October 09, 2006

My OPINION in response to "Emancipating Kosovo." (Stella)



My OPINION in response to "Emancipating Kosovo." (Stella)




 
(Once again, much of this information has been written in some form in my other letters and commentaries. The trick is to get it published where it has never been published before.  Don't hold your breath!!!!  Stella)
From: sparta
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 10:57 PM
Subject: OPINION in response to "Emancipating Kosovo."

To the editor(s)  My bio follows my OPINION. 
**************************************************
 
The Manila Times
 
OPINION
 
"Emancipating Kosovo," or "Creating Another Rogue State?"
by Stella L. Jatras
 
9 October 2006
 
When I first read Eric Malloga's OPINION of 9 October titled Emancipating Kosovo, I was reminded of Hitler's minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, whose famous quote was, "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth."  Therefore, Mr. Malloga's "OPINION" must not go unchallenged.  The question, however, is, how does one undo over a decade of disinformation and hatred against the Serbian people that emanates from the pen of Mr. Malloga and his ilk?
 
If anything, Mr. Malloga is guilty of presenting a one-sided picture of the events in Kosovo.  Therefore, let us take a look at some of the facts. 
 
Mr. Malloga omits, intentionally or otherwise, the fact that the Serbs were once the majority in Kosovo until Hitler's Nazis drove out hundreds of thousands of Serbs, followed by communist dictator Josip Broz Tito, who, in his hatred for the Christian Orthodox Serbs, encouraged Albanian Muslims to cross over illegally into Christian Kosovo.  
 
Let us take a look at Prime Minister Agim Ceku whom Mr. Malloga so admires.  Journalist Jeffrey Benner wrote as far back as 1999, "The Kosova Liberation Army (KLA)'s new chief of staff, Agim Ceku, has been linked to two of the grisliest episodes of brutality in the ongoing war in the former Yugoslavia." 
 
As though irrelevant, Mr. Malloga also omits atrocities committed against the minority Serb population by Kosovo Albanian mobs with the help of the Kosovo Liberation Army,  such as was reported in National Review of March 2004, whereby, "A pogrom started in Europe on Wednesday.  A UN official is quoted as saying that a Kristallnacht is underway in Kosovo.  Serbs are being murdered and their 800 year old churches are aflame.  Much of the Christian heritage in Kosovo and Metohija is on fire and could be lost forever. By these deeds too many of Kosovo's Albanians have shown that all the speeches about democracy and multiethnicity we have been hearing in Kosovo since June 1999, and the naïve repetition of them by the international community, are false. These words too are burning, as is the hope in the hearts of right-thinking policymakers across the world that Kosovo's barbarians can be civilized at little cost to the West."  Thus far, over 150 Serbian churches and monasteries in Kosovo have been destroyed or desecrated without any outage from the civilized world. 
 
As a result, today, Serbian culture, language and religion are being eradicated by Kosovo Albanian mobs aided by Agim Ceku's KLA war criminals. 
 
The Wall Street Journal reported on 1 November 2001, "For the past 10 years, the most senior leaders of al Qaeda have visited the Balkans, including bin Laden himself on three occasions between 1994 and 1996. The Egyptian surgeon turned terrorist leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri [emphasis added] has operated terrorist training camps, weapons of mass destruction factories and money-laundering and drug-trading networks throughout Albania, Kosovo (FYROM) Macedonia, Bulgaria, Turkey and Bosnia. This has gone on for a decade." 
 
And let us not forget how the Serbs were accused of murdering 700 Kosovo Albanians at the Trepca mines, grounding the bodies and incinerating them.   Daniel Pearl on the front page of The Wall Street Journal, on 31 December 1999, exposed the gruesome massacre as a hoax, when he wrote, "By late summer, stories about a Nazi-like body-disposal facility were so wide-spread that investigators sent a three-man French Gendarmerie team spelunking half a mile down the mine to search for bodies.  They found none.  Another team analyzed ashes in the furnace. They found no teeth or other signs of burnt bodies."   Pearl paid with his life for writing the truth.   
 
Former UNPROFOR Commander, Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie said it right, when he said, " The Kosovo-Albanians have played us like a Stradivarius. We have subsidized and indirectly supported their violent campaign for an ethnically pure and independent Kosovo. We have never blamed them for being the perpetrators of the violence in the early ´90s and we continue to portray them as the designated victim today in spite of evidence to the contrary. When they achieve independence with the help of our tax dollars combined with those of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, just consider the message of encouragement this sends to other terrorist-supported independence movements around the world."
 
The Washington Times further reported on 4 May 1999, that  "Some members of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which has financed its war effort through the sale of heroin, were trained in terrorist camps run by international fugitive Osama bin Laden." 
 
In a 1994 letter to President Bill Clinton regarding claims of Serbian rape camps, Herb Brin, editor of Heritage Southwest Jewish Press wrote, "When I visited the Serbian front a year ago, I learned to my dismay that the rape story was a total concoction."  Daniel Pearl also reported that allegations of indiscriminate mass murder, rape camps, crematoriums and mutilation of the dead -- haven't been borne out in the six months since NATO troops entered Kosovo.
 
President Bush said that we would do whatever it takes to defend the United States against Muslim terrorists, yet we denied the Serbs the right to defend themselves against the same Muslim terrorists that we are fighting today. 
 
Efforts, like those of Mr. Malloga, are being made to cede Serbia's Jerusalem to war criminals such as Agim Ceku.  To do so would be creating another rogue state in the underbelly of Europe - another mini-Afghanistan which the world certainly doesn't need. 
 
I finish with the following quotes for your readers to ponder: 
 
John Ranz, USA  Chairman of Survivors of Buchenwald Concentration Camp.  "The gigantic campaign to brainwash America by our media against the Serbian people is just incredible, with its daily dose of one-sided information and outright lies."
 
Yohanan Ramati, Director of the Jerusalem Institute for Western Defense.  "This organized anti-Serb and pro-Muslim propaganda should cause anyone believing in democracy and free speech serious concerns.  It recalls Hitler's propaganda against the allies in World War II. Facts are twisted and, when convenient, disregarded." 
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sources: 
 
Daniel Pearl article (Wall Street Journal) on Trepca mine massacre   http://www.geocities.com/spyjaguar/311299.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

  As a career military officer's wife, Stella Jatras has traveled widely and has lived in many foreign countries where she not only learned about other cultures but also became very knowledgeable regarding world affairs and world politics. With the advent of the war in Bosnia, Mrs. Jatras immediately recognized the bias of the Western media and the Clinton administration's flawed foreign policy in the Balkans and began her efforts to present to the American people a more accurate view of that tragic situation. Her letters and articles have been published in The Washington Times, The Washington Post, The Arizona Republic, The Patriot- News (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), Chronicles, The Stars and Stripes, and the Los Angeles Times, as well as a number of magazines and periodicals. In addition her writings have had worldwide distribution via the Internet such as Citizen Soldier and Jihad Watch.  Stella Jatras lived in Moscow for two years (where her husband, George, was the Senior Air Attaché), and while there, worked in the Political Section of the US Embassy. Stella has also lived in Germany, Greece and Saudi Arabia.  Her travels took her to over twenty countries.




Brought to you by Attensa for Outlook (download it here)


October 08, 2006

Serbia: The Bee Hive of the Balkans


Serbia: The Bee Hive of the Balkans




Serbia: The Bee Hive of the Balkans
 
Can Karpat,
 
AIA Balkan Section
 
Serbia, which has just adopted a new Constitution, heads towards early elections. According to the media speculations, the general elections would take place either in late December this year or in spring 2007. And the big wigs of the international community began to give the signal that the postponement of the Kosovo final status until after elections in Serbia is now a serious option. Will they really avoid inserting the stick into the most unpredictable bee hive of the Balkans?

Constitution: Not without Kosovo

In 1913, after the Balkan wars, the Ottoman Empire lost almost all of its European territory. While retreating, Ottoman officers promised those peoples, who had still some sense of loyalty to the declining Empire, that they would be back one day. The preamble of the new Serbian Constitution, which mentions Kosovo as the “constituent part of Serbia’s territory”, has no valour than the hollow promise of those Ottoman officers.
   
 
Serbian Parliament approves new Constitution  
Many criticise this preamble as non-realistic, defiant or even belligerent. In fact, none of these qualifications are correct. Serbia would not have drawn up no other preamble but this, for two main reasons.
First, it is an incontestable fact that Kosovo is still de facto part of Serbia. Secondly, given the official position of Belgrade at the status talks, Serbia would not have been expected to trip up herself by omitting to mention Kosovo as an integral part of the country.
Therefore, this preamble is nothing but the logical continuation of the legal fiction, according to which Kosovo is still part of Serbia. Far from being a belligerent act, this is a just a symbolic gesture, an indirect message to the Serbian minority of Kosovo -and to the Serbian electorate of course- that assures that “we will be back one day”. Since no Serbian politician would ever sign the independence of Kosovo, these politicians will then be able to carry on with this fiction for years to come.
And after all, the preamble of the new Serbian Constitution is not that belligerent as long as it mentions a territory that still de facto belongs to the country as its own. For example, the preamble of the Armenian Constitution openly demands the eastern region of the neighbouring country, Turkey. In spite of Turkey’s numerous protests, the international community does not seem to care about this only too obvious belligerence from Armenia.

Referendum: With what electorate?

Serbian Parliament decided that the referendum on the new Constitution should be held on 28th October. In order to be valid, the new Constitution must be approved by the majority of the electorate.
In Serbia there are around 6.533.000 registered voters. However, some 1.300.000 are from Kosovo. Only 186.000 of them are ethnic Serbs.
This is an impossible situation:
- To exclude the Kosovo Albanians from the electorate would be not only democratically condemnable, but also contradictory. After all, why vote for a Constitution that claims Kosovo as the integral part of Serbia while excluding the inhabitants of this region from the electorate?
- To include them would be most ironic, for no Albanian would ever vote for a Constitution in which Kosovo is mentioned as an integral part of Serbia.
Moreover, here are three facts that make the situation even more complicated:
- Counting the Kosovo Albanian voters would increase the number of the Serbian electorate. If the Albanians boycotted the referendum -which is more than probable-, the adoption of the new Constitution would be seriously endangered, since it must be approved by the majority of the electorate.
- To establish a new electoral list which would exclude the Kosovo Albanians would be very contradictory, for in such case, the preamble of the Constitution would be automatically invalid.
- For Serbia has no real control on Kosovo, it is physically impossible for the Republic Election Commission (RIK) to determine an electoral list with exact number of voters. And the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) has no permanent electoral list.
How the RIK will resolve this intriguing situation is indeed a real legal and political curiosity.

The matrix: Early elections in Serbia

Early elections in Serbia became the matrix according to which the exact timeline of the Kosovo final status will be determined. According to the speculations, the general elections would take place either in late December this year or in spring 2007.
Recent statements made by UN special envoy Martti Ahtisaari and EU foreign policy and security chief Javier Solana insinuate that the postponement of the Kosovo final status until after elections in Serbia is now a serious option.
Last decision is up to the six-nation Contact Group. As to the timeline, it is known that the EU and Russia are more flexible and tolerant than the USA that insists for the end of 2006 as the timeline for the Kosovo status solution. Note that four countries of the Contact Group are EU-members and the other one is Russia.
Kosovo Prime Minister Agim Ceku warned that the postponement of the decision would increase risks and tensions. It seems that the international community must choose the least evil between two probabilities: risks and tensions created by the Serbs or risks and tensions created by the Albanians. One could claim that a possible delay would be easier for the Albanians to tolerate since the happy end unconditionally awaits them at the end of the process. However, with Serbia, things are a bit more complicated.
On the one hand, according to the polls, the two leading parties of these elections are expected to be Tomislav Nikolic’s Serbian Radical Party (SRS) and Boris Tadic’s Democratic Party (DS). In this regard, cooperation between DS and Vojislav Kostunica’s Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) is essential in order to halt the rise of the Radicals. Will the two frères ennemies make truce for the sake of their country?
On the other hand, both opinion polls and sociological research show that the Serbian people are in fact somehow ready for Kosovo’s independence. And their main concern is the current difficult economic situation as any other standard electorate in any country. However, a wounded national pride should never be underestimated.
Thus the chances are fifty-fifty. Serbia obviously needs time. And it would be wise for the international community to grant a little break as long as it costs nothing.
Some analysts worry that for electoral reasons the pro-Western politicians indulge themselves in nationalistic rhetoric in order to nullify the propaganda of the Radicals, and that they become more inflexible than ever on the Kosovo status in their turn thereafter.
However, there is a basic difference between the Democrats and the Radicals: the former does not live in a political dreamland and are not keen for uncertain adventures. That is why, at the negotiation table, to confront Boris Tadic is always preferable than to confront Vojislav Seselj. 

Relatem items:
Serbia or Swan that Refuses to Sing its Final Song in Kosovo (17.09.06)
Balkans under the Threat of a Fragmentation Bomb Called Kosovo (03.08.06)
Serbia: Between Empire of Heaven and Empire of Earth Again (23.07.06)
From the Wisdom of Suffocating Serbia (22.06.06)


Brought to you by Attensa for Outlook (download it here)


The future of both Kosovo and Bosnia gets murkier


The future of both Kosovo and Bosnia gets murkier




 The Balkans

Troubling times
Oct 5th 2006 | SARAJEVO
From The Economist print edition


The future of both Kosovo and Bosnia gets murkier

THE Balkan endgame is starting to look messy. Expectations that Kosovo would be independent by early next year have just suffered a blow. Over 1.8m of the Serbian province's 2m people are ethnic Albanians who will settle for nothing less than independence. Yet the UN talks on Kosovo under Martti Ahtisaari, a former Finnish president, have got nowhere. Two weeks ago Mr Ahtisaari was given the go-ahead to draft his own plan for Kosovo's future. On September 22nd the UN Security Council said it hoped that the talks would finish by the end of the year.

Mr Ahtisaari, who is likely to propose some form of independence, was expected to present his plan later this month. But on September 30th the Serbian parliament adopted a new constitution that declares Kosovo to be an inalienable part of Serbia. This was a shrewd delaying tactic on the part of Vojislav Kostunica, the Serbian prime minister. The constitution must be ratified in a referendum at the end of October, and it will be followed by an election. Mr Ahtisaari can hardly put forward his plan before then, as the voters might react by switching in droves to the extreme nationalist Radical Party. That could destabilise the whole region.

Diplomats dealing with Kosovo prefer Serbia to have its election first, in the hope that democratic forces will win and then come round to accepting Kosovo's independence. But the election could be delayed. And if Kosovo's Albanians then start fretting that Serbia is successfully outmanoeuvring them, there is a risk that extremists among them will return to violence, which would not do their cause any good.

Voters in Bosnia also caused an upset on October 1st. A majority chose to put Bosnia's wartime foreign minister, Haris Silajdzic, into the Bosniak (Muslim) presidential seat in Sarajevo, turning out Sulejman Tihic, who was seen by Western diplomats as a moderate with whom they could work. Mr Silajdzic wants to scrap the Bosniak-Croat federation, as well as the Serbs' Republika Srpska. That upsets the Croats, who form a 14% minority, mostly in the south and west of the country. It also ruffles Milorad Dodik, who was easily re-elected as prime minister of Republika Srpska.

Many Bosnian Serbs see their republic as a legitimate legacy of the war. Mr Dodik has been making secessionist rumblings, claiming that, should Kosovo gain independence, his republic should be allowed to do so as well. The election of Mr Silajdzic will encourage more such talk, even though Bosnia's international overseers firmly reject the idea.

Christian Schwarz-Schilling, the German who now wields the power of international proconsul, has said that his office should be closed in mid-2007. It will be replaced by a lower-key European Union mission (and some of the 6,000 soldiers of the EU peacekeeping mission will stay). Although most parties in Bosnia say they want to get into the EU, one analyst, Senad Pecanin, fears that the necessary reforms could be blocked by the political radicalisation that is splitting the country into opposing camps. It does not help the moderates in Bosnia and Kosovo—nor in Serbia, for that matter—that the mood in Brussels and other EU capitals has recently turned against letting any more countries into their club.



Copyright © 2006 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.


Troubling times
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8001087



Brought to you by Attensa for Outlook (download it here)


Negotiating Kosovo's status



Negotiating Kosovo's status






http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061006/news_lz1e6slomanso.html

   The San Diego Union-Tribune      October 6, 2006
   Opinion

         Negotiating Kosovo's final status

   By William Slomanson

   The international protectorate of Kosovo is perched in southern Serbia.
Kosovo
   has been under military occupation since the 1999 NATO bombing campaign
against
   Serbia's now defunct regime of Slobodan Milosevic.

   The United Nations previously announced its intent to end its unique
   governmental administration of Kosovo within the next 90 days. Kosovo has
been a
   major financial drain, at a time when U.N. members are demanding more
bang for
   the assessed dues buck. Serbia's government has just scheduled a new
   constitutional referendum for December, claiming its irrefutable right to
the
   province. Kosovo is therein proclaimed to be an "integral part" of
Serbia.

   The Vienna-based Contact Group leads the on-going process of resolving
Kosovo's
   final status. Membership includes the United Nations, European Union,
NATO,
   Russia and the United States. Tight-lipped negotiators are presumably
exploring
   the role that the European Union might play when the United Nations
departs.
   Unfortunately, European Union members have yet to commit the requisite
degree
   of resources needed to kick-start all levels of Kosovar infrastructure.

   A patient international community should eschew temporary remedies, given
the
   region's 400 wars in 300 years. Kosovo's currently unresolved status
makes it
   the black hole of Europe. Its Balkan neighbors are progressing toward
membership
   in NATO, the European Union, and other desired international linkages. As
the
   United States National Security Strategy warns, weak states can threaten
strong
   states.

   The major impediment to independence is Kosovo's historically mono-ethnic
   society. A number of former Serbian soldiers and governmental officials
have
   been prosecuted in the U.N.'s regional criminal tribunal for their war
crimes
   and genocidal acts against the Albanian population in the 1990s. Serbs
switched
   roles in post-conflict Kosovo. They became the ethnic minority.
International
   human rights organizations cannot guarantee their safety. The prime
example is
   the small-scale Krystal Nacht of March 17, 2004. Nineteen Serb churches
were
   torched. Thirty people were killed.

   The final status options include linkage with Albania. Sophisticated
Albanian
   Kosovars do not favor this compromise, because of Albania's comparatively
poor
   economic status in Europe. Another alternative is returning Kosovo to the
   autonomy it enjoyed in Tito's Yugoslavia, before Milosevic mounted his
   repressive ethnic cleansing campaign. But many Albanian Kosovars do not
want to
   risk the remote possibility that one day, after departure of the
international
   community, Belgrade would reinstitute repressive tactics.

   This ubiquitous fear lacks a solid foundation for two reasons. First, the
   Serbian government surrendered its former president, Milosevic, for trial
by the
   U.N.'s regional criminal tribunal. That concession appeased the United
States
   and its NATO allies, whose bombing was directed at his government.
Second,
   Belgrade would not want to short-circuit its incorporation into desirable
   European entities.

   The majority Kosovar Albanian population's desired option is statehood.
   A growing number of Serbs, both in an out of Kosovo, see the
international
   community's writing on the wall. They have acknowledged that Serbia's
retention
   of Kosovo is a recipe for economic and political disaster. Kosovo is in
the
   poorest part of Europe, and its rebellious population is nearly 95
percent
   Albanian.

   The Serbian government is no doubt negotiating for retention of the
northern
   15 percent to 20 percent of this province. The city of Mitrovica is
Kosovo's
   Mason-Dixon Line. This division was parented by Serb-friendly French NATO
   forces, upon cessation of the 1999 NATO bombing. Parallel Serb
institutions
   reign in this northern portion of Kosovo, where the United Nations has de
jure
   but not de facto control. This reality is most evident by the Serbian
flag at
   the northern edge of the Ibar River Bridge. It effectively divides Kosovo
into
   the Serbian north and Albanian south. The civilian-policed guard shack,
and the
   NATO installation on the river below, evince the ethnic undercurrent
forcibly
   restrained by their presence.

   Such a geographical division may be a convenient Contact Group pressure
point.
   But it would be a particularly discomforting precedent. International
practice
   abhors geographic divisions based on ethnicity. If Vienna's negotiators
were to
   force the Mitrovica division piece into this geographical puzzle, ethnic
   adversaries elsewhere would expect like treatment. For example, the
   international community possesses something Serbia wants. That is
international
   recognition of Republika Srpska, the unrecognized Serb entity in the
eastern
   half of Bosnia. Unlike the Kosovo situation, however, Bosnia's
constitution
   expressly provides that it consist of both Bosnia-Herzegovina and this
   otherwise unrecognized Serbian entity within Bosnia.

   Balkan news reports on the Vienna Contact Group negotiations are now
referring
   to "conditional independence" as a likely final status option. The term
   conditional implies that Kosovo's independence could not be complete
until
   Kosovar Serbs and other minorities enjoy a robust existence in terms of
equal
   opportunity education, employment and housing. During conditional
independence,
   NATO's barbed wire fences and its soldiers would gradually disappear from
the
   current Serb population enclaves in Kosovo.

   Regardless of what the Vienna Contact Group achieves, a functioning
multiethnic
   society will be the unavoidable price tag for full independence. This
cannot
   occur until the international community is satisfied that the majority
Albanian
   populace has convincingly demonstrated the requisite degree of tolerance.
The
   minority population's human rights cannot be passively inherited from the
   international community's occupation of Kosovo. True independence is
literally
   in the hands of Kosovo's majority population. They have to credibly
demonstrate
   that an independent Kosovo will not erupt into a fresh ethnic cleansing
crisis,
   requiring yet another humanitarian intervention in Kosovo.

___________________________________________________________________________

   Slomanson is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego
   and visiting professor at the University of Pristina in Kosovo. He is
past
   chair of the American Society of International Law United Nations
Section.
   He can be reached via e-mail at bills@tjsl.edu.

   © Copyright 2006 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. o A Copley Newspaper Site


                                   Serbian News Network - SNN

                                        news@antic.org

                                    http://www.antic.org/




Brought to you by Attensa for Outlook (download it here)


Serbia: The Bee Hive of the Balkans



Serbia: The Bee Hive of the Balkans




Serbia: The Bee Hive of the Balkans
 
Can Karpat,
 
AIA Balkan Section
 
Serbia, which has just adopted a new Constitution, heads towards early elections. According to the media speculations, the general elections would take place either in late December this year or in spring 2007. And the big wigs of the international community began to give the signal that the postponement of the Kosovo final status until after elections in Serbia is now a serious option. Will they really avoid inserting the stick into the most unpredictable bee hive of the Balkans?

Constitution: Not without Kosovo

In 1913, after the Balkan wars, the Ottoman Empire lost almost all of its European territory. While retreating, Ottoman officers promised those peoples, who had still some sense of loyalty to the declining Empire, that they would be back one day. The preamble of the new Serbian Constitution, which mentions Kosovo as the “constituent part of Serbia’s territory”, has no valour than the hollow promise of those Ottoman officers.
   
Serbian Parliament approves new Constitution. Vojislav Kostunica (L) and Boris Tadic (photo: AP)  
Serbian Parliament approves new Constitution  
Many criticise this preamble as non-realistic, defiant or even belligerent. In fact, none of these qualifications are correct. Serbia would not have drawn up no other preamble but this, for two main reasons.
First, it is an incontestable fact that Kosovo is still de facto part of Serbia. Secondly, given the official position of Belgrade at the status talks, Serbia would not have been expected to trip up herself by omitting to mention Kosovo as an integral part of the country.
Therefore, this preamble is nothing but the logical continuation of the legal fiction, according to which Kosovo is still part of Serbia. Far from being a belligerent act, this is a just a symbolic gesture, an indirect message to the Serbian minority of Kosovo -and to the Serbian electorate of course- that assures that “we will be back one day”. Since no Serbian politician would ever sign the independence of Kosovo, these politicians will then be able to carry on with this fiction for years to come.
And after all, the preamble of the new Serbian Constitution is not that belligerent as long as it mentions a territory that still de facto belongs to the country as its own. For example, the preamble of the Armenian Constitution openly demands the eastern region of the neighbouring country, Turkey. In spite of Turkey’s numerous protests, the international community does not seem to care about this only too obvious belligerence from Armenia.

Referendum: With what electorate?

Serbian Parliament decided that the referendum on the new Constitution should be held on 28th October. In order to be valid, the new Constitution must be approved by the majority of the electorate.
In Serbia there are around 6.533.000 registered voters. However, some 1.300.000 are from Kosovo. Only 186.000 of them are ethnic Serbs.
This is an impossible situation:
- To exclude the Kosovo Albanians from the electorate would be not only democratically condemnable, but also contradictory. After all, why vote for a Constitution that claims Kosovo as the integral part of Serbia while excluding the inhabitants of this region from the electorate?
- To include them would be most ironic, for no Albanian would ever vote for a Constitution in which Kosovo is mentioned as an integral part of Serbia.
Moreover, here are three facts that make the situation even more complicated:
- Counting the Kosovo Albanian voters would increase the number of the Serbian electorate. If the Albanians boycotted the referendum -which is more than probable-, the adoption of the new Constitution would be seriously endangered, since it must be approved by the majority of the electorate.
- To establish a new electoral list which would exclude the Kosovo Albanians would be very contradictory, for in such case, the preamble of the Constitution would be automatically invalid.
- For Serbia has no real control on Kosovo, it is physically impossible for the Republic Election Commission (RIK) to determine an electoral list with exact number of voters. And the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) has no permanent electoral list.
How the RIK will resolve this intriguing situation is indeed a real legal and political curiosity.

The matrix: Early elections in Serbia

Early elections in Serbia became the matrix according to which the exact timeline of the Kosovo final status will be determined. According to the speculations, the general elections would take place either in late December this year or in spring 2007.
Recent statements made by UN special envoy Martti Ahtisaari and EU foreign policy and security chief Javier Solana insinuate that the postponement of the Kosovo final status until after elections in Serbia is now a serious option.
Last decision is up to the six-nation Contact Group. As to the timeline, it is known that the EU and Russia are more flexible and tolerant than the USA that insists for the end of 2006 as the timeline for the Kosovo status solution. Note that four countries of the Contact Group are EU-members and the other one is Russia.
Kosovo Prime Minister Agim Ceku warned that the postponement of the decision would increase risks and tensions. It seems that the international community must choose the least evil between two probabilities: risks and tensions created by the Serbs or risks and tensions created by the Albanians. One could claim that a possible delay would be easier for the Albanians to tolerate since the happy end unconditionally awaits them at the end of the process. However, with Serbia, things are a bit more complicated.
On the one hand, according to the polls, the two leading parties of these elections are expected to be Tomislav Nikolic’s Serbian Radical Party (SRS) and Boris Tadic’s Democratic Party (DS). In this regard, cooperation between DS and Vojislav Kostunica’s Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) is essential in order to halt the rise of the Radicals. Will the two frères ennemies make truce for the sake of their country?
On the other hand, both opinion polls and sociological research show that the Serbian people are in fact somehow ready for Kosovo’s independence. And their main concern is the current difficult economic situation as any other standard electorate in any country. However, a wounded national pride should never be underestimated.
Thus the chances are fifty-fifty. Serbia obviously needs time. And it would be wise for the international community to grant a little break as long as it costs nothing.
Some analysts worry that for electoral reasons the pro-Western politicians indulge themselves in nationalistic rhetoric in order to nullify the propaganda of the Radicals, and that they become more inflexible than ever on the Kosovo status in their turn thereafter.
However, there is a basic difference between the Democrats and the Radicals: the former does not live in a political dreamland and are not keen for uncertain adventures. That is why, at the negotiation table, to confront Boris Tadic is always preferable than to confront Vojislav Seselj. 

Relatem items:
Serbia or Swan that Refuses to Sing its Final Song in Kosovo (17.09.06)
Balkans under the Threat of a Fragmentation Bomb Called Kosovo (03.08.06)
Serbia: Between Empire of Heaven and Empire of Earth Again (23.07.06)
From the Wisdom of Suffocating Serbia (22.06.06)


Brought to you by Attensa for Outlook (download it here)


October 05, 2006

Crossfire War - Three Way Ethnic Divsions Restablished in Bosnia Elections





Crossfire War - Three Way Ethnic Divsions Restablished in Bosnia Elections




Op-Ed Contributor

Crossfire War - Three Way Ethnic Divsions Restablished in Bosnia Elections
 
By Willard Payne

Crossfire War - TEHRAN WATCH - Southeast Europe Theatre: Tehran - Sarajevo - Zagreb - Belgrade/Brussels - Vienna - Berlin; Three Headed Bosnia Presidency at Odds with Itself - Recent Elections Create More Divisions

Night Watch: SARAJEVO - When the fighting ended in 1995 in Bonsia-Herzegovina an attempt to prevent further conflict was made by instituting a three-man Presidency, each one representing a major ethnic group, which the fighting in the former Yugoslavia revolved around. One representative was Muslim, one Serb and the third Croatian. Elections held Sunday revealed that not only are the ethinc divisions still very much there. but it seems with the campaign rhetoric still going on, that the country could come apart at the ethnic seams. [RAWSTORY]
 
The Bosnian Muslim winner, the one who will hold the Muslim seat of the Presidency, Haris Silajdzic ran on a campaign of national unity, in order to strengthen the central government. With that in mind he openly advocated the elimination of the other two ethnic "statelets", Republic of Srpska that represents Bosnian Serbs, based in Banajulka, and to also eliminate the Croat ethnic federation. Responding in kind has been Bosnian Serb representatives including the winner of the Serbian seat of the Presidency - Nebojsa Radmanovic. He has stated that if Srpska is elimanted then Bosnian Serbs will secede from the country, which would cause Bosnia-Herzegovina to disappear from the map of Europe.
 
Recently, crossfirewar.com reported on the state ceremony in Banjaluka by the Presidents and Prime Ministers of both Serbia-Belgrade and Republic of Srpska-Banjaluka in which they signed an economic unity agreement. I wrote at the time that I also suspected there was an understanding between both Serb communities that in times of crisis they would work together again militarily as in the first Balkan war from 1991-95. Both capitals know they are by no means alone as a result of the security agreement signed in January between Belgrade - Tehran. Iran is aware that a resumption of fighting here will direct Vienna - Brussels - NATO's attention away from Tehran's nuclear weapons program. This is definitely a crisis opportunity Tehran cannot pass up.
 
Contributing to the self-destructive forces within this three headed monster Presidency is that the Croatian winner of the Croat Presidential seat may not have the support of most Croats. Zeljko Komsic does not have widespread support among the Croatian community and it seem he was mostly supported by Bosnian Serbs. Political analyst Tanja Topic told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa, "If Silajdzic (Muslim) and Dodik (Serb) continue with their rhetoric we can expect the radicalization of the situation in Bosnia." She added, "Such a situation would push us some five to ten years back and would just prolong the agony of a certain international protectorate here." Nationalistic Croatians are openly threatening to overturn the elections.
 
Nothing would please Tehran more than to have the West confined to fighting so close to home in Southeast Europe in a desperate attempt to prevent the war from spreading into Central Europe, Vienna and beyond. But Vienna has only itself to blame along with the European capitals, Berlin - Brussels - Paris, that created this three headed monster when they eagerly recognized the preverse, twisted boundary of Croatia that deliberately cut off Serbia's access to the Adriatic Sea. Nor was it any coincidence the Muslim community was the most victimized by the resulting violence, war, when NATO imposed an arms embargo on Bosnia-Herzegovina. But that opened the door for Tehran-Ankara to send Islamic fighters into the area and those military-terrorist bases are still there waiting for the call to be re-activated.
 
The stage for this front was set by the 55 headed hydra called the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), it was supposed to have been orchestrated by Vienna in the name of the New World Order proclaimed in 1990. They intended to conduct a carefully arranged crisis which they assumed they could solve diplomatically but they underestimated the impact of weapons dealears. According to official statistics the ethnic demographics are 48% of Bosnia-Herzegovina is Muslim, 34% Serbian Orthodox Christian and 15% Croatian Catholic. Since the divided Yugoslavia unleashed a lot of dormant old world chaos, each division can be a religious-nationalistic reason to restart the war.
 
So now there are three flashpoints in the Balkans that can erupt simultaneously: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and Macedonia. The eventual conclusion of that war will re-draw the map of Europe once again.
 
Night Watch Information Service
http://www.crossfirewar.com

 

 

A brief report on the conference held on 28 September





A brief report on the conference held on 28 September




*********************************************************************************************
On Oct 1, 2006, at 6:50 PM, Mila Nolan wrote: 

Thank you Mila.
 
I would like to add that Congressman Trent Franks (R-Arizona) made some encouraging remarks during lunch.
 
Stella
*********************************************************************************************
On Oct 1, 2006, at 6:50 PM, Mila Nolan wrote:
 
 Dear Friends,

 This is a brief report on the conference held on September 28 at the
 Capitol Hill Club in Washington D. C coordinated by James Jatras and
 the American Council for Kosovo with Christian Solidarity
 International and Religious Freedom Coalition.
 
 My comments are rather personal and informal because I did not take
 notes, but listened intently to the many excellent speakers and
 panelists who came to express views and concerns about religious
 freedom, independence and "Islamic fascism" that is becoming daily, a
 fast growing global concern.
 
 The issue of Kosovo and its future was of course the main reason for
 this conference and the range of speakers was impressive and included
 Ambassador James Bissett, former Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia;
 Peggy Birchfield, Executive Director, Religious Freedom Coalition;
 Joseph Grieboski, President, Institute on Religion and Public Policy;
 Robert Spenser, Director of JihadWatch. org.; Fr. Keith Roderick,
 Christian Solidarity International; Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media;
 Nikolas Gvosdev, The National Interest - along with many other
 significant writers, authors and journalists - Doug Bandow, Julia
 Gorin, John Hulsman, Steven Meyer, Wanda Schindley, Greg Copley
and Srdja Trffkovic.
 
 Very supportive and sincere luncheon remarks were given by Congressman
 Trent Franks -  and a very poignant  and moving opening speech was
 delivered by Bishop Artemije of Kosovo and Metohija.
 
 I am naming these people ( and missed a few ) because those of you who
 track this issue should be aware of who is on our side.
 Below is a list of points that were most interesting to me.
 
 * Kosovo and the issue of independence is increasingly linked by many
 "alert" people to the growing threat of Islamic fascism. The fact that
 150 Christian churches in Kosovo have been destroyed under the
 watchful eyes of KFOR and NATO troops while nearly 300 new mosques
 have been erected of the Wahabbi persuasion, many donated by Saudi
 money and flying Saudi flags, surely flies in the face of those who
 pretend that an independent Kosovo will be a multinational state with
 religious freedom.
 
 * However, in spite of these ominous signs, the U.S with its European
 partners seem, like Pontius Pilate to want to wash their hands of this
 bloody Balkan fiasco, finish the job and declare a victory for mob
 rule even if these pillars of high minded Western values have to rip
 Kosovo away ILLEGALLY from Serbia, a sovereign state, without its
 consent - and even if Russia and China veto independence in the UN
 Security Council. This rape represents not only the law of the jungle
 where  "might makes right ", but in this case, given the obvious
 lunacy, it would appear that the inmates are running the asylum.
 
 * Kosovo is in fact a terrorist zone and a black hole of corruption
 with criminality, drug trafficking/manufacturing, (three known
 laboratories, aided and abetted by members of America's own military
 camp, Bond Steel) and with white slave trafficking making up the only
 viable economy. Its prime minister, Agim Ceku is a KNOWN murderer,
 dripping with blood, though welcomed in Washington. There is no rule
 of law, minorities live in concentration camps in mortal fear of their
 lives and the new brand of Islamic fundamentalism has joined ranks
 with the Albanian mob to launch their Islamic fascist terrorism into
 Europe and beyond.
 
 * People at the conference representing religious freedom around the
 world, did not mince words and found it hard to locate  ANY minority
 religious group that lived freely and without threats or intimidation
 where there was a majority Muslim rule. Because the law of Islam
 allows only three possibilities for the infidel; convert to Islam,
 become part of the dhiimmi ( slaves or second class people who pay
 steep taxes ), or lastly, leave or lose your head!
 
 * Some other interesting points made were that  Muslim leaders at
 meetings like one held in Pakistan made clear Muslim strategic
 interests in Bosnia and  Kosovo. Dreams of the Caliphate are growing
 exponentially! Also alarming was the tracking trend that found that
 political and other types of projects, worldwide, backed by Wahabbi
 money tended to win acceptance every time proving once more that money
 talks.
 
 * The prognosis for Kosovo is not good, but there is a glimmer of hope
 if the issue of independence can be postponed and if the very real
 threat of Islamic JIHAD rattles a few more brains in Washington so
 that the dots can be connected before independence for Kosovo is
 declared.
 
 * Also, the leaders of the Serbian government are hanging tough on
 this issue and will remain unified at least until after November's
 elections. Nor is the West  offering any real carrots! There is no
 fast track or even a slow track for Serbs to enter the EU which some
 panelists thought might be a blessing in disguise because Serbs would
 only have to give in, give up and humiliate themselves even more to
 get into Le Club EU.  It was noted by some panelists for instance that
 the political mindset in the U.S . was  so STUCK that Serbs were
 automatically discounted in any argument in favor of the opposing
 group.
 
 This was a remarkable conference with some of the best and sanest
 voices in the land, but the message must reach beyond the choir.
 Bishop Artemije was profound when he said " Detaching Kosovo from
 Democratic Serbia, of which it is an integral part would mean a
 virtual sentence of extinction for my people... and create a rogue
 state in which the terrorists are the government. .... Sacrificing our
 land and our blood cannot buy protection from JIHAD".
 
 I pray to God that the Powers That Be are listening well and hear
 these prophetic words!
 
 Mila Lazarevich-Nolan

October 03, 2006

Whose Kosovo is it anyway?

Whose Kosovo is it anyway?



uesday 3 October 2006

Whose Kosovo is it anyway?

The Serb government's restated claim over Kosovo was more a symbolic gesture than 'war talk'. 

David Chandler
 
The announcement by the Serbian government that there will be a national referendum on a new constitution, which will declare Kosovo to be part of Serbia, has caused a flurry of international criticism. The international press portrayed the Serbian government’s statement as a sign of Belgrade’s belligerence and as an indication that the Balkan state is still trapped in the language of ethnic nationalism (1). Yet once the rhetoric and reality are disentangled, it is clear that neither of these conclusions is correct.
 
The new constitution recognises Serbia as a separate and independent state after the dissolution of the federal Yugoslav state and Montenegro’s independence in June. It asserts in its preamble that the province of Kosovo is a constituent part of Serbia’s territory (2). It would be strange if it did not. Despite being under United Nations administration, Kosovo is formally part of the Serbian state according to international law. Many international declarations and agreements with the Serbian government, and previously with that of Serbia-Montenegro, expressly mention Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo in the preamble.
 
However, while there is no problem if international institutions or Western states pay lip service to the legal fiction that Serbia has sovereignty over Kosovo, it is considered a controversial act for the Serbian government to do the same. It is held to be particularly controversial for the Serbian parliament to make declarations over Kosovo now, because Belgrade is currently engaged in negotiations over the province’s final status with the government in Pristina.
 
Serbian prime minister Vojislav Kostunica claims that the parliament’s consensus of support for the constitution ‘underlines the truth that Kosovo has always been and will always remain a constituent part of Serbia’s territory’, and says ‘Serbia will defend Kosovo with all democratic and legal means’ (3). However, the Serbian parliament’s near unanimous support for asserting its sovereign claim over Kosovo is purely a symbolic one.
 
Opinion polls show that only 12 per cent of the Serbian public believe that Kosovo will remain part of Serbia (4). Far from the Serbian government asserting itself over Kosovo, the symbolic declarations of Serbia’s unity and of the importance of Kosovo are a direct reflection of the parliament’s weakness and irrelevance when it comes to questions of concern to the Serbian people.
 
Kosovo is not the only issue where the Serbian government has little real say. The process of government policymaking has increasingly been subordinated to the requirements of the European Union. Even the newly revised constitution was essentially part of the external programme set down by Brussels requiring the ‘revision of the constitution in line with European standards’ (5). The Serbian parliament’s role has become one of merely rubber-stamping legislative reform proposals stemming from Brussels and coordinated by the Serbian government’s EU Integration Office, responsible for preparing and amending government legislation (6).
 
The irony is that the inequality of power and influence between international institutions, such as the UN and the EU, and Balkan states, such as Serbia, has created a context in which the rhetoric on all sides loses its relationship to reality. Nowhere is this more the case than over the final status of Kosovo.
 
Serbia has formal sovereign rights over the Kosovo province, yet cannot exercise them. Kosovo looks set to gain its ‘sovereignty’ at the end of the current negotiations, yet this sovereignty will be equally constrained, with elected officials subordinate to internationally appointed interlocutors from the EU and NATO (7). The Kosovo question reveals the lack of content behind traditional conceptions of sovereignty in the Balkans.
 
This is highlighted in the ‘negotiations’ allegedly taking place between Belgrade and Pristina over the future status of Kosovo. In fact, there are no direct talks between the Serb government and the Kosovo-Albanian one; this has been formally prevented by the UN’s chief negotiator, Martti Ahtisaari, who has insisted on the UN’s intermediary role (8). Not only are external agencies developing the proposals for the future status of Kosovo; they are also the key actors in the negotiating process.
 
The key negotiations on Kosovo’s future status are taking place between the US, the UN and the EU. The government in Belgrade has little say over Kosovo’s future and the UN is in the advanced stages of preparations for handing responsibility for Kosovo over to the EU (9). Despite the rhetoric, the Serbian government is not even planning to use the referendum on the constitution to strengthen its hand in the negotiating process.
 
The outcome looks likely to change little in Kosovo, for either the Serbs or Kosovo-Albanians, as the UN Mission will effectively become that of the European Union. The future quasi-independent status of Kosovo will enable international institutions to run Kosovo at arm’s length, rather than taking direct responsibility for protectorate powers as it does at present.
 
It seems that in the near future Kosovo will take over Montenegro’s title of being the newest sovereign state in the Balkans (10). However, the increase in sovereignty in the region has not been accompanied by any increase in political independence. The existence of sovereignty without policymaking independence has undermined the public sphere, reducing parliaments in the region to stages for formal gestures and reducing politics to empty rhetoric. When international administrators and policy advocates mistake this rhetoric for strength and influence, they are not just mistaken in their understanding of the region; they are also seeking to exaggerate the role of local actors to evade responsibility for their own actions in the Balkans.
 
David Chandler is professor of international relations at the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Westminster, London. His latest book is Empire in Denial: The Politics of State-Building. He is speaking on the panel discussion Empire of Regulation or Lawless World? at the Battle of Ideas festival of debate in London in October 2006.
 
(1) See, for example, Nicolas Wood, ‘Serbia reasserts claim to rule over Kosovo’, International Herald Tribune, 1 October 2006; ‘Serbia claims Kosovo sovereignty’, BBC News, 30 September, 2006
 
(2) ‘Parliament unanimously adopts Serbia’s new Constitution’, Serbian Government Office, Belgrade, 30 September 2006
 
(3) Douglas Hamilton, ‘Kostunica sets Serbia on course for early polls’, Reuters, 30 September 2006
 
(4) ‘Serbs see Kosovo lost, despite wishful thinking’, KosovaReport, 29 September 2006
 
(5) ‘Council Decision of 30 January 2006 on the principles, priorities and conditions contained in the European Partnership with Serbia and Montenegro including Kosovo’, Official Journal of the European Union (L 035, 07/02/2006 P.0032- 0056), p.5
 
(6) See, for example, the short- and medium-term priorities, set out in the 97 page table, Plan for the Implementation of the European Partnership Priorities (adopted on 7 April 2006), Serbian Government
 
(7) See, for example, the conclusions of the report of the International Commission on the Balkans, The Balkans in Europe’s Future, 12 April 2005, pp.19-23
 
(8) ‘Only direct talks can produce solution for Kosovo’, Serbian Government Office, Belgrade, 25 September 2006
 
(9) This was signalled in the EU Thessaloniki Declaration of June 2003 and confirmed with Kosovo’s adoption of European Partnership agreements in June 2004. See A European Future for Kosovo, Communication from the Commission, Commission of the European Communities, 20 April 2005.
 
(10) On Montenegro’s independence, see, for example, Neil Clark, ‘Montenegro had more independence as part of Yugoslavia than it will as an EU-Nato protectorate’, Guardian, 23 May 2006
 

October 02, 2006

Bosnians Split on Whether to Unify



Bosnians Split on Whether to Unify





 
Bosnians Split on Whether to Unify
 
By AIDA CERKEZ-ROBINSON
Associated Press Writer
 
 
AP Photo/AMEL EMRIC
World Video
Advertisement
 
 
SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina (AP) -- Bosnians appeared sharply split Monday in key elections on the country's future, reflecting the deep ethnic divisions that persist more than a decade after the country's civil war.
 
In Sunday's election, Muslim Bosniaks and Catholic Croats supported politicians who want to unify the Balkan nation, according to a partial count, while Serbs backing a candidate whose party advocates ethnic division.
 
The vote was Bosnia's attempt to decide who should lead the country as it tries to free itself from the ethnic divisions that remain from its 1992-95 war and move toward European Union membership.
 
Since the end of the war, important decisions have been made by an international administrator. But that office recently announced it will close next year if newly elected leaders find ways to put in place reforms that will bring the country closer to joining the EU.
 
 
 
Voters cast their ballots Sunday for a state parliament and the country's three-member presidency, as well as leaders of the two mini-states - a president and parliament of the Serb republic and a president and parliament of the Bosniak-Croat federation, as well as parliaments of the federation's 10 cantons.
 
With up to 50 percent of the vote counted, officials said it appeared that Nebojsa Radmanovic - whose party chief recently proposed a referendum that would allow Serb territories to secede - will represent Orthodox Christian Serbs in Bosnia's three-member presidency.
 
Based on the partial count, they said Haris Silajdzic, a strong advocate of a united Bosnia, won election to the Muslim Bosniak seat, and that Ivo Miro Jovic would be re-elected as the Croat representative.
 
The German diplomat who is the top international administrator in Bosnia said the election went well.
 
"One must give these people a chance now," Christian Schwarz-Schilling told Germany's Deutschlandfunk radio on Monday. "One should not bring these parties into disrepute for being in part nationalist."
 
The race for the Croat seat was close. The election commission announced hours after polls closed, that Jovic of the Croat Democratic Union had 11.84 percent, narrowly ahead of Social Democrat Zeljko Komsic, who had 11.41 percent in an incomplete count.
 
However, votes from a major Bosnian city traditionally favoring the Social Democrats had not been submitted in time and Komsic announced that according to his party's count, he has won the seat of the Croat presidency member.
 
Jovic admitted Monday that Komsic may have won.
 
Muslim Bosniaks, the largest ethnic group, generally back a united country, as do their Roman Catholic Croat allies. Their ultimate hope is that Bosnia - currently divided between a Bosniak-Croat federation and a Serb republic - will join the EU when its political and economic reforms are completed.
 
But many Serbs still cling to beliefs that sparked the war - namely, that their half of the country can secede and become independent.
 
The complex political setup is confusing even for Bosnians, but was a compromise reached in the Dayton peace agreement that ended the war. Up to 200,000 people were killed and 1 million were driven from their homes during that conflict.
 
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

 
Associated Press



Brought to you by Attensa for Outlook (download it here)


September 30, 2006

Clinton's Kosovo Whopper



FR Clinton's Kosovo Whopper by Cliff Kincaid

 

There are 125+ comments.  Stella
 
 
 

Skip to comments.

Clinton's Kosovo Whopper
Accuracy in Media ^ | September 27, 2006 | Cliff Kincaid

Posted on 09/27/2006 9:38:58 PM PDT by Mount Athos

Of all the whoppers told by former President Clinton in his Chris Wallace interview, perhaps the most outrageous was his claim that he was involved in "trying to stop a genocide in Kosovo..." In fact, Clinton's bombing of the former Yugoslavia killed more people than died in this "genocide." And his policy benefited Osama bin Laden and the global Jihad.

In the year before the bombing, some 2,000 people had been killed in a civil war in Kosovo. A conservative estimate is that 6,000 were killed by U.S. and NATO bombs.

It's strange as well that Clinton complained to Wallace about the "neocons" attacking him when many of the same neocons in 1999 supported Clinton's war on Yugoslavia. The war was never approved by the U.N. or the U.S. Congress, and in fact violated the War Powers Act. The main beneficiary of the intervention was a Muslim terrorist group, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), with links to bin Laden, who had declared war on America in 1996, bombed our embassies in Africa in 1998, and would later, of course, orchestrate 9/11.

When former CIA official Michael Scheuer says that the Clinton Administration "had eight to ten chances" to kill bin Laden and "they refused to try," he is making a statement that goes far beyond acknowledging Clinton Administration incompetence or a lack of will. The fact is that Clinton had a pro-Muslim foreign policy that actually benefited bin Laden and facilitated 9/11. Most Republicans don't mention this because too many of them were duped into backing Clinton's misguided policy in Kosovo. President Bush, then a candidate, even backed U.S. military intervention there through NATO.

[...] It is noteworthy that the CIA issued a January 2000 report that essentially whitewashed the nature of the KLA and claimed it was pro-American.

(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...



KOSOVO: A Separate Peace?






KOSOVO: A Separate Peace?




A Separate Peace?by Doug Bandow

September 27, 2006

Most people think of Kosovo in the past tense. Democratic critics of
the Bush Administration cite Kosovo as a "good war." Allied
negotiators refer to Kosovo's final status—independence in some
form—as a foregone conclusion.

The Western alliance would prefer to forget the Kosovo war, having
become responsible for one of the largest episodes of ethnic cleansing
in the Balkans. The ninth round of U.N.-sponsored talks on Kosovo
recently ended with no agreement. Observes Albert Rohan, in charge of
the Vienna negotiations: "We're approaching a moment where by talking
alone we won't accomplish the goal. We could talk for another ten
years and not change anything."

Unfortunately, the United States and Europeans guaranteed failure by
attempting to predetermine the results. The ethnic Albanians know that
the West is desperate to get out. They have no reason to make any
concessions beyond formalistic promises to respect the Serb minority,
promises which are unlikely to be kept by them or enforced by the
allies.

The Serbian government has offered everything save independence.
After all, which Western government has cheerfully cut itself into
pieces?  Czechoslovakia begins and ends the list. Belgrade has
received no reward for its concessions. Instead, Serbia is supposed to
accept prospective membership in the EU as payment for services
rendered.

Even as the U.S. and Europeans decided on independence, their
deteriorating relationship with Russia raises the possibility of
resistance by Moscow.  China also has indicated disquiet at the
forcible dismemberment of Serbia. If either power vetoes an allied UN
resolution, the Balkans will become a
global problem.

>From the beginning Western officials have lived in a fantasy world.
They believed that they could maintain a multi-ethnic territory after
the war. It is no surprise, however, that the ethnic Albanians, after
using the American-supplied air force to eject the Serbian military,
saw no need to retain the Serbian population.

To the contrary, the victorious ethnic majority kicked out roughly a
quarter million Serbs, Roma, Jews, and non-Albanian Muslims. The few
remaining Serbs were regularly attacked. In March 2004 some 4000 Serbs
were displaced as rioters destroyed homes, farms, churches, and
monasteries.

While the Albanian political leadership did not publicly support the
attacks, its complicity is likely: the government is led by former
guerrilla leaders guilty of war-time atrocities. They also have been
implicated in the explosion of organized crime, including sex
trafficking.

Although Islam was never much of a factor in the past, radical Islam
appears to be on the rise, Christian converts have been threatened,
and some analysts believe that terrorists have infiltrated the Balkans
through Bosnia and Kosovo.  "Sex, crime, terrorism, it's all there,"
one U.S. diplomat recently told me.

Despite seven years of Western occupation, Kosovo isn't ready for
autonomy, let alone independence. Joseph Grieboski of the Institute on
Religion and Public Policy warns:

"the present record of rule of law, protection of the rights of
religious and ethnic minorities, and the return/resettlement of
internally displaced people by the Provisional Authority of Kosovo—all
of which are indispensable for democratic governance—have been gravely
unsatisfactory."

There's no easy solution. The majority ethnic Albanian community,
understandably, does not want to live under Belgrade. Just as
understandably, the minority Serbs (and Roma) do want to live under
Albanian rule.  The Serbs who currently dominate the northern city of
Mitrovica, near the rest of Serbia, likely would forcibly resist
control by Pristina.  None of Kosovo's neighbors, except Albania,
desires the UN to forcibly redraw Serbia's borders.

Thus, a dramatic international train wreck beckons. The West decides
on independence for Kosovo. Serbia refuses to agree, and the
pro-Western coalition is replaced by a government dominated by the
nationalist/populist Serbian Radical Party. The EU ends any membership
hopes for Belgrade. Russia vetoes a UN resolution granting
independence.

The United States and Europeans move ahead without UN approval.
Individual assaults on Kosovo's Serbs increase. Those in Mitrovica
refuse to acquiesce to Albanian rule and are forcibly repressed by
Pristina. Thousands more refugees flood into Serbia, which prepares to
intervene.  The West threatens war on behalf of the Albanian majority
even as the latter finishes the job of ethnically cleansing Kosovo.
Allied officials talk about protecting democracy.

Although the worst case might not occur, there is no best case. To
reach an acceptable compromise, allied officials need to return to the
so-called reality-based community.

First, final status negotiations should be negotiations. The ethnic
Albanians should understand that intransigence does not guarantee
victory.

Second, multi-culturalism is not a worthwhile objective. One proposal,
disliked by Washington, is to leave Mitrovica with Belgrade while
granting Kosovo independence. This may or may not be a good idea, but
Western officials pushing to partition Serbia cannot object to it in
principle.

Third, independence will not magically transform Kosovo into a model
of Western civility. To the contrary, independence will reduce allied
leverage. If the ethnic Albanian majority tolerates human rights
abuses when it has yet to win independence, how likely is it to act
differently once it is granted independence?

Fourth, conditional independence would be equivalent to full
independence. Allied governments will not return should Kosovo violate
its commitments.

Fifth, it is easy to carve up other people's countries. Serbia has
been routinely denounced for opposing proposals to detach Kosovo,
rather like blaming a rape victim for resisting her attacker. The
Serbs, no less than the ethnic Albanians, are entitled to defend their
perceived interests.

Sixth, Belgrade should be integrated into Europe even if it refuses to
validate the latest iteration of a flawed allied policy. Attempting to
blackmail Belgrade will generate long-term hostility and is likely to
fail.

For some time the received wisdom was that Kosovo would be granted
independence, despite Serbia's opposition. However, unease with this
prospect is appropriately growing. The impending impasse in the Vienna
talks makes it imperative that the West insist upon negotiations that
really mean negotiations, rather than unconditional surrender by
Belgrade.


Doug Bandow is a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign
Policy and the author of the forthcoming Foreign Follies: America's
New Global Empire (Xulon Press).  A former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is a member of the Advisory Board of the
American Council for Kosovo.

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=12308

                                   Serbian News Network - SNN

                                        news@antic.org

                                    http://www.antic.org/


September 25, 2006

Serbian government says Ahtisaari is biased



Serbian government says Ahtisaari is biased




 


Serbian government says Ahtisaari is biased

25.9.2006 at 11:03

The Serbian government said on Sunday that Martti Ahtisaari, the Finnish UN mediator in talks over the future of Kosovo, clearly harboured sympathies for the Albanian separatist cause.

"It would be more honest of (Martti) Ahtisaari if he stepped down instead of seeing him openly, in front of the whole world, fall in line behind the Albanian separatists," Agence France-Presse quoted Srdjan Djuric, a Serbian government spokesman, as saying on Sunday.

"We are entitled to ask ourselves whether or not Mr Ahtisaari will organise, as his mandate stipulates, serious negotiations over the future of the province," he told Serbian news agency Tanjug.

Mr Ahtisaari was president of Finland in 1994-2000.

/STT/

© Copyright STT 2006

Send feedback on this item to:  STT


 
NewsRoom Finland

Martti Ahtisaari: Honoring and Commemorating Finland’s Nazi SS Troops




 

Martti Ahtisaari: Honoring and Commemorating Finland's Nazi SS Troops

September 18th, 2006

Martti Ahtisaari: Honoring and Commemorating Finland's Nazi SS Troops

These are the Finnish Nazi SS troops which Martti Ahtisaari planned to honor and commemorate in 1999. The fifth photograph from the top shows SS-Obergruppenführer Felix Steiner, one of Adolf Hitler's favorite commanders,  inspecting the Finnish Volunteer SS-Battalion "Nordost" on May 23, 1943 with SS-Obersturmbannführers Hans Collani (left), the commander of the battalion, and Finnish Liaison Officer Kalervo Kurkiala (second from left), and Finnish Major Erkki Kokko. Steiner was the commander of the 5th SS Volunteer Division "Wiking", to which the Finnish Nazi SS Battalion "Nordost" was attached. The Wiking SS Division committed numerous massacres during World War II. He commanded the 11th SS Panzer Army during the last weeks of the war in 1945 when Adolf Hitler tasked him with defending Berlin from the advancing Russian forces. Steiner commanded the SS Regiment Deutschland before the formation of Wiking. This is the photo link:

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/2130/disbandation.htm
 

A Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) news dispatch from 1999 on Martti Ahtisaari's plan to honor Finland's Nazi SS troops, "Finnish Jews Upset over Commemoration", Helsinki, Friday, May 28, 1999:

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/11323/edition_id/217/format/html/displaystory.html