continues to be ignored and disguised by the West's mainstream media and politicians. Why? Because, they have no other way to justify NATO's aggression on Yugoslavia in 1999.   If Thaci's people have "earned" sovereignty, then the criteria for independence are murder, mayhem and barbarism. Is Europe ready and willing to embrace an intolerant and terrorist-supported Islamic state in its underbelly?   L.M. Milanovich Edmonton, Canada   Copyright © 2005 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/04/news/edletmon.php

Hashim Thaci argues that Albanians in Kosovo are entitled to independence from Serbia (RMy people deserve their independence,R Views, Nov. 26).

Related...

BALKANS: STAR TREATMENT FOR ACQUITTED KOSOVARS

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.235868612&par=0


ADN Kronos International (Italy)
December 2, 2005


BALKANS: STAR TREATMENT FOR ACQUITTED KOSOVARS


-The verdict will only strengthen “anti-Hague sentiments in Serbia”, argued [Belgrade University professor of international law Vojin] Dimitrijevic, adding that court has demonstrated “partiality in favor of Kosovo Albanians, who turned out to be privileged participants in all these wars”.


Pristina - The Kosovo Albanian language media on Friday gave star treatment to Fatmir Limaj and Isak Musliu, two Kosovo Albanians acquitted by UN war crimes tribunal in the Hague.

The two man were indicted by the International Tribunal for War Crimes in Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on charges of killing civilians in a Kosovo prison camp during ethnic Albanian rebellion against Serbian rule in 1998.

A third man facing the same charges was convicted. The acquittals have been harshly criticised by Belgrade and Serbian leaders in Kosovo who argues that it proves that the tribunal is anti-Serb.

Limaj and Musliu, who operated a prison camp in the village of Lapusnik in which 23 Serb and Albanian civilians, suspected of collaborating with Serbian forces, were killed, arrived in Pristina on Thursday night, greeted by a crowd of their supporters.

They were acquitted by the Tribunal on Wednesday, while a third indictee, Haradin Bala was sentenced to
13 years for killing nine civilians.

Kosovo newspapers celebrated their return in celebratory front page articles and the daily “Koha ditore”, quoted Limaj as saying their release was a “victory for Kosovo, which will surely become independent”.

The two were commanders of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which started a rebellion against the Serbian authorities [which]led to a NATO bombing campaign and forced Serbian troops from the province, which has been under United Nations control since 1999.

“There was no need to go to the Hague to prove the holiness of the war conducted by the KLA,” said Limaj.
He predicted Bala would soon also be freed on appeal.

Meanwhile, Vojin Dimitrijevic, a professor of international law at Belgrade University, until now a staunch supporter of the Tribunal, said that the Hague prosecutors haven’t shown “the usual diligence” in proving Limaj and Musliu guilt.

Furthermore, the “chain of command responsibility” was completely neglected in this case, since Limaj and Musliu, as commanders, were freed while Bala, who was a guard in the prison camp, was convicted.

The verdict will only strengthen “anti-Hague sentiments in Serbia”, argued Dimitrijevic, adding that court has demonstrated “partiality in favor of Kosovo Albanians, who turned out to be privileged participants in all these wars”.

George Bush & Tony Blair Forced Clinton to Bomb Serbia!

 

News Flash: George Bush & Tony Blair Forced Clinton to Bomb Serbia!

November 30, 2005

The Opinion Journal , caught this mind-bender this past weekend:

Simon Jenkins, a columnist for London's Sunday Times, ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1892515,00.html  ) comments on reports that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair toyed with the idea of bombing al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based

 

TV network: That Blair and Bush should have discussed bombing the Al-Jazeera building in Qatar is hardly surprising. They agreed to bomb the headquarters of Serbian television during the Kosovo war.

Well, color us impressed. Who knew President Bush was already conducting foreign policy back in 1999, when he was still governor of Texas?

 

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007608#simon

War Crimes: Albanians Jubilant, Serbs Alarmed

 

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.235428272&par=0


ADN Kronos International (Italy)
December 1, 2005


WAR CRIMES: ALBANIANS JUBILANT, SERBS ALARMED AT
KOSOVO VERDICT


-The ruling regarding the camp, operated by the Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA) appears to contradict previous sentences from the same
court which accepted the
principle of responsibility for alleged crimes up the
chain-of-command.
-"[F]reeing Limaj and Musliu "had cost Kosovo
Albanians and their lobbyists 50 million euro".
-"How is it possible that no one in Kosovo is
responsible for the things which are evident?" he [a
Serbian official] added, also referring to events
since the province was put under UN administration,
including an estimated 200,000 Serbs and other
non-Albanians who have fled from Kosovo, three
thousand who have been either killed or are listed as
missing, and the scores of Serbian churches and
medieval monasteries have been destroyed.
-Last month the ICTY acquitted a commander of the
Bosnian Muslim army, Sefer Halilovic, strengthening a
wide spread feeling in Serbia that the Tribunal is
actually politicised and anti-Serb.



Pristina/Belgrade - Kosovo Albanians celebrated with
gunshots and fireworks the acquittal of their
co-nationals, Fatmir Limaj and Isak Musliu, by the UN
war crimes tribunal in the Hague, while Serbs
expressed "shock and consternation".

Limaj, Musliu and a third man - Haradin Bala - were
the first Albanians indicted for crimes during the
1998 Kosovo Albanian rebellion against Serbian rule.
They were accused of operating a prison camp in
Lapushnik, where 23 Serb and Albanian civilians,
suspected of collaborating with Serb forces, were
killed from May to July 1998. The court acquitted
Limaj and Musliu, but convicted Bala, a prison guard,
to 13 years jail.

The International Tribunal for Crimes in former
Yugoslavia (ITCY) panel, headed by Australian judge
Kevin Parker, ruled that "it has not been proven
beyond reasonable doubt" that Limaj and Musliu were
responsible for the killings. The ruling regarding the
camp, operated by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)
appears to contradict previous sentences from the same
court which accepted the principle of responsibility
for alleged crimes up the chain-of-command.

The ICTY ruling was greeted with celebrations,
fireworks and shooting in the air throughout Kosovo,
and president Ibrahim Rugova deemed it a victory for
justice. "Today's trial justifies the liberation
struggle of Kosovo Albanians against Serbian
occupation, the righteousness of the struggle for
freedom and independence of our country and confirms
the faith in international justice and the Hague
Tribunal," Rugova said.

He expressed the hope that "not all legal
possibilities have been exhausted" for freeing Bala as
well. Other Kosovo Albanian leaders echoed, more or
less, Rugova's words, praising Limaj, a former
political leader, and Musliu as national heroes.

But the reaction from Kosovo Serbs and the government
in Belgrade was predictably different.

Slavisa Petkovic, the only Serb who accepted a
ministerial post in Kosovo prime minister Bajram
Kosumi's government, said that ICTY decision was, "to
put it mildly, scandalous".

Petkovic, who is considered a traitor by many Serbs,
alleged that he had heard in Pristina that freeing
Limaj and Musliu "had cost Kosovo Albanians and their
lobbyists 50 million euro". It was unclear whether his
allegations that the court ruling was not impartial
were a reference to direct lobbying from the Kosovo
Albanians or from other outside sources.

Kosovo Albanians, who form a 1.7 million majority
against some 100.000 remaining Serbs, are demanding
independence in upcoming talks on the final status of
the technically Serbian province, under UN control
since 1999. Petkovic argued the ICTY verdict will only
encourage Kosovo Albanians to use violence to achieve
the goal of independence.

Jovan Simic, an aide to Serbian president Boris Tadic,
said that the verdict "presented a bad picture of the
Tribunal" , recalling that "not one Serb has been
freed" so far.

"How is it possible that no one in Kosovo is
responsible for the things which are evident" he
added, also referring to events since the province was
put under UN administration, including an estimated 200,000 Serbs and other
non-Albanians who have fled
from Kosovo three thousand who have been either killed
or are listed as missing, and the scores of Serbian
churches and medieval monasteries have been destroyed.


Even Belgrade lawyer, Vasilije Tapuskovic, who had
served as a "friend of the court" of the Hague
Tribunal, said expressed consternation over the
acquittal of Limaj and Musliu.

Last month the ICTY acquitted a commander of the
Bosnian Muslim army, Sefer Halilovic, strengthening a
wide spread feeling in Serbia that the Tribunal is
actually politicised and anti-Serb.

Close to fifty Serbs and several Croats have been
sentenced so far for crimes committed in the Balkan
wars of the 1990s.

If you can't shoot the messenger, lock him up

 

The Hindu Date:01/12/2005 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2005/12/01/stories/2005120106381100.htm Opinion- News Analysis If you can't shoot the messenger, lock him up Siddharth Varadarajan President Bush's alleged threat to bombAl Jazeerashouldn't surprise us. Ever since the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, the U.S. has looked at the media it can't control as the "enemy."     IF THERE were any doubts about the authenticity of the Daily Mirror story on President George W. Bush wanting to bomb the head offices of Al Jazeera, the British government would appear to have cleared them up by threatening editors with prison if they publish the text of the confidential memo from which the London tabloid sourced its account. After all, if the White House's line about the story being "outlandish" were really true, why on earth would Tony Blair  whose conversation with the American President last April is the subject of the memo  invoke the Official Secrets Act to prevent its publication? I can think of only two reasons, neither of which does Mr. Blair or Mr. Bush any credit. Either the American President did threaten to blow up the Qatar-based Arabic news channel because he was upset at its coverage of U.S. counter-insurgency operations in Fallujah. Or he did not, in which case the British Prime Minister wants to suppress the memo because it records Mr. Bush admitting  or threatening  something even more terrible. Tempting though it is to dismiss the alleged threat against the Arabic broadcaster as a "conspiracy theory" (as Mr. Blair is suggesting) or a "joke" on the part of the U.S. President, there is the unsettling coincidence of Al Jazeera having been hit by American bombs twice before. In November 2001, the channel's Kabul office was hit by a U.S. missile and in April 2003, a `smart' bomb terminated its Baghdad operation with extreme prejudice, killing a journalist, Tareq Ayoub. Even without reading the April 2004 memo, we know from an earlier outburst by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the Bush administration just doesn't like the upstart broadcaster. They move about on their own in Iraq and refuse to be tied down as `embeds'. They speak the local language. And the footage they show has rather more shock and awe than what the Pentagon is comfortable putting on air. Does this mean the U.S. would deliberately bomb journalists in contravention of the laws of war  and the "freedoms" in whose name Iraq was invaded? Perhaps not, but what NATO did to the Radio Television Serbia (RTS) studios in Belgrade in 1999 suggests this military and moral Rubicon is more easily crossed than one would like to imagine. During the U.S.-led bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO aircraft deliberately bombed the RTS station in Belgrade. Sixteen civilians were killed in the attack that NATO and Pentagon spokesmen defended as an act of military necessity against "enemy propaganda." RTS broadcasts may have been propaganda and Yugoslavia, technically, was NATO's enemy. But RTS was media and the people who worked  and died  for it were entitled to the Geneva Convention's protections from armed attack both as civilians and journalists. The bottom line, however, was that they broadcast things which the U.S. military couldn't control and didn't like. Images of civilians killed or injured by NATO bombings. The same sort of images Al Jazeera was showing out of Fallujah. The only difference is that in those days, the Clinton administration didn't have a Secretary of Defence who went around saying, "We don't do Geneva Conventions here." Contagious intolerance   Unfortunately for press freedom, intolerance towards the media is a malignant and contagious disease. One hostile act against journalists quickly begets another. Mr Bush's threat against Al Jazeera quickly led to Mr. Blair's ultimatum to the British media. Slobodan Milosevic did not go after CNN or the BBC, whose NATO correspondent during the war went on to become NATO spokesman after it ended. But had the Yugoslav leader done so and cited a dislike for their "enemy propaganda" as justification, how different would he have been from NATO? Similarly, threatening Al Jazeera makes the terrain in Iraq and elsewhere more dangerous for all journalists because it tells Al Qaeda and their allies that journalists are fair game, that it is okay to kidnap or kill foreign reporters. The slippery slope doesn't end there. President Bush's dislike of Al Jazeera is only an extreme manifestation of the antipathy governments around the world feel towards media coverage that they cannot suppress, spin or control. In the aftermath of 9/11  and the extraordinary perversion of democratic norms this has led to in almost all established democracies  this intolerance is being kitted out with legal and even military teeth. Britain's new anti-terror proposals and Australia's draft anti-terrorism legislation and proposed extensions to the sedition law, for example, both aim to regulate what journalists can and cannot report on pain of imprisonment. Under India's Prevention of Terrorism Act  repealed under public pressure last year  the definition of "providing support" to a designated terrorist organisation was left so vague as to encompass even news reports or opinion pieces. Moreover, as the recent British gag order shows, governments are quite capable of dredging up old, anachronistic laws like the OSA to control the dissemination of information when they find their backs truly up against the wall and when anti-terrorism laws are of no help. Section 5 of the OSA  making it illegal for an unauthorised individual to be in possession of official documents  has rarely been used in Britain and never against journalists. Sometimes, governments don't even need a `compelling' reason to act against the media other than the very existence of laws that can be invoked. In India, the OSA was used by the erstwhile Vajpayee government in 2002 to imprison a senior Kashmiri journalist, Iftikhar Gilani, on the flimsiest of grounds in pursuit of a political vendetta against his father-in-law, the separatist politician Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Jose Padilla, the White House torture memos and other dystopic products of the post 9/11 world testify to just how corrosive the war on terror has been for civil liberties and democratic values. We are some way away from the point of no return but if the media were also to fall victim, the prospects for collective recovery would be dim indeed.

Kosovo negotiations get off to a rocky start (with James Bisset comment)

Kosovo negotiations get off to a rocky start

There seems little cause for optimism as Serbians and ethnic Albanians refused to budge from their positions

By DOUG SAUNDERS

Thursday, December 1, 2005 Posted at 4:46 AM EST

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

London  With little international publicity and a great deal of pessimism on all sides, the world's most ambitious nation-building campaign got under way this week in the Balkans.

Nobody has ever believed that the United Nations plan to turn Kosovo from an embattled province of Serbia into an independent, multi-ethnic nation would be easy. Those who are attempting to hold Iraq together, for example, point to the expensive and lengthy diplomatic struggle in Kosovo as an example of how such efforts should be managed -- and how impossible they still can be.

Yet as they spoke in the Kosovo capital of Pristina yesterday, surrounded by an unusually heavy phalanx of armed guards, the UN officials struggling to negotiate the province's separation from Serbia are expressing optimism that Europe's latest nation-state could be created some time next year.

The former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari, who was appointed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to lead talks on Kosovo's status, has spent the past week travelling to the capital cities of the Balkan nations in a preliminary round of discussions. He will present his findings in a dinner speech tonight

There seemed to be little cause for optimism as Serbian and Albanian groups refused to budge from their positions this week, most observers said.

On Monday, Mr. Ahtisaari blasted the Serbian government for urging Kosovo's ethnic Serbs to boycott the political process, and criticized its ethnic-Albanian leaders for failing to address Serbian grievances.

"The negotiating parties are still massed in Belgrade and here in Pristina, trying to find a mutual understanding, but their positions haven't changed from five years ago. It's very difficult to say if they will end up moderating when it comes down to actual talks," said Besa Shahini, director of the Kosovar Stability Initiative, a neutral think-tank in Pristina.

"However, this is a period of calm and sanity in both Belgrade and in Kosovo, so everyone has a desire to get things going. The economies of both places are completely dead because of the uncertainty, so people want to get results so they can start working again."

The talks are doubly poisoned. First, they face the history of the region: the slaughter of more than 10,000 Albanian Kosovars during Serbian ethnic-cleansing campaigns that began in 1998, and the retaliatory killing of at least 1,000 Kosovo Serbs by Albanians following the NATO war against Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic in 1999.

As a result, Serbian residents of Kosovo, who are Orthodox Christians and make up one-tenth of its two million people, live in heavily guarded enclaves with almost no contact with the mainly Muslim Albanians, and refuse to participate in the region's elected legislature.

The war's embers keep flaring up. Yesterday, there were angry accusations and threats of violence across Kosovo after two Albanian leaders were acquitted of war-crimes charges at the Hague; that led leaders in Belgrade to accuse the court of partisanship, and to threaten to shut down the talks.

And the talks are equally poisoned by the mixed agenda of international forces in the region.

Many Serbs see hypocrisy in the current international effort to unite Bosnia's ethnic factions while dividing up Serbia into what will effectively be two states, one Serbian and one essentially ethnically Albanian.

But the UN and the European Union still believe that independence is the only way to bring stability to Kosovo, and most international observers, including U.S. leaders, agree.

However, UN officials quietly acknowledge that, if talks get tough, they may end up giving into a Serbian "plan B" in which the Serb-majority northern part of Kosovo, including the city of Mitrovica, would become part of Serbia.

In statements this week, Serb and Albanian parties showed little sign of tolerance.

"The Albanian people of Kosovo will never again risk living under Belgrade's rule," Hashim Thaci, the former Kosovo Liberation Army commander who now runs the Democratic Party of Kosovo, said in a statement on Monday.

And the Serbian government, considered a moderate alternative to the ultra-nationalist parties founded by Mr. Milosevic, has refused to accept any notion of an autonomous Kosovo, at least publicly. Yesterday, Belgrade officials announced their plan for a "free land of Kosovo" that would be controlled by Serbia.

That would not be very different from Kosovo's current status, which is carefully guarded by thousands of UN officials and international peacekeepers.

The road to independence

After 15 years of nationalist independence movements, ethnic slaughter, outright war and peacekeeping operations, what was Yugoslavia until the early 1990s is now five countries at various stages of independence.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Three years of bloody ethnic war between Bosnian Muslims, Croats and Serbs ended with the 1995 Dayton peace accord. The agreement set up two separate entities, a Muslim/Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Bosnian Serb Republic. Overarching these entities is a central Bosnian government. Ultimate authority, however, rests with the EU-run Office of the High Representative as the country continues toward becoming a viable, peaceful, fully independent state.

Croatia

Croatia declared its independence in 1991, but endured nearly five years of sporadic and often bitter fighting with the Yugoslav People's Army and the army of the internationally unrecognized Republic of Serbian Krajina. The Croatian army prevailed and integration of the separatist territories was completed in 1998 under UN supervision.

Macedonia

Its current borders were fixed shortly after the Second World War when it was recognized as a separate nation within Yugoslavia. Although it is quite diverse, with a majority of ethnic Macedonians but a large population of Albanians as well as Turks, Roma and Serbs, Macedonia seceded peacefully in 1991.

Serbia and Montenegro

Serbia and Montenegro held on to the name Yugoslavia after the breakup until 2003, when its parliament voted to create a new, looser union. The two republics are semi-independent states in an arrangement that is to remain in place until at least 2006, after which the two republics can hold referendums on whether to keep or scrap it.

Kosovo province

In 1998, violence flared in Serbia's province of Kosovo after it was stripped of its autonomy. The Kosovo Liberation Army began an armed rebellion, which was brutally put down by the Serbian army until international forces intervened and the United Nations took over administration. It is now a de facto international protectorate but legally part of Serbia. Its status remains the subject of a bitter dispute between the Albanian majority, which seeks independence, and the minority Serbs.

Slovenia

A stable and independent country, Slovenia is the only former Yugoslav republic to join the European Union and NATO. Its independence was relatively bloodless, aided by Western European recognition of the Slovenes' aspirations and the low proportion of other ethnic groups.

SOURCE: BBC.CO.UK

 

EU divided over future status of Kosovo

29.11.2005 - 18:02 CET | By Mark Beunderman

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU member states are signalling disagreement on the final status of Kosovo, just as UN-led talks on the future of the territory get under way.

Diplomats indicate that several states - including the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Greece and Italy - are publicly or privately promoting their own ideas, which in some cases go beyond the EU's common position.

EU member states in June agreed that the exact future status of Kosovo should be decided in UN-led negotiations between Serbs and Kosovan Albanians, while setting out some clear EU principles that any outcome must meet.

The EU conditions include the protection of the Serb minority, no return to the pre-March 1999 status (when Kosovo was directly governed from Belgrade), and, notably, no partitioning of the territory.

However, just after UN special envoy Martti Ahtisaari started his initial talks with Belgrade and Pristina last week, Czech prime minister Jiri Paroubek suggested that partitioning Kosovo could be the best solution.

"A solution could be dividing the territory on ethnic lines. The northern part of the region would belong to Serbia, and the majority of the southern part could be given the status of an independent nation", the Czech politician said, according to press reports.

Cacophony of opinions
The Czech move - clearly in breach of EU principles - ran contrary to a previous initiative by Slovene president Janez Drnovsek, who presented earlier this month a plan promoting full independence for an unpartitioned Kosovo.

Mr Drnovsek's plan caused a row in Slovenia itself, with the country's foreign ministry publicly declaring that the president's action did "not reflect" the Slovenian government's position.

An EU diplomat said the Czech and Slovene moves were "worrying", as the EU seemed "incapable of sticking to a common position" over the issue.

Another diplomat described the Czech plea for a partition as "very dangerous".

On top of this, the president of EU candidate state Romania, Traian Basescu, last week while visiting Paris presented a proposal pleading for a type of Kosovan autonomy that falls short of independence from Serbia, which was well received in Belgrade but not in Pristina.

An EU source described the different statements coming out of European capitals as a "cacaphony of opinions."

Wariness about independence
Although most other member states have so far cautiously stuck to the EU´s guiding principles, in public at least, they have privately voiced their own views over the issue.

Italy, Spain and Greece in particular are said to be worried about what will happen if the territory is given fully-fledged independence, having been under the administration of the United Nations since the 1999 war.

Sources said Spain is "nervous" about an independent Kosovo setting a precedent for its own autonomous Basque region, something a Spanish spokesman did not want to comment on.

Both Italy and Greece are reportedly wary about endangering their close political and economic ties with Serbia, with Rome particularly fearful of a future "failed" state in Kosovo which could produce large numbers of refugees.

A Greek spokesman did not confirm Athens' particular worry about Kosovo's independence, but did highlight that Athens as a "powerful" player in the region would play an active "mediating role" between Belgrade and Pristina.

The EU has to pay the bill
The direct influence of the EU on the final status talks is likely to be limited, though not irrelevant.

UN envoy Ahtisaari, a former Finnish president, will lead the talks, probably assisted by diplomats of the Kosovo Contact Group, which is viewed by diplomats as being very influential.

A representative from the EU has a seat in this group, but its six-nation core consists of the US and Russia as well as the UK, France, Germany and Italy.

"EU members who do not have a seat in the contact group are envious about those who do", one insider said.

But an EU diplomat argued that in the end, the view of the EU as a whole can hardly be ignored, as "we will have to pay the bill", referring to a probable Brussels role in administration and military stabilisation of the territory.

Mr Ahtisaari's efforts to broker a deal will initially be limited to shuttle diplomacy between Belgrade and Pristina, with direct talks between Serbs and Kosovan Albanians not expected to start before February.

Diplomats estimate that the negotiations will last at least six months, possibly more than a year.

Politicians representing the Kosovan Albanian majority have pleaded for full independence for Kosovo, but Serbia is opposed to granting Kosovo sovereign nation status. 

 

  http://euobserver.com/9/20437

Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments.  Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

Kosovo: New War in the Balkans?

 

STRATFOR (USA)

Kosovo: New War in the Balkans?

November 22, 2005 17 40 GMT

Summary

The current stalemate over Kosovo's status is a perfect example of the palsied international system. One would think that a province that has been a de facto international protectorate for more than six years, by now, would have its status decided; yet the concerned parties in Kosovo ostensibly cannot perform the necessary tasks. The responsibility for this impasse rests first on the shoulders of the Kosovar Serbs and Albanians, who cannot agree, and second on the shoulders of the Contact Group members -- including the United States -- who dare not impose a solution.

Analysis

U.N. status envoy Martti Ahtisaari and his deputy Albert Rohan on Nov. 21 began their Balkan trip in the Kosovar capital of Pristina, with the clear intent of ensuring that status negotiations scheduled for December in Vienna, Austria, do not fail. However, their visit probably will have the opposite effect. At this stage it appears Ahtisaari merely wants to take notice of the contradictory positions at play in the negotiations rather than come up with a clear plan. A further sign of the chaos reigning in and around Kosovo is that disagreement exists both between and among the Albanians and the Serbs.

Two major views have emerged in the Serbian ranks. Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica and Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Draskovic maintain that "Kosovo-Metohija" must remain part of Serbia. It can receive more than autonomy but less than independence, and the inhabitants' minority and property rights must be respected to the utmost. Hence, the Serbian government prepared a resolution Nov. 15 that was adopted by the Serbian Parliament on Nov. 21.

Also on Nov. 15, Serbian head of state Boris Tadic expounded his own views during talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Tadic said Kosovo should be decentralized to create separate Serbian and Albanian entities within the region and allow Serbs to have a relationship with Serbia that would be close but regulated by Kosovar institutions. Earlier, Serbian Vice President Miroslav Labus came forth with a similar proposal, maintaining that a Serbian enclave should be created in northern Kosovo and along the Kosovar part of the River Morava.

What the Serb positions have in common is a simple fact: Kosovo must not, under any circumstances, be allowed to achieve independence.

Here, it must be noted that the international community -- the majority of U.S. and European politicians involved in this process -- are striving to extinguish the independent Serbian enclave in Bosnia-Herzegovina and create a unified state. Hence, it is possible that Tadic and Labus' proposals are designed to safeguard the existence of Serbian entities not only in Kosovo but also in Bosnia.

Events during the last few months testify to the uncertainties among Albanians, too. Though all the Albanians agree that Kosovo must be independent, in October some radical groups attempted to pressure the Kosovar Parliament to declare independence immediately. However, as a result of international pressure -- primarily from Jesen Petersen, leader of the U.N. Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo -- on Nov. 17 a public proclamation was issued stating that Kosovar Albanians want an independent and sovereign Kosovo, and that this position will be represented during negotiations with Belgrade.

The international community could resolve this predicament -- especially if the major powers represented in the Contact Group (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Russia) legally sanctioned the de facto protectorate. That would translate into at least five years of conditional independence for Kosovo, supervised by the Contact Group and protected by international forces, which would give the Serbs in Northern Kosovo not only minority rights (a term they consider an affront in itself) but also the ability to organize themselves -- inside Kosovo -- as a separate entity.

If the Contact Group members are not ready to impose the solution of conditional independence as soon as possible, a new war in the Balkans is almost a certainty. Historical patterns simply are not working: Neither the Ottoman Empire nor Tito's Yugoslavia can be resurrected. But a sort of Bismarckian realpolitik -- a protectorate imposed and supervised by a concert of major powers -- might be worth trying.

Regardless of what path is approached, any removal of international forces will lead to Albanian-Serb bloodshed. Consequently, the international community only has two options. First, the Contact Group could adopt a position of de facto support of Albanian independence. Such a stance would anger Belgrade, but Belgrade currently lacks the tools to retaliate effectively (although the Bosnian Serbs would certainly feel forced to act to protect their own interests). Second, the Contact Group could simply attempt to extend the existing legal limbo.

Unfortunately, another bit of Serbia and Montenegro -- namely, Montenegro -- is champing at the bit to vote on independence itself. And should Montenegro go, the Kosovar Albanians are certain to not wait around for the international community to make up its mind. This leaves just one question in Stratfor's mind: Do the Kosovar Albanians possess the military fortitude to seize their independence should they not receive a blank check from the Contact Group?

Guardian newspaper forced to retract Noam Chomsky interview

Using Emotion to Silence Analysis

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/nov2005/chom-n29_prn.shtml

World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org



WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : Britain

Guardian newspaper forced to retract Noam Chomsky interview

By Robert Stevens
29 November 2005

On November 17, Britain's Guardian newspaper ran a statement in its
Corrections and Clarifications column announcing the removal from its
website of an interview with Noam Chomsky.

The interview, conducted by Emma Brockes, was published in the
Guardian's October 31 edition after Chomsky, a professor of
linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was voted
the world's top intellectual in a poll conducted by Britain's Prospect
magazine. Of 20,000 participants in the Prospect poll, 4,800 voted for
Chomsky.

In the published interview, Brockes attacked Chomsky, claiming he had
implied that a massacre of Muslims had not been carried out by Serbian
forces at Srebrenica in July 1995, during the Bosnian war. Her
diatribe marked a new low in the ever more pronounced rightward shift
of a newspaper that still advertises itself as the mouthpiece of
Britain's liberal intelligentsia.

The Guardian dropped the interview only following an open letter to
the newspaper from Chomsky, a complaint from the media organisation
Media Lens, and numerous letters of protest from readers.

The Guardian had initially defended its interview. On November 1, it
published two letters supporting criticisms of Chomsky, supposedly to
balance the "debate". As Chomsky later pointed out in an email copied
to the Media Lens organisation, "Both writers assume that there is a
'debate', as the editors falsely claimed, in which I question the
massacre (or as they pretend, 'massacre') in Srebrenica. That is all
fabrication, as the editors know well. They labored mightily to create
the impression of a debate in which I take the position they assigned
to me, and have succeeded. Now I'm stuck with that, even though it is
a deceitful invention of theirs."

The newspaper also failed to publish Chomsky's entire open letter of
complaint, dated November 13. Instead, they ran a truncated version in
which they insisted, before agreeing to publish, that Chomsky remove
the word "fabrication" from his condemnation of the Brockes article.

Chomsky agreed to do this and later stated that he was mistaken in
doing so. Even then, Chomsky's letter was published alongside one from
a victim of the war in the Balkans under the spurious heading "Fallout
Over Srebrenica". In reality, this "fallout" had been entirely
concocted by the Guardian, which had attributed to Chomsky a statement
he never made.

The newspaper's November 14 retraction admitted as much. It was issued
in the form of an acknowledgement by the "readers' editor" that found
in favour of Chomsky on three significant complaints.

"Principal among these was a statement by Ms. Brockes that in
referring to atrocities committed at Srebrenica during the Bosnian war
he had placed the word 'massacre' in quotation marks. This suggested,
particularly when taken with other comments by Ms. Brockes, that Prof.
Chomsky considered the word inappropriate or that he had denied that
there had been a massacre. Prof. Chomsky has been obliged to point out
that he has never said or believed any such thing. The Guardian has no
evidence whatsoever to the contrary and retracts the statement with an
unreserved apology to Prof. Chomsky."

Brockes' piece was clearly a hatchet job in which she demonstrated a
complete disdain for basic journalistic standards. But why was she
given the task and what was the brief given to her by the Guardian's
editorial staff?

There is no doubt that Chomsky's nomination by the readers of Prospect
will have angered and appalled the Guardian. Both publications
function as liberal apologists for the Labour government of Prime
Minister Tony Blair and both he and his leading adviser, Peter
Mandelson, have written for Prospect. Last year the Guardian published
an article by the editor of Prospect, David Goodhart, in which he
questioned whether an ethnically diverse society and a welfare state
are any longer compatible.

The vote for Chomsky by Prospect's readers on the basis of his left
politics and generally anti-imperialist stance was clearly seen as a
slap in the face. There remains a section of readers who have not got
the message being doled out by both organs.

Why were Brockes and, presumably, the Guardian's editors so determined
to raise the issue of Srebrenica? Because the civil war in Bosnia
represented a political watershed. It was the occasion for a slew of
liberals and radicals to ditch their oppositional stance and make
their peace with imperialismâ€â€a phenomenon that was analysed by the
International Committee of the Fourth International in its December
14, 1995 statement, " Imperialist War in the Balkans and the Decay of
the Petty-Bourgeois Left"

The ICFI noted how representatives of this tendency, in which the
Guardian and many of its leading columnists were to be found, cited
revulsion over Serbian atrocities as the justification for their swing
into the imperialist campâ€â€ignoring similar atrocities by Croat and
Muslim forces. The moral hand-wringing over Bosnia served a definite
political purposeâ€â€to legitimise support for Western military
intervention aimed at the break-up of Yugoslavia and the installation
of various pro-Western regimes that would ensure imperialist control
of this strategic region. The Bosnian war provided an opportunity for
these layers of ex-radicals to realign their politics with those of
imperialism.

This analysis has been amply borne out in the past decade. The
Guardian's role in justifying Britain's military intervention in
Bosnia by citing atrocities such as Srebrenica was only a practice run
for its subsequent abandonment of opposition to the Iraq war and shift
to support for regime-change in Iraq, once again citing the crimes
committed by Saddam Hussein.

An essential function of the pro-war propaganda of the Guardian has
been to intimidate and silence all those who refuse to accept the lie
that the imperialist powers are undertaking a great civilising mission
by organising regime change in the Balkans, the Caucasus and the
Middle East: Hence Brockes' choice of ideological weapon against
Chomsky.

The interview was published under the headline "The Greatest
Intellectual?" Its subhead was designed to be read as an excerpt from
the interview. It stated, "Q: Do you regret supporting those who say
the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated? A: My only regret is that I
didn't do it strongly enough."

Below, Brockes writes of Chomsky's career as an intellectual: "This
is, of course, what Chomsky has been doing for the last 35 years, and
his conclusions remain controversial: that practically every US
president since the Second World War has been guilty of war crimes;
that in the overall context of Cambodian history, the Khmer Rouge
weren't as bad as everyone makes out; that during the Bosnian war the
'massacre' at Srebrenica was probably overstated."

Chomsky has never put quotation marks around "massacre" in relation to
Srebrenica as Brockes implies. Indeed, he has referred to the massacre
at Srebrenica several times in his writing. More important still, the
question and answer that was used by the Guardian as a subhead was
made up either by Brockes or whoever edited her article for
publication.

The Guardian acknowledged in its retraction:

"No question in that form was put to Prof. Chomsky. This part of the
interview related to his support for Diana Johnstone (not Diane as it
appeared in the published interview) over the withdrawal of a book in
which she discussed the reporting of casualty figures in the war in
former Yugoslavia. Both Prof. Chomsky and Ms. Johnstone, who has also
written to the Guardian, have made it clear that Prof. Chomsky's
support for Ms. Johnstone, made in the form of an open letter with
other signatories, related entirely to her right to freedom of speech.
The Guardian also accepts that and acknowledges that the headline was
wrong and unjustified by the text."

The book by Diana Johnstone is entitled Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia,
NATO and Western Delusions, and was published in 2002. It is a
critique of the Western coverage of the war and seeks to shed light on
what lay behind the propaganda campaign of the imperialist
governments, which sought to demonize Serbia and lay sole
responsibility for the war at its door.

In 2003, Chomsky was one of a number of prominent signatories to an
open letter opposing the withdrawal of the book by its Swedish
publisher. That decision followed a press campaign in which both
Johnstone and her book were vilified, led by the daily newspaper,
Dagens Nyeter.

Chomsky was simply defending the author's right to free speech and,
while describing Johnstone's book as a "serious" work, has never said
that he fully agrees or disagrees with her analysis.

In his open letter to the Guardian, Chomsky states, "The reporter
obviously had a definite agenda: to focus the defamation exercise on
my denial of the Srebrenica massacre. From the character of what
appeared, it is not easy to doubt that she was assigned this task.
When I wouldn't go along, she simply invented the denial, repeatedly,
along with others."

An indication of just how importantâ€â€personally as well as
politicallyâ€â€it was for the Guardian to discredit Chomsky is Brockes'
description of "my colleague, Ed Vulliamy" as a "serious, trustworthy"
person. This is written in the context of an attack on Chomsky for
daring to question Vulliamy's reporting of the war.

Vulliamy wrote regularly on the war in the Balkans. His essential
theme was that the Serbian regime was responsible for the war, that
the Bosnian people were being systematically wiped out, and that
failure to support Western intervention was tantamount to supporting
Serbian atrocities.

As Diana Johnstone points out in her November 14 article on the
Brockes-Chomsky episode, entitled "Kulturkrieg in Journalism: Using
Emotion to Silence Analysis," it is entirely conceivable that Brockes
based her conversation with Chomsky on a few culled paragraphs from
Vulliamy, even down to his spelling mistakes. Vulliamy had previously
spelled Johnstone's first name incorrectly in printâ€â€a mistake repeated
by Brockes in her article.

Guardian Apologizes to Chomsky

November 17, 2005

Guardian Apologizes to Chomsky

Total Retraction of Emma Brockes's "No Massacre at
Srebrenica" Slurs

By CounterPunch News Service


The following unusually detailed and categorical apology to
Noam Chomsky appears in The Guardian for November 17. The
Guardian's "readers' editor", Ian Mayes, issues this
virtually unprecedented climb-down--in effect a savage
rebuke to its reporter Emma Brockes--after complaints by
Chomsky himself and others, and by detailed exposes, first
by Alexander Cockburn and then by Diana Johnstone on this site.


The headline and text of The Guardian's retractions follow.


Corrections and clarifications
The Guardian and Noam Chomsky
Thursday November 17, 2005
The Guardian


The readers' editor has considered a number of complaints
from Noam Chomsky concerning an interview with him by Emma
Brockes published in G2, the second section of the Guardian,
on October 31. He has found in favour of Professor Chomsky
on three significant complaints.


Principal among these was a statement by Ms Brockes that in
referring to atrocities committed at Srebrenica during the
Bosnian war he had placed the word "massacre" in quotation
marks. This suggested, particularly when taken with other
comments by Ms Brockes, that Prof Chomsky considered the
word inappropriate or that he had denied that there had been
a massacre. Prof Chomsky has been obliged to point out that
he has never said or believed any such thing. The Guardian
has no evidence whatsoever to the contrary and retracts the
statement with an unreserved apology to Prof Chomsky.


The headline used on the interview, about which Prof Chomsky
also complained, added to the misleading impression given by
the treatment of the word massacre. It read: Q: Do you
regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was
exaggerated? A: My only regret is that I didn't do it
strongly enough.


No question in that form was put to Prof Chomsky. This part
of the interview related to his support for Diana Johnstone
(not Diane as it appeared in the published interview) over
the withdrawal of a book in which she discussed the
reporting of casualty figures in the war in former
Yugoslavia. Both Prof Chomsky and Ms Johnstone, who has also
written to the Guardian, have made it clear that Prof
Chomsky's support for Ms Johnstone, made in the form of an
open letter with other signatories, related entirely to her
right to freedom of speech. The Guardian also accepts that
and acknowledges that the headline was wrong and unjustified
by the text.


Ms Brockes's misrepresentation of Prof Chomsky's views on
Srebrenica stemmed from her misunderstanding of his support
for Ms Johnstone. Neither Prof Chomsky nor Ms Johnstone have
ever denied the fact of the massacre.


Prof Chomsky has also objected to the juxtaposition of a
letter from him, published two days after the interview
appeared, with a letter from a survivor of Omarska. While he
has every sympathy with the writer, Prof Chomsky believes
that publication was designed to undermine his position, and
addressed a part of the interview which was false. Both
letters were published under the heading Falling out over
Srebrenica. At the time these letters were published,
following two in support of Prof Chomsky published the
previous day, no formal complaint had been received from
him. The letters were published by the letters editor in
good faith to reflect readers' views. With hindsight it is
acknowledged that the juxtaposition has exacerbated Prof
Chomsky's complaint and that is regretted. The Guardian has
now withdrawn the interview from the website.


[No need to worry--the article will live forever on the
innumerable right-wing sites that copied it, and no doubt
its admittedly false allegations will forever remain part of
the Chomsky lore endlessly repeated by his detractors.--DC]


--
Dan Clore