Bin Laden is Bosnian and Karadzic is in the Dock?

Bin Laden is Bosnian and Karadzic is in the Dock?

03.03.2010 | 02:53

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

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

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

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

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

ICC breaks its own Constitution: Case void

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

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

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

with such procedures as are established in this Statute."

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

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

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

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

confidence;"

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

What was Dr. Karadzic fighting against?

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

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

And Dr. Radovan Karadzic is in the dock?

Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY

PRAVDA.Ru

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

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

Front page / Russia / Politics

17.12.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru

 

Pages: 1

 

 

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

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

The Show Goes On

The Show Goes On

by Nebojsa Malic, March 06, 2010

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

Challenging Cherished Myths

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

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

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

A Different Tune

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

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

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

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

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

Just Cause?

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

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

Exercise in Futility

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

GORIN: The blackmail of America

How the United States became Albania's enforcer

By Julia Gorin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__,_._,___

What's Wrong with Canada?

02.03.2010 Source: Pravda.Ru

 

 

 

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

 

Kosovo – what is wrong with negotiations anyway?

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

By Gerard Gallucci

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

The Scandal of Serbian Government U.S. Lobbying Deals

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

The Scandal of Serbian Government U.S. Lobbying Deals

by Srdja Trifkovic

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

The Debacle of Serbia's "Lobbying" in Washington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al Jazeera : The Secret Life of Radovan Karadzic

Interview: Radovan Karadzic

 

From left: Karadzic in 1994, in 2008 at The Hague and in his guise as Dr Dragan Dabic [EPA]

In the first episode of his new series, The Rageh Omaar Report, Rageh Omaar travels to Serbia and Bosnia to investigate the decade-long period Radovan Karadzic, the former president of the Republika Srpska, spent in hiding and to examine his legacy in present-day Bosnia and beyond.

Ahead of the imminent resumption of his trial for war crimes at the International Criminal Court, the former Bosnian Serb leader gave an exclusive written interview to Al Jazeera from his cell in The Hague.

Rageh Omaar: Why have you decided not to attend the trial so far?

Radovan Karadzic: I did not attend the trial in October because I had not been given adequate time to prepare. I am keen to attend my trial provided I am allowed to participate. I am not going to be a plant standing in the rain and snow without the opportunity to actively participate. If I were to do so it would be a shame for me and the Tribunal.

What do you think of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) process in your case and in general?

One can always hope. All I can do is hope for a fair trial.

For 13 years you avoided arrest. How was life as a fugitive? Did you live each day wondering if you were about to be arrested?

There is a saying that whoever is dying from fear has an enormous number of deaths. So I lived - I did not die.

When you look back on your time as Dr Dragan Dabic, how much of him was really you and how much was a part you were playing?

As Dr Dabic, I didn't do anything that Radovan Karadzic would not do. While Radovan Karadzic was a medical doctor trained in scientific medicine, Dr Dabic practised traditional medicine which has been around for thousands of years. I believe that the two types of medicine are complimentary and should be integrated. There is no reason to abandon such rich experience of the old cultures. In that sense, Dr Dabic was Radovan Karadzic and vice versa.

What exactly were the terms of the deal you have repeatedly stated was made between you and Richard Holbrooke, who served as the US envoy to the Balkans?

Richard Holbrooke, acting on behalf of the international community, including the United Nations Security Council, promised that if I resigned my positions as president of Republika Srpska and the SDS party, did not participate in the upcoming elections, and withdrew from public life, I would not be prosecuted in The Hague.

I fulfilled all of my promises. I am still waiting for Mr Holbrooke to fulfill his.

How do you feel about your role during the Bosnian war?

I had a misfortunate role in a misfortunate war in a misfortunate country.

It was a war that we did not want and that we did not need.

It was a war among Serbs, since the Bosnian Muslims are Serbs who adopted Islam under Turkish rule. It was not in our interest to be enemies.

Our clashes are always tragic for all people in Bosnia and beneficial only to third parties.

Had there been a different leadership of the Bosnian Muslims in the early 1990s, the war would have been avoided.

People in Bosnia always wish for peace. There is a habit among people in our country of saying the words "Peaceful Bosnia" at the end of a sentence.

This can tell you how rarely it is peaceful in Bosnia.

The Rageh Omaar Report: The Secret Life of Radovan Karadzic can be seen from Wednesday, February 24, at the following times GMT: Wednesday: 1900; Thursday: 0300, 1400; Friday: 0600; Saturday: 1900; Sunday: 0300.

 

 

The Rageh Omaar Report is a new series of one-hour, monthly investigative documentaries in which award-winning correspondent Rageh Omaar reports on the world's most important current affairs stories.

The first edition of the programme, The Secret Life of Radovan Karadzic, airs ahead of the imminent resumption of Karadzic's trial at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Rageh Omaar travels to Serbia and Bosnia to investigate the decade-long period the former president of the Republika Srpska spent in hiding and examines his legacy in present-day Bosnia and beyond

Click here for more on The Rageh Omaar Report.

 

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/02/20102229152873163.html

Press Communiqué: Serbian resolution on Srebrenica

Communiqué de Presse about Serbian resolution on Srebrenica Paris, 14. 2. 2010 As a member of the Serbian Diaspora in France, I wish to express in the name of my friends around journal "Dialogue" and in my name strong disagreement with the proposed adoption by the Serbian parliament of a resolution regarding so called the "Srebrenica genocide". The use of the term "genocide" in such a resolution would be harmful to Serbia and harmful to the cause of peace in the world. It would be interpreted as an admission that Serbia was responsible for the crime of "genocide" committed during the tragic civil war in neighboring Bosnia-Herzegovina. This may entail grave political and even economic consequences for the people of Serbia. As a result of such an interpretation, it would be used to undermine and eventually destroy Republika Srpska, by representing the Bosnian Serbs as "Serbian invaders" whose entity has been built on "genocide" and therefore has no right to exist. This could actually rekindle war in Bosnia. It will be used to justify the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, and thereby the independence of Kosovo, since the pretext for the NATO bombing was to prevent "genocide" in Kosovo and Metochia, based on the allegation that the Belgrade regime had shown its genocidal tendencies in Srebrenica. Worst of all, it will encourage further NATO aggression, when it can be shown that even the victims of such aggression can be made to take the blame for war waged against them. A fifth and equally serious, but more subtle, consequence, would be to contribute to the "clash of civilizations" by confirming the allegation that European Christians (Serbs in this case) hated Muslims so much that they wanted to exterminate them, while other European Christians stood by and allowed this "genocide" to happen. This allegation is widely echoed throughout the Muslim world, and therefore serves to build fear and hostility between Muslim and Western countries. If the Serbian government would adopt a resolution as one which is in preparation, this would be terrible mistake. I categorically reject in advance to recognise such declaration as representing my and our, Serbian, opinion. By accepting such resolution, such government will cease to represent interests of the Serbian people. This government and its president will have to take all consequences of not representing and fulfilling the will of the citizens of Serbia and the Serbs abroad. The way to contribute to peace and justice is not to give in to pressure to make forced confessions, but rather to seek reconciliation through truth, recognizing that in a tragic civil war, there were criminals and victims on all sides. The truth is not the exclusive possession of the victors, but the result of a scrupulous process that has yet to be carried out in an independent scientific manner.   Dr Dragan Pavlovic Director and Editor in chief, "Dialogue", Paris, France

 

Statement by James George Jatras Regarding Allegations of Misuse of Funds to Support Lobbying in the United States on Behalf of Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija

Statement by James George Jatras Regarding Allegations of Misuse of Funds to Support Lobbying in the United States on Behalf of Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija

February 18, 2010

Washington

In connection with the suspension of His Grace, Bishop ARTEMIJE, from supervision of his Eparchy, allegations have been made to the effect that funds allocated for other purposes (variously reported as earmarked for humanitarian relief or for repair of churches) instead were used to pay for lobbying service by two firms with which I have been associated, Venable and Squire Sanders.  To the best of my knowledge, this was first raised in Blic yesterday.  Later that same day, an item appeared in a website purporting to be that of the Diocese of Ras and Prizren and Kosovo and Metohija, denouncing me for beginning circulation of an open appeal in defense of Vladika Artemije, which started yesterday. 

I will address the accusation of the alleged misuse of funds in due course, below.  But first it needs to be made clear what is going on here: that a concerted effort is being made to destroy the man who, more than anyone else, has become the symbol of Serbia's resistance to amputation and annihilation of Serbia's most important spiritual and national patrimony.   Can anyone doubt that should it succeed what would be the consequence for the Serbs of Kosovo and Metohija and for the whole Serbian nation?   Even if there are legitimate questions to be asked about administrative matters in the Diocese, everyone can see the methods being used to obliterate Vladika Artemije's public witness and to terrorize and intimidate his supporters.  Who benefits from that?  

With regard to my contract for lobbying services on behalf of Vladika Artemije and of the Serbian people of Kosovo and Metohija, I have and always will regard the fact that His Grace asked me, and not someone else, to perform this task in Washington as the great honor of my life.   It should be kept in mind that beginning with my work at the U.S. Senate, and subsequently during my testimony as the trial of Slobodan Milosevic at The Hague, I have tried to be conscientious regarding both the damage my own country was doing to itself through its misguided Balkan policy (and particularly support of radical Islamic elements in Bosnia and Kosovo) and the obscene unfairness of the demonization the Western powers, especially the United States, attached to the Serbs during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.  For that, well before being engaged by the Serbs of Kosovo, I was attacked from many quarters, notably by Islamic organizations and the Albanian lobby.   Perhaps for that reason, when Vladika Artemije decided that something on a professional basis needed to be done on behalf of his people, he selected me knowing that it would not be just a "job" performed by a "hired gun" who could just as happily represent Serbia's enemies but someone committed to his cause. 

In March 2006, I signed on behalf of Venable an agreement with the Serbian National Council of Kosovo and Metohija (SNC), under the signature of its president, Mr. Dragan Velic.    It should be kept in mind there was then no official Serbian government lobbying effort in the United States, at a time when the U.S. government clearly was moving towards a "final solution" of the province's status.  (Several months later the government did sign an agreement with another firm but not, as far as I know, with specific reference to Kosovo.)  Vladika Artemije concluded that if no action was going to be taken by official Belgrade, he had no choice but to try to do something himself as the centerpiece of a professional effort to put the truth about Kosovo in front of the face of the American people and decision-makers.   This is the same decisiveness and courage he displayed when I first met him, when I was working at the Senate, during the period 1997-1998, when he was, as far as I know, the only Bishop willing to speak against Milosevic and to come to Washington on a mission of peace.     

Upon signing of the March 2006 agreement with the SNC, Venable immediately launched the American Council for Kosovo.   Our goal was to provide a real American voice against the wrong-headedness of our country's policy of supporting a group of Islamic terrorists and organized crime organizations (the KLA) under the command of the criminals Thaci, Ceku, and Haradinaj; and to show that far from perpetrators of genocide in Kosovo, Serbs are the victims.  We knew we were starting a fight with an entrenched policy position in Washington, which held that all the merits were on the Albanian side and none on the Serbian side.  We also were fighting against an Albanian lobby that had been active, literally, for decades, and which had vast sources of funds (of course, including criminal proceeds), the amounts of which can only be speculated, and which lavishly gave to American politicians' campaigns.

The reaction to our beginning operations was hysterical.   One of the Albanian-American groups accused us of trying to "hijack American policy toward Kosova," to which, of course, the Albanians were accustomed to full and uncontested enjoyment.  (It is quite meaningful that the information in the Blic article is taken almost word-for-word from this Albanian-American site.)  They hacked our website.  They launched a phony mirror site (which even fooled some people into thinking we were working for the Albanians too!).   They denounced us as racists, extremists, etc., for pointing out the truth of Kosovo and the "friends" America had adopted there.   We believed we could win only by changing the terms of debate.   When we began, "Kosovo" meant only "the place where America stopped genocide of peaceful Albanians by evil Serbs."   Due to our efforts, for many, many Americans "Kosovo" now means "the place where our government insanely helps jihadists and gangsters terrorize Christian Serbs." 

Were we successful?  Let us remember that when we began our efforts Washington fully expected smoothly to arrange the "final status" of Kosovo well before the end of 2006.   The architects of American policy expected minimal resistance from Belgrade and were sure the Russians were not serious in their opposition to independence.  And of course there were virtually no dissenting voices in the United States.  While our efforts may not have been early enough to have accomplished a reversal of American policy, I am confident that if not for this campaign under Vladika Artemije's guidance and direction Washington would have moved much faster than it did to "resolve" the issue.  Instead, we threw enough sand in the gears that contributed to a delay of almost two years, by which time the Russian position had become rock-solid and it had become impossible for anyone (openly, anyway) in Serbian politics to consent to losing Kosovo.  Even when Washington did make its move in early 2008, in concert with the KLA kingpins and with unprecedented bullying of our European allies, they did so with the increasingly desperate knowledge they were losing ground and that it was "now or never."  The result – the ongoing, unresolved crisis – is not one anyone wants to see but is far better than what likely would have been the case if we had not moved when we did at Vladika Artemije's initiative.   I sincerely believe we helped give Serbia a fighting chance, which it is still her option to take advantage of or not.  

With respect to the money, there is a curious assumption behind the accusation that moneys were "diverted" to lobbying: that while Serbia's enemies should take full advantage of all the influence money can buy, Serbs should rely solely on goodhearted, voluntary, nonprofessional efforts.   That assumption is a large part of why Serbia and Serbs ended up where they did in the propaganda wars of the 1990s.  It is an assumption Vladika Artemije wisely understood he had to reject if he was to have any hope of saving his flock.   In any case, the cost for services in the agreement signed between SNC and Venable in March 2006 was for an initial six-month period for $600,000, and continuing thereafter unless cancelled at the same rate of $100,000 per month.  Any search of lobbying records for international clients shows that is this is well within the range of such services, with two provisos: 

• First, that the payments under the SNC/Venable agreement were inclusive of out-of-pocket costs (like media buys, travel, conferences, etc.), and was not just for professional fees to the firm for its work.  This is not usual.  In most agreements the contract amount is what goes for the work, with costs added on top.   This means that out of the SNC/Venable contract from one-third to up to forty percent of the funds paid went not for professional fees but for things like ads in papers read by officials, like Roll Call and The Hill; in well-read political sites like DrudgeReport and Daily Kos; conferences at locations like the Capitol Hill Club (Washington's most well-regarded Republican gathering place); for travel around the U.S., Britain, Germany, Russia, India, Israel, Belgium (EU), Rome, and other locations; and similar expenses.   This also means that the actual amount paid for the work of Venable's professionals was far exceeded (by a factor of two or three times) by the amount of time devoted to the mission. 
• Second, that funding ($600,000) for the initial six months, which was paid out over the period March-December 2006, virtually exhausted the sources available for support of the representation.   In February 2007, because I had changed firms, the agreement with Venable was reassigned to Squire Sanders Public Advocacy, under the signature of Fr. Simeon (Vilovski), continuing at $100,000 per month, though by then no further funds were available.  Notwithstanding, the work continued at the same intensity throughout 2007 and 2008, and into 2009.  Since then, it has been necessary to scale back the work but it has never fully ended despite having, in effect, ceased to be professional effort and transformed into essentially a volunteer activity. 

So, that means that since the signing of the March 2006 contract, that initial $600,000 for six months has bought almost four years worth of work of varying levels of intensity.  That's an average of about $12,500 per month, of which, as noted above, a sizeable portion went to costs.  

None of what is related above is a state secret, however.  As noted, all of this has been public record since March 2006, and in a sense it is absurd and insulting to have to explain it.  How, then, to understand the sense of breathless discovery by those trying to discredit Vladika Artemije?  When all is said and done, there is only one legitimate question than can be asked that relates to the lobbying issue: did the funds for it come from some specific source for which it was absolutely impermissible to be used for any other purpose, such as lobbying?  Not being party to the Eparchy's ledgers, I would strongly doubt it.  First, money is fungible.  If money is given to the Eparchy for various purposes and then is spent for a number of legitimate activities, how is it determined which money went for what purpose?  Second, I categorically reject any suggestion that Vladika Artemije, Fr. Simeon, or any of the monastics and laity associated with him would perform any clearly improper action, financial or otherwise.  If, on the other hand, we are talking about questions of judgment, that should be left to the Bishop's discretion.  For example, if Vladika Artemije decides that instead of spending a dollar to help restore a damaged church (so the Albanians can attack it again) it would be better to spend it to help ensure churches won't be destroyed, who better than he to be the judge of it?

In any case, such questions can be asked in a reasonable and humane way.  That is not, however, what we see before us today, which can only feed the sense that something else is at work.  It is hard to escape the conclusion that what really is unfolding is a political agenda reminiscent of the Milosevic era, to silence Vladika Artemije's courageous and irreplaceable voice that is so offensive to some in Washington, Brussels, and Belgrade.  

In closing, I note that the item posted on the "new" Eparchy site accuses me not only of hypocrisy but of attacking the Holy Synod.  To appeal respectfully but firmly is not to attack.  So, once again, I appeal to His Holiness, Patriarch IRINEJ, to the Holy Synod, and to the whole Serbian people, that this unjust and unjustified persecution of Vladika Artemije stop at once and that he be restored to authority over his Diocese.