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

 

reprinted from: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1766/ 

Whose Kosovo is it anyway?
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/1766/

Bosnians Split on Whether to Unify

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

Moreover Technologies - Balkans news - of 2132 returned02/10/2006 13:30:00

---

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

Clinton's Kosovo Whopper

FR Clinton's Kosovo Whopper by Cliff Kincaid

 

There are 125+ comments.  Stella

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709744/posts

 

 

---

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/

Serbian government says Ahtisaari is biased

---

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

 

http://serbianna.com/blogs/savich/

---

 

Hidden Manipulators: Who is Behind the “Kosova Independence” Campaign?

 Carl Savich

---

Hidden Manipulators: Who is Behind the "Kosova Independence" Campaign?

September 20th, 2006

     The Balkans conflicts of the 1990s saw a massive revival and resurgence of US and Western media propaganda and infowar techniques. The "new" advocacy journalists recalled the "yellow journalism" of William Randolph Hearst, who helped induce the US to engage in the imperialistic or colonial war in Cuba in 1898, the Spanish-American War. This marked the emergence of the US as an expansionist global imperial and colonial power, like Britain, France, Spain, and Germany had been. Hearst was credited with manufacturing or "furnishing" the war in Cuba.

     Frederic Remington, his correspondent in Cuba, reported that nothing was happening in Cuba, that all was quiet. He told Hearst that there would be no war. In a famous dispatch back to Remington, Hearst told Remington to stay: "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

     This was the same policy pursued in Kosovo. US correspondent Anna Husarska admitted that this was the policy. She explained and detailed the strategy in this article:

http://diac.cpsr.org/cgi-bin/diac02/pattern.cgi/public?pattern_id=349

Anna Husarska said: For a decade, Albanians living in Kosovo have complained about their lack of an independent state, "yet they don't do anything about it. No grafitti, no signs, no demonstrations."

While Kosovar Albanians profess pacifism, Anna Husarska explained, that should not prevent them from waging literary activism. "Ultimately, the passivity of this movement made it impossible for journalists to cover the problem because nothing was happening."

That, indeed, was the problem. Nothing was happening. The Albanians were not killing Kosovo Serb civilians and were not murdering Kosovo Serb and Kosovo Albanian policemen. "Nothing was happening" in Kosovo. Husarska was convinced that pacifism and peaceful change were useless, not even Albanians wanted to create a Greater Albania, an "independent Kosova". Like William Randolph Hearst, who developed "advocacy journalism", Husarska understood that war was needed, that NATO bombs were needed, that US "humanitarian intervention" was needed. But first, the Albanians had to start burning down Serbian Orthodox Churches and killing Serbian policemen and civilians in Kosovo. How else do you manufacture or "furnish" a war?

     Before Hearst, John L. O'Sullivan perfected the use of the media to advance political and military agendas. O'Sullivan was a journalist who propounded the concept of "manifest destiny" to advocate the US annexation of Texas and the Oregon territory in 1845, territory that did not belong to the US. He developed the subtle symbiosis of the media and the military and political sector working in tandem before Hearst and Husarska. He believed that the US had a "divine mandate" from "Providence" to expand and take over territory "in defence of humanity" and to spread the concept of the "universality of freedom and equality". President George W. Bush's globalist universal crusade to spread "democracy" and "freedom" owes more to O'Sullivan's manifest destiny than it does to Vladimir Ilyich Lenin or Leon Trotsky. It is home-grown, Made in the U.S.A. 

     What is remarkable is that Husarska reveals that the Kosovo conflict is actually about separatism and secession, about creating an "independent state" by means of force and violence. Internationally recognized borders were no longer respected. Secession and separatism were now promoted by Husarska and the ICG as valid and legitimate. Secession and separatism were the exact same things the Bosnian Serbs and Krajina Serbs were seeking. There was an obvious double-standard and inconsistent approach. Husarska and the ICG decided what separatist movements were valid and legitimate and which were not. Naturally, proxies, clients, and surrogates were the separatists and secessionists they suppported and backed and advocated for. We can get your "independent state" for you.

Husarska let slip that the Kosovo crisis was about creating an "independent state". The problem was: How do you "furnish" or manufacture a war that would create an "independent Kosova". This is a Freudian slip. But, in fact, Husarska has no intention of concealing her motives and agenda. The mask comes down. There is nothing about "humanitarian intervention" or "genocide" or "human rights" now. Nothing about "repression" and "oppression". The goal was an ethnically pure, ethnically cleansed, "independent Kosova". That was always the real reason all along. She is a news reporter and she worked for the International Crisis Group (ICG), whose Chairman Emeritus Martti Ahtisaari planned to honor and commemorate Finland's Nazi SS troops in 1999 when he was the President of Finland. How can you be a news correspondent and a member of a quasi-government and quasi-corporate militant, advocacy "think tank"? Isn't there a blatant conflict of interest that is both unethical and unprofessional? The bias and prejudice and hidden agenda are obvious.

     "Nothing was happening" in Kosovo. That soon changed. Husarska and the ICG then stepped in with an example of how the free media and the free press work in the "free world". Of course, we have all seen this before. William Randolph Hearst led the way in 1898. The "Kosova independence" campaign is not a spontaneous or natural phenomenon. It was manufactured or "furnished" from without and is not an indigenous movement. It is a totally manufactured and "furnished" movement with its origins outside of Kosovo. The 1878 League of Prizren genesis of the Greater Albania ideology requires a foreign sponsor to succeed, whether the outside sponsor is fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini or Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler or Habsburg Austria-Hungary under Emperor Franz Joseph or Ottoman Turkey under Sultan Abdul Hamid II. The Greater Albania ideology is not new and does not change. Only the outside, foreign sponsor changes. The only issue is that of outside, foreign sponsorship. Who is pulling the strings in this absurd puppet show?

http://serbianna.com/blogs/savich/

---

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

America, Serbia and Kosovo

---

America, Serbia and Kosovo

America, Serbia and Kosovo
 
Source:US and Former Yugoslavia

 

View: Fikret ERTAN, Zaman

 

Hopes are diminishing for a year-end result from negotiations that have been continuing for months regarding Kosovo’s final status.

 

U.N. Assistant Representative Albert Rohan has mentioned this matter. In a statement he made several days ago, Rohan said clearly that the chance for progress in negotiations was decreasing and that if things continued like this, negotiations could last another ten years.

 

For some time the situation, which is due to the parties not changing their positions, has begun to influence another development.

 

 

 

This development, which has escaped notice, is related to increasing closeness and cooperation arising between Serbia and America, and it is extremely important. The first indications of this development appeared during Boris Tadich’s official visit to Washington at the beginning of the month. It seems that this development will affect both American-Serbian relations and the Kosovo dispute.

 

 

 

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice had a very important meeting in Washington with Vice President Dick Cheney and powerful senators. Explaining his country’s Kosovo thesis to them, Tadich signed an important military cooperation agreement with Rice. The main topic of this agreement is the arrangement of conditions to allow American soldiers to move through Serbia. Possessing rights of transit over Serbian land with the 1995 Dayton Agreement, America has clarified and strengthened these rights with this new agreement.

 

While speaking with American authorities on the subject of Kosovo, Tadich has repeatedly stated that they were opposed to the independence of Kosovo and that its independence threatened security and stability in the Balkans.

 

We don’t know exactly how much American authorities were influenced by Tadich’s arguments or what kind of answers they gave him, but we have learned that they asked Tadich about General Mladich and that they said they expected results on this matter.

 

 

 

A Serbian journalist named Blich informed us that American authorities offered to postpone the U.N. decision on Kosovo until after Serbian parliamentary elections if Serbia found Mladich before this November and turned him over to the International War Crimes Court in Lahey.

 

As it is known, Mladich has been hunted for years because of the war crimes he committed in Bosnia. The Mladich topic is extremely sensitive in America. So much so that a $5 million reward will be given to those who catch him.

 

 

 

As a matter of fact, while they are behaving in the same way to him, Tadich has grasped the connection America has made between Mladich and Kosovo and he appears to be preparing to use it to strengthen Serbia’s negotiation position related to Kosovo. For this reason, it seems that in the coming months Mladich will be caught and turned over to Lahey.

 

Serbian parliamentary elections are related to this topic: When Karadag became independent as a result of a referendum in May; the constitution of the Serbia-Karadag Federation unavoidably became ineffective. For this reason, a new constitution must be accepted in order to hold new parliamentary elections in Serbia because elections held before a new constitution is made would probably take place after the acceptance of Kosovo’s independence. Today’s moderate, pro-Western administration would lose the elections and the Serbian nationalistic Radical Party would gain power. It is foreseen that this would create problems both inside Serbia and in the region. In order to prevent this possibility, America has said it can have the Kosovo decision postponed until after parliamentary elections, until 2007.

 

With these developments, the Kosovo problem is beginning to take on new dimensions.

 

e-mail:f.ertan@zaman.com.tr

 

September 2006
 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2005     Journal of Turkish Weekly     http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=38899
 

---

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

Can Bosnia's Peace Survive?

---

Can Bosnia's Peace Survive?

Oct. 2, 2006 | Vol. 168, No. 15

Can Bosnia's Peace Survive?

The war ended more than a decade ago, yet pre-election posturing is bringing old ethnic and nationalist tensions to the surface throughout the region

BY ANDREW PURVIS | BANJA LUKA

As Bosnian Serb politicians go, Milorad Dodik was considered one of the good guys. The former businessman took over the job of Prime Minister of the Bosnian Serb Republic in Banja Luka shortly after the end of the Bosnian war in 1995, helping to purge the local government of cronies of the wartime leader Radovan Karadzic. He battled corruption and helped international investigators send indicted war criminals to the Hague. But these days, Dodik sounds like a changed man.

In the past two months he has questioned the underlying agreement that ended the war, attacked Muslim politicians for "consorting" with war criminals and asserted that his Serb-dominated Republic may try to secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina and ultimately join Serbia. Meanwhile, Bosnian Muslim leaders in Sarajevo are matching him word for word: Haris Silajdzic, a former Bosnian Muslim Prime Minister, and another erstwhile moderate, told Time that the boundaries imposed at the end of the war should be erased because "they are not natural. They are based on genocide."

Between them, the two former moderates have cranked up the heat for Bosnia's upcoming general elections, scheduled for Oct. 1, to a level not seen since the war ended, alarming international officials who oversee the country and ordinary citizens who fear a return to violence. "These men are feeding off each other. They are not real nationalists, but they are using it to get elected. This is our catastrophe," says Senad Pecanin, editor of the Sarajevo weekly Dani. The concern is all the more urgent because Silajdzic and Dodik, if current public opinion polls are borne out, could be the first postwar Bosnian political leaders to wield significant political power; the group of Western countries that has overseen Bosnia since 1995 is scheduled to scale back its authority next year, and although it will hand over duties to the E.U., the scope of those duties may be sharply reduced.

"There is a lot of fear," Bosnia's High Representative Christian Schwarz-Schilling told Time recently in Sarajevo. "People remember the same rhetoric from the early 1990s. And that ended in war. There is risk of it going too far." While he and other diplomats say a return to war is unlikely, Pecanin is less sanguine: for the first time since the war, he said, "I am afraid for the peace here."

The tensions are rooted in the Dayton peace accords, named for the Ohio town where they were hammered out in 1995. To silence the guns, the agreement created two separate ethnically based "entities," the Muslim-Croat Federation, which comprises 51% of the country, and the Serb Republic, the majority Serb area that makes up the rest.

More than a decade on, these areas still have the appearance of separate countries. They have their own Prime Ministers and parliaments; their own languages, religions and mobile-phone networks. Although the army was finally unified under one command last year, the Serb Republic is crucially resisting efforts to centralize the police force.

And any visitor can attest that they feel like two different countries. Cross the border into the Serb Republic from the Muslim-Croat Federation and Latin script road signs give way to Cyrillic, mosques to Serbian Orthodox churches. Locals prefer Serbian beer and loza, a grape brandy, and the only flags visible, even on official government buildings, are Serbia's red, blue and white rather than Bosnia's official blue and yellow. "We've got everything here," said Predrag Andelic, 50, over a cigarette and a bottle of beer. He's a war veteran from near the city of Prijedor, site of internment camps that saw the deaths of thousands of Muslims, Roma and Croats. He and his neighbors don't trust Muslim leaders in Sarajevo. "We would like to share with the Muslims but they do not want to share with us," says one friend. "They want to take over."

This month's election campaign has opened up a sharp new divide between Bosnia's leaders over the future of the two entities. Silajdzic, the leading Bosnian Muslim prime ministerial candidate, says he would like to see them dismantled in "a year or two." He explains: "A minority of 23.8% [Serbs] can block the whole country. We should be a citizen-based, and not an ethnically-based, country." He favors what he calls a new "dialogue" with all sides about how to eliminate the old borders and establish a centralized government in Sarajevo, but critics fear he means a Muslim-dominated state in which ethnic Serbs and Croats would lose their collective rights.

Serb leaders insist that the entities, and hence their Serb-dominated statelet, are sacrosanct. "We will fight" attempts to dismantle the current system, Dodik told a Serbian news agency earlier this month. Speaking to Time, the Serb Republic's President, Dragan Cavic, struck a more conciliatory note. He said the idea of a referendum calling for the secession of the Serb Republic was "crazy, suicide," but added that dissolving the entity's borders unilaterally would lead to "a crisis that I cannot imagine." He warned: "Enough blood has been spilled."

Until the past few months, senior politicians were barely able to talk about redrawing Bosnia's borders. The Office of the High Representative for Bosnia (ohr) was endowed by the U.N. with extraordinary executive powers to keep the peace in postwar Bosnia, and it used them regularly to make sure that local politicians toed the line. Dozens of judges and other bureaucrats were sacked and hundreds of politicians barred from office for breaking the rules and threatening the peaceful development of a multiethnic country. But now the U.S. and other Western countries plan to hand over responsibility for Bosnia to a European Union representative, possibly with strictly limited powers, by next July. Schwarz-Schilling, who succeeded Britain's Paddy Ashdown in the office earlier this year, has already adopted a more cautious approach than his predecessors. Bosnia's politicians need to "face the consequences of their own mistakes," he explained to Time, noting that a final call on whether or not the E.U. will wield executive powers will only be made early next year. "The decision will be whether to stick with the plan of disbanding the ohr, or to rethink," said Schwarz-Schilling.

The prospect of a weaker international presence is disturbing to many. Emsuda Mujagic, 54, is a Muslim woman who was driven from her home near Prijedor in the Serb Republic in 1992. Her village was torched and 48 family members, she says, were murdered in camps. She was able to escape and returned a few years ago, thanks mainly to the presence of foreign troops and the international community. Now she says, "I don't think it's a good idea for the ohr to leave. I am afraid. The politicians will just have a free hand to build up people's fears and fan ethnic intolerance."

Moreover, the region is already undergoing a kind of realignment. Neighboring Montenegro won independence from Serbia in late Spring, and contentious talks are under way to grant autonomy to ethnic Albanians in Kosovo — where Serbs are an embattled minority — by as early as next year. Serb politicians in Belgrade and in Bosnia warn that an "imposed" solution in Kosovo could inflame Serbs across the region. Of course, it's possible that the current round of nationalist posturing by moderate politicians is mere populist vote-getting. But too many with memories of recent history are unwilling to rely on that.

With reporting by Dejan Anastasijevic/Sarajevo

©TIME. Printed on Sunday, September 24, 2006

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/printout/0,13155,1538599,00.html

---

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

OHR seeks clarification about planned RS-Serbian accord

---

OHR seeks clarification about planned RS-Serbian accord

KFOR steps up patrols as Kosovo final status process reaches last phase
24/09/2006

 

PRISTINA, Kosovo, Serbia -- KFOR has stepped up patrols across the province, in order to prevent possible violence as the Kosovo status settlement process reaches its final phase. KFOR spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Walter-Hubert Schmidt indicated on Friday (22 September) that the stepped up patrols were also in response to recent incidents that have strained interethnic relations in Kosovo. In the latest, two Serbs were injured Friday after they were attacked by a group of ethnic Albanians in the eastern village of Osojane.

 

Meanwhile, UN police in Kosovo say they arrested seven ethnic Albanians, suspected of involvement in the March 2004 ethnic riots that killed 19 Serbs. No other details were released. (Albanian News, Tanjug - 23/09/06; B92 - 22/09/06)

---

 

Meeting between Bishop Artemije and Pat Robertson

---

Meeting between Bishop Artemije and Pat Robertson

 

 

Sunday, September 22, 2006

MEETING BETWEEN  BISHOP ARTEMIJE
 
AND PAT ROBERTSON

On the first day of his visit to the USA His Grace Artemije, Bishop of Raška and Prizren, together with other members of his delegation, consisting of Prof. Miroljub Jevti?, Mr. Dragan Veli? and Protos Simeon, Abbot of the Monastery of Banjska, visited Mr. Pat Robertson, Protestant pastor and Christian activist, who is closely involved in social, political and spiritual happenings in America today. Pat Robertson is well-known in the entire United States of America for his speeches, lectures, commentaries and answers to various questions which define American culture and civilization of this day.

Through the exceptionally powerful TV network CBN he exxerts a very great influence on tens of millions of Americans who closely follow his opinions and positions on various issues and who, being closely involved in politics, are in a position to impact a significant segment of American administration.

It is a great pity and a mistake on the part of our administration that people like Pat Robertson have not been identified as factors capable of helping us change the unjustly negative image of Serbia and the Serbian people which, unfortunately, is still prevalent in the public opinion of the world. This brings us to the question of inertia and indiffierence of several administrations, which have in recent times been at the helm of our state and which have failed to identify and understand the value of lobby activities—so necessary in the world of great powers today. For decades now, unsparing of money or effort, the Croats, the Muslims and the Albanians have been actively and assiduously engaged in this matter, and the results of their work are evident and are always to our detriment.

Well acquainted with the current situation and fully aware of global dimensions of the danger which radical Islam represents, bent as it is on establishing its power in all not yet islamized parts of the world, Pat Robertson easily recognized the elements of jihad and the Wahhabi ideology in the activities of Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija. He is also aware of the negative consequences which the independence of Kosovo and Metohija will bring in its wake.

In a very precise analysis of the situation, Bishop Artemije drew the attention of Pat Robertson to the fact that a growing number of representatives of American administration and public at large agree with this conclusion. The one remaining unassailable bastion is the State Department which is, at the same time, the chief architect of the US policy concerning Kosovo and Metohija. The Statement Department has retained Clinton’s approach to resolving the problem of Kosovo and Metohija, as well as Clinton’s neo-liberal personnel structure. The persistent refusal on the part of the State Department to confront seriously the terrorist character of the Albanian administration in Kosovo and Metohija, and even of a large part of the Albanian population, among whom the radical Wahhabi elements are on the rise, can further jeopardize the safety of Europe and even America through the strengthening of the so-called White Al Qaeda, whose members are recruited from among European-born Muslims. White Muslims are already engaged in acts of terrorism in and ...

After hearing detailed descriptions of the destruction of Christian civilization and ethnic cleansing of the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija, concluding that that “Islam is a terrible curse, a scourge which has afflicted this world, Pat Robertson exclaimed: “We unleashed this curse upon the world!”. He add that it was “absolutely scandalous that we should permit the establishment of an Islamic state in Kosovo and Metohija by robbing a sovereign state of part of its territory, with the aid of American money to boot.”

After the conversation with Pat Robertson, Bishop Artemije, and Jim Jatras, representative of VENABLE, the firm engaged to conduct lobby activities on behalf of the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija, were interviewed by CBN. CBN intends to visit Kosovo and Metohija as well as by the end of this year and to make a comparative analysis of radical Islamic activities in these two areas. Pat Robertson has personally undertaken to correct the prevalent false image of Albanian Muslims in Kosovo and Metohija and to recruit forces to fight against the continuing destruction of Christianity in this area which has been Christian for so many centuries.

Press Department : Diocese of Ras- Prizren and Kosovo-Metohija

 

---

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

FM Bakoyannis addresses UN general assembly

---

FM Bakoyannis addresses UN general assembly

 

FM Bakoyannis addresses UN general assembly    Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis addressed on Friday midnight (Greek time) the United Nations 61st General Assembly focusing on the challenges of the 21st century, the Millenium Targets, developments regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East and in Iraq and Greek policy for the Balkans, the Cyprus issue and Greek-Turkish relations. The Greek foreign minister also referred to Greece's role in the international political scene and the issue of global terrorism. "Allow me to add my heartiest congratulations to you for being the third woman in the history of the United Nations to be elected President of the General Assembly, particularly at such a critical time in world affairs. Your election is an inspiration for women everywhere struggling to achieve equality and opportunity. You illustrate the truth that, as Plato wrote 2,400 years ago, any society that does not exploit the talents of its women is wasting half its resources," Bakoyannis said.     "I wish also to congratulate and thank your predecessor, my friend and colleague, Jan Eliasson, for all he worked so hard to achieve during his term.     "While we are recognizing service to the United Nations, we would be remiss if we did not extend our appreciation to Secretary General Kofi Annan. I want to express the appreciation of my government for all his efforts to maintain and strengthen the prestige and moral authority of the Organization.     "I would also like to welcome Montenegro to the family of states, the Greek foreign minister said.     "The 21st century began with huge challenges:poverty, wars, humanitarian crises, waves of refugees, terrorism, the proliferation of weapons, human trafficking, drugs, intercommunal violence, environmental downgrading, natural disasters. What is necessary for us to confront these woes is for us to handle the deeply-rooted causes that have been developing for centuries. In order to achieve this, we must join our forces to mobilise the combined strength of our ideas, our resources and, above all, the humanity that we all share," she said.     Referring to the issue of terrorism, the Greek foreign minister said that "it has become the most pressing problem of our times, that touches all of us, regardless of religion, race or gender. We must face this major danger collectively because nobody, no matter how powerful he is, can do it unilaterally. The most effective way for us to handle terrorism at its root is to promote tolerance, mutual acceptance, mutual understanding and, above all, development, the possibility for all to have access to the necessary commodities for their life.     "The need for us to achieve the targets of the millennium within the time limits set by the heads of state and government during the summits of 2000 and 2005 is important. The targets include, of course, the crucial issue of us reaching the limit of 0.7 percent in development aid to countries facing serious economic difficulties. This target constitutes the key for us to achieve global cooperation on development and we are all determined to achieve this as soon as possible.     "On their part, the developing countries need to pursue serious economic policies and reforms that promote development and create reliable and transparent institutions. Only through concentrated collective action do we have hope of remedying the imbalances and inequalities that lie at the root of many of the conflicts preoccupying the world today. Allow me to stress at this point that we must place Africa at the centre of our efforts," Bakoyannis noted.     "The tensions in the Middle East demand equal attention. The Middle East is the region that will test the mettle of this Organization as a force for peace in the immediate future. If we fail in that test, all of us stand to pay a heavy price. During the past several months we all became witnesses to unforgettable images of suffering and destruction in this part of the world.     "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the root of most problems in the region and it is obvious that it should be at the top of the list of our priorities if peace and stability are to return to the area. The Road Map offers the strategic plan for a solution based on the principle of land for peace, especially since basic elements of it are well known and generally accepted by the international community. The Road Map is in essence a performance-driven guide to a settlement based on all relevant Security Council Resolutions, including 242 and 338, the conclusions of the Madrid Conference and the Arab Summit in Beirut, and we must all make every effort to see that it is implemented.     "On Lebanon, strict implementation of Resolution 1701 provides the blueprint for resolving the basic problems that led to the recent crisis. We understand the difficulties before us, but we must push ahead resolutely because determination and tenacity are essential to tackling long-standing issues in volatile regions.     "The continued violence and instability in Iraq are a cause of great concern for all of us It is critical that every effort possible be made to bring order and unity to that troubled country. Deaths, especially of civilians, have reached terrifying levels with no end to the slaughter in sight. All who have any influence with the warring factions in Iraq must try to make them see what pain and suffering they have inflicted on their own people and what worse horrors they will unleash on their land if they continue to drift toward a devastating civil war.     "Our own region, the Balkans, was once known as ?history’s cauldron,? and we endured a century of bitter ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts up to very recent times. We are moving rapidly, however, to disown that label for the sake of our own peoples and the new Europe we are building. Some trouble spots remain, but we are trying to deal with them in a new spirit of cooperation and tolerance.     "Kosovo is one issue that still needs attention. The status talks are underway and we hope that they will produce a viable settlement that will strengthen the security and stability of the entire region. Right now this appears difficult. To overcome the impasse will require patient and careful diplomacy. Our goal in reaching a viable, long term solution should not be compromised by setting an artificial deadline.     "I deeply regret that the Cyprus problem remains unresolved. In the 32 years of the military occupation of one third of the territory of Cyprus by well over 40.000 Turkish troops, Greece has strongly supported all initiatives by the United Nations for the achievement of a comprehensive solution. We are committed to doing everything possible to achieve a just and viable solution, on the basis of the pertinent Security Council Resolutions and the EU principles and values. We strive for a bizonal, bicommunal federation, that will bring peace and prosperity on the island.     "Our goal remains an agreed solution between the two communities, without arbitration and tight timetables, which will be approved subsequently by referenda. To these efforts we are prepared to lend our wholehearted support.     "Greece’s foreign and security policy is based on the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and especially on the peaceful settlement of disputes and of good neighborly relations.     "This basic framework is also reflected in my country’s continuing efforts to further improve relations with Turkey and to consolidate mutual understanding and cooperation. On our part, we are trying to overcome the remaining difficulties, continuing to take initiatives to widen and deepen cooperation in all fields so that the relationship with Turkey becomes a win-win situation for both countries. In this context, we are hopeful that Turkey will reciprocate for our countries to solidify good neighborly relations.     "European integration is the bright promise visible on the horizon for the entire region of South Eastern Europe, a future which will encompass greater cooperation and interaction among all the countries in the area and heal the wounds of the past century at long last.     "We live in a troubled world and the United Nations is always enmeshed in the worst of the troubles so that it sometimes seems that it is not accomplishing much. We must not forget, however, the conflicts it has resolved, the misery it has diminished, the suffering it has abated, the pain it has eased all over the world in its brief lifetime.     "Man feeds on dreams of hope, Aeschylus wrote, and for men, women and children everywhere the United Nations remains the best hope there is," Bakoyannis concluded.

"Man feeds on dreams of hope"
http://www.ana.gr/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=4644924&maindocimg=3940203&service=6

---

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

Kosovo may face limited sovereignty as talks on its status remain deadlocked

---

Kosovo may face limited sovereignty as talks on its status remain deadlocked

 

Kosovo may face limited sovereignty as talks on its status remain deadlocked

By Neil MacDonald in Zagreb and Guy Dinmorein Washington

Published: September 23 2006 03:00 | Last updated: September 23 2006 03:00

Attempts to reach a negotiated solution on independence for Kosovo remained deadlocked last night, leaving the troubled province's political future in the hands of divided international powers, aides to the United Nations' chief mediator said.

Martti Ahtisaari is expected to present proposals in November that Kosovo be granted sovereignty, resolving the last lingering question from the collapse of Yugoslavia.

 

But continued differences within the Contact Group of nations, which stands behind Mr Ahtisaari's mandate, could result in limited sovereignty for the 90 per cent ethnic-Albanian territory, conditional on strong international oversight for several years to come, senior western diplomats said.

The group brings together the US, Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Russia in a supporting role to the UN, which has administered Kosovo since the expulsion of Yugoslav Serb forces in 1999.

During a week of heightened ethnic tension in Kosovo, the group made clear that it would permit neither Belgrade nor Pristina "unilaterally" to block negotiations to decide the disputed territory's future status. Serbia argues that independence will lead to renewed regional instability.

But observers suspect that Russia and China, fearful of secession disputes within their own borders, may resist formal independence for Kosovo in the UN Security Council, which will be required to ratify any proposal.

Diplomats in Washington also see the Bush administration responding to the concerns raised by Russia and Serbia and reassessing their position on Kosovo.

Serbia's parliament in an emotional session last week decided to name Kosovo as an "integral part" of the country in a new constitution, which Vojislav Kostinica, the prime minister, aims to complete before elections early next year.

But Joachim Ruecker, chief UN administrator for Kosovo, advised the UN Security Council last week that delaying the outcome of the Vienna talks would only prolong tensions.

American and many European officials have tacitly supported "imposed independence", assuming continued international involvement will help protect Serbs and other minorities.

But four bombing incidents during the past eight days have raised the spectre of deadly clashes again in the province.

Nato-led peacekeepers have increased their patrols and checkpoints around Kosovo.

The 16,000-strong Nato-led Kosovo force also provides road escorts to the Serb minority, whose members attract blame for "ethnic cleansing" by Yugoslav Serb forces until the Nato intervention seven years ago.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006

FT.com - World, Europe9/22/2006 11:00:00 PM

---

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

Kosovo: The power of compromise

 

Kosovo: The power
of compromise

 

 By 

Aleksandar Mitic, TFF Associate

 

September 21, 2006

A Serbian journalist and TFF Associate argues that only a genuine compromise over Kosovo's future status can guarantee stability.
A true, balanced, and negotiated compromise on Kosovo's future status would swing the pendulum of Balkan stability towards the European path.

A manipulated, one-sided, and imposed decision would, however, open a Pandora's box of secessionist movements in the world and release the ghosts of a nationalist past in the Balkans.
As we approach the beginning of talks on the future status of the Kosovo province, it becomes crucial to grasp the full complexity of the Kosovo status issue.
There has been an attempt in the last year and a half to close down international debate before the status talks had even begun by suggesting that only independence is a viable solution for Kosovo.
The truth is, the issue of Kosovo's status is dependent on so many historical, legal, political, religious, economic, and demographic elements that it deserves, at the very least, a wide international debate on possible solutions and their implications.
To argue thus that only one solution is possible is not only flawed reasoning, but a dangerous and explosive recipe for future frustration, tension, and conflict.
There has also been an attempt to refocus and spin the talks in the direction of Kosovo's independence, from those who say that these are not really talks on the future status but rather on the terms of Kosovo's future independence to those who argue that the negotiations should be only about the position of the Kosovo Serbs in an independent Kosovo.
Some also argued that the talks will be about finding a way to impose independence upon Belgrade. While there are a few officials who have, often privately rather than publicly, indicated their preference for such approaches, it must be said that these are completely contrary to international law.

RISKY BUSINESS

The aim of the talks on Kosovo's future status is to finally provide a fair, stable, long-term solution for this crisis region. The majority Kosovo Albanians must get a maximum of opportunity and real means to manage their future without feeling threatened, but also without endangering the welfare of Kosovo Serbs and other non-Albanians. The interests of Serbia, of which Kosovo is a part, the stability of the Balkans, and the worldwide impact of these negotiations are also crucial factors which must be taken into account.
Within the principles of international law and the preset recommendations of the international community's informal "Contact Group" - no return to the pre-1999 Milosevic-era situation, no joining of neighboring states, no partition - a number of possible solutions for the future status of Kosovo deserve to be examined.
There is also a number of pre-conditions for successful talks that must be met: artificial deadlines such as end of 2006 must not be used to the detriment of a sound solution; and the outcome should be an agreed, negotiated compromise, not an imposed, one-sided decision.
The breaching of international law and the creation of worldwide precedents should be avoided for the sake of regional and world security.
In this regard, it is of paramount importance that double standards must not be allowed to win over universal standards.
To claim that the Kosovo situation features "unique" characteristics and that its independence would not represent a precedent for triggering other crises elsewhere in the world is unlikely to convince everyone in the international community.
What is it that makes Kosovo so unique? Ten years of institutional discrimination? Several thousand victims of a conflict between a repressive state security force and a separatist guerilla force? A majority ethnic group actively seeking independence? But the very same characteristics are shared by dozens of similar regions around the world. If every such case is seen as unique, international law becomes irrelevant.
Independence for Kosovo would indeed be a risky, unilaterally-imposed and ultimately wrong solution. Why would one side get it all, the other one lose all? Why reward seven years of Albanian violence in post-war Kosovo? Why break up Serbia, the most ethnically diverse country in the Western Balkans and create a second ethnic-Albanian state on one part of its territory? Where is the logic of European integration in this pursuit of Balkanization of the Balkans?

 

A BLUFFER'S GUIDE TO INDEPENDENCE

Bluffs and spin must not be used as arguments. To say, for example, that Serbia already lost Kosovo in 1999 is only an interpretation and does not stand in any single international document, let alone in the UN Security Council resolution 1244 that ended the conflict.

In the resolution, "self-governing" is mentioned three times, "self-government" four times, "self-administration" once, "substantial autonomy" three times, whereas neither "self-determination" nor "independence" are mentioned at all. Did NATO intervene in 1999 to protect human rights or to provide the basis for secession? If Kosovo was lost to Serbia in 1999, why did it not obtain independence then?

As far as the so-called moral argument that it is the violence of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic which lost Kosovo for Serbia, the Kosovo Albanians should be least inclined to favor it since their massive and systematic violence and repression of the Serb community in the last seven post-war years has taken all the "moral credit" out of their hands.

The same goes for the often heard assertion that Serbia should choose between Kosovo and the European Union. In fact, under the EU Thessaloniki agenda on the Western Balkans, Serbia has a clear European perspective and as the Western Balkans' largest country, it certainly won't remain a black hole inside the EU. To suggest that Serbia should give up a large part of its territory - which has been the cradle of its civilization, culture, and religion for nine centuries now - for the sake of possibly entering a supranational integration process two or three years earlier does not make much sense. No international or domestic campaign aimed at convincing Serbian public opinion on this one would succeed.

One of the most common arguments for the independence of Kosovo is that if the ethnic Albanians do not get what they want, they will stage mass violence against the Serbs, other non-Albanians, and the international troops. The argument points to the massive riots in March 2004 as a warning of what could happen if ethnic Albanian desires are not satisfied. But is the world really so afraid of such threats that it does not dare stand up to them? NATO seems ready to call this bluff. The Alliance's Secretary-General has warned on several occasions that violence as means of promoting political objectives in the status talks would this time be met with a robust response from 17,000 NATO troops in the province. Indeed, threats of violence must not be legitimized nor used as arguments.

Finally, it is most worrying to suggest that some sort of "conditional independence" should be the outcome of the status talks. This empty formula is even presented by some as a compromise solution, because ethnic Albanians will have to wait a few more years for independence and give up on the idea of Greater Albania. Many of its backers suggest "conditional independence" means that Kosovo will be granted independence in phases, provided the majority ethnic Albanians finally start respecting the human rights of the Serbs and other non-Albanians. But this option is an insult to negotiators and 21st-century human-rights standards. If Belgrade is resolutely opposed to immediate independence, why would it accept independence two or three years from now? If even the most basic standards of human rights are not respected under international supervision, why should we expect that they would be in a conditionally independent Kosovo? And doesn't the "conditional independence" concept introduce a new kind of trade-off: respect for human rights in exchange for territory?

COMPROMISE: A WIN-WIN SOLUTION

Looking at the situation realistically and fairly, the most sustainable and just solution for the future status of the province lies between the standard type of autonomy, which ethnic Albanians now reject, and independence, which clashes with international law and is unacceptable for the Serbs in general and Serbia as a state.
A solution that would provide for a maximum of autonomy for Kosovo within the borders of Serbia could satisfy all the legitimate demands, including the Kosovo Albanians' demand to be self-governing, and it can protect the interests of non-Albanians in Kosovo and the interests of Serbia as a state. Such a solution would also comply with the principle of the inviolability of international borders.
Kosovo would enjoy full legislative, executive, and judicial capacity, a limited external representation - in particular regarding its full direct access to the international financial institutions - and most importantly, normalized relations with Serbia.
On the other hand, Serbia still has many positive things to offer Kosovo, including a strong push in its macroeconomic revival, a common market for goods, an integrated energy, electricity and infrastructure network, access to its health and education systems, a common fight against organized crime, and a joint contribution to regional stability and European integration.
At the same time, an autonomous Kosovo would still need to improve its treatment of the Kosovo Serbs and other non-Albanians. A wide-scale decentralization including a horizontal linkage of Serbian municipalities, which would benefit from the education, social, and health system of central Serbia, is a precondition for the survival of Kosovo Serbs, as suggested by UN special envoy Kai Eide.

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

This horizontal linkage is not a model for partition and conflict but, on the contrary, a model for integration and survival, as these municipalities would be fully integrated in the autonomous Kosovo system run from Pristina, while keeping some political links with Belgrade.
Considering all this, an autonomy for the Kosovo Serbs within a maximum autonomy for Kosovo inside Serbia appears as the most reasonable and viable long-term solution.

A WIN-WIN SOLUTION

More than anything, it is a win-win solution. The Kosovo Albanians would finally get the means to manage their future and so will the Kosovo Serbs; Serbia would not have its borders changed and its historical and religious cradle amputated; Macedonia and Bosnia will receive guarantees that border changes in the Balkans are no longer tolerated; the EU would obtain regional stability and be able fully to take charge of its European perspective; the United States would be able to disengage its troops without losing its diplomatic leverage in both Pristina and Belgrade; Russia, China, India, and many other countries in the world would appreciate not having to deal with a dangerous secessionist precedent; the UN will see a major crisis issue resolved peacefully and with full respect for international law.
It is time to respect international law; it is time to find a long-term solution for Kosovo; it is high time to be patient, fair, sound, and consistent.
It is time for a successful compromise for the first time in Kosovo's long history.

Aleksandar Mitic is a Brussels-based journalist and one of the authors of the CD-ROM and Internet project Kosovo 2006: The Making of a Compromise.

http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/2006/Mitic_KosovoCompromise.html