June 13, 2024

"Kosovo is not independent, nor will it ever be": PM Vucevic asks key question

telegraf.rs

"Kosovo is not independent, nor will it ever be": PM Vucevic asks key question

Dragica Ranković

2–3 minutes


Vucevic told RTS that Serbia is asking all those who consider that issue to have been resolved - if that is the case, then why pressure Serbia

Printscreen: RTS

Serbian Prime Minister Milos Vucevic says that Belgrade is ready for dialogue with Pristina and that the government in Belgrade is always involved in the dialogue through its Office for Kosovo and Metohija.

Vucevic told RTS that Serbia is asking all those who consider that issue to have been resolved - if that is the case, then why pressure Serbia.

"For some big players in the international environment, Kosovo and Metohija is a done deal, and for others, of course, it is not. But also as far as those for whom the issue of Kosovo and Metohija has been resolved, if that is the case, then why put pressure on Serbia," asked Vucevic.

He stressed that as far as he is concerned Kosovo is not independent, nor will it ever be.

"It cannot be until the Serbian side says that it is," stressed the prime minister of Serbia.

He added that he considers what Kosovo Prime Minister Albin Kurti is doing on the ground is a much bigger problem.

"He is using this moment and has support to carry out terror against Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija, primarily in the north. Our task and goal is to support Serbs in Kosovo and Kosovo in accordance with (UN Security Council) Resolution 1244," said Vucevic.

According to him, Belgrade must defend Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija, instead of "coming out with cheap sloganeering."

"Bosnia and Herzegovina is the most complex issue in the Western Balkans, and Kosovo is a difficult issue for Serbs and Albanians, who had different historical frameworks, solutions, moments when one or the other side was better off or dominated," stated Vucevic.

The prime minister pointed out that Belgrade leads a responsible and wise policy and that he considers this to be an advantage.

(Telegraf.rs/Tanjug)

 

June 04, 2024

Jeffrey D. Sachs: How Close Are We To ‘Midnight?’

How Close Are We To 'Midnight?'


May 30, 2024


By Jeffrey D. Sachs

The overriding job of any U.S. president is to keep the nation safe. In the nuclear age, that mainly means avoiding nuclear Armageddon. 

Joe Biden's reckless and incompetent foreign policy is pushing us closer to annihilation. He joins a long and undistinguished list of presidents who have gambled with Armageddon, including his immediate predecessor and rival, Donald Trump. 

[Continue Reading]

 

May 30, 2024

DW | Serbia local elections: Can the opposition break through?

dw.com

Serbia local elections: Can the opposition break through?

Sanja Kljajic

8–10 minutes


A few solitary election billboards and stands are the only indications that local elections are taking place this weekend in the city of Novi Sad in northern Serbia. The scene is similar in the southern Serbian city of Nis, where residents say they cannot recall such a quiet election campaign.

Nevertheless, public sentiment suggests that the opposition may have a chance of defeating the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) of President Aleksandar Vucic in both cities.

"I believe the expectations are partially justified," Dusko Radosavljevic, a political scientist from Novi Sad, told DW. "In these major centers in Serbia, the opposition has to a certain extent united and become visible. But even if the opposition itself is not highly visible, the negative effects of the current harmful government are."

Dusko Spasojevic, a political scientist from Belgrade, shares this view but says that it is hard to make predictions because there is less enthusiasm now than there was in the run-up to the parliamentary election on December 17.

Serbian voters go to the polls on Sunday to elect representatives to 88 local assembliesImage: Jelena Djukic Pejic/DW

"It seems that there is hope for the opposition parties, primarily based on the results of the parliamentary elections, which serve as a good indicator," he told DW, pointing to the fact that the opposition list came first in most polling stations in Novi Sad. "What is particularly interesting is that for the first time in quite a while, we have open and competitive elections, which might draw out voters who have not participated before."

Recent election irregularities

The upcoming local elections are taking place after months of opposition efforts to highlight irregularities in both the national parliamentary and Belgrade local elections last December.

Several election observers concluded that these elections were neither free nor fair. The Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability (CRTA), an independent, non-partisan civil society organization, stated in its final report that "The spectrum of severe threats to voters' and candidates' rights includes unscrupulous pressure on citizens, manipulation of the voter registry, forgery of support signatures for nominated lists, misuse of citizens' personal data, and the falsification of the election results publication date in the Official Gazette to prevent the opposition from utilizing the legal deadline for submitting complaints to the Constitutional Court."

Thousands of people gathered in Belgrade last December to protest what election observers said were widespread irregularities in the country's general election. The banner here reads 'We don't agree' Image: Darko Vojinovic/AP/picture alliance

These findings were backed up by the final report of the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights

. This led the European Parliament to call for an international investigation.

Electoral law amendments since December

Although no international investigation was ever launched, the reports of irregularities led to negotiations on electoral conditions between the government and the opposition. As a result, electoral law was amended to prevent the organized practice of temporarily moving voters' registered addresses to other constituencies to influence election results.

"This is a step in the right direction, but it's certainly not enough," Radomir Lazovic of the opposition Green-Left Front told DW. "A Voters' Register Commission needs to be established, and the media's approach to the opposition must change."

Opposition split

Because the opposition's demands were not fully met, the once-united opposition had to decide whether to participate in the elections at all. The debate led to a split in the opposition Serbia Against Violence alliance. One side formed a new group, I Choose to Fight, which will run in all local elections. The other side opted for a boycott.

President Aleksandar Vucic (pictured in the center of this election campaign poster) will hold a large SNS rally in the Serbian city of Nis on the final day of the local election campaignImage: Ivan Djerkovic/DW

"It seems that while the united opposition was pushing for changes in electoral conditions, the pressure on the government was greater, and there were indications that progress could be made," said Lazovic, who is part of the I Choose to Fight group. "But after part of the opposition decided to boycott the elections, this pressure decreased, and the government now feels less compelled to make further concessions."

"For us, participating in the elections is a surrender, playing the game on their terms, and that's the main disagreement," said Marinika Tepic, vice president of the Party of Freedom and Justice, which opted for a boycott.

While this boycott primarily relates to the re-run of last December's local election in Belgrade, all local branches of these parties are allowed to decide for themselves whether to participate in the elections.

Opposition confident in Novi Sad

The broadest opposition coalition was formed in Novi Sad, uniting 12 parties and movements. They believe that despite all the irregularities, they can defeat the ruling SNS.

"I think it's naive for our colleagues in Novi Sad to believe they can win under these conditions," said Tepic. "They won't win; they will face a reprise of December 17, or an even worse result."

Miran Pogacar of the United for a Free Novi Sad alliance disagrees: "We expect Novi Sad to be the first truly free city in Serbia. But a victory in Novi Sad is a victory for all of Serbia, and we hope the same will happen in other cities, like Nis, where there is a real possibility for change, to initiate changes across the country."

Igor Novakovic of the Socialist Party of Serbia, which is in coalition with the SNS, is confident that the ruling parties will emerge strongest from the upcoming election in NisImage: Jelena Djukic Pejic/DW

There is the possibility of change in smaller towns as well, but some feel that these elections will be a repeat of what happened in December. In the town of Bac near Novi Sad, for example, local leaders were filmed unloading aid packages, which the opposition assumes contains basic foodstuffs and claims will be distributed in Bac before the elections in an attempt to buy votes for the ruling SNS.

Voter turnout will be key

A quiet campaign and heated debate over the boycott have overshadowed discussions about party policies and programs. Political scientist Dusko Spasojevic believes this could mean that some voters will stay at home on Sunday. "I think this debate has really confused the Serbia Against Violence voters, and it remains to be seen how they will react," he said.

Adding to the confusion, he said, is the makeup of some of the coalitions and uncertainty among voters about where the opposition is boycotting the elections and where it isn't.

To make matters worse, citizen group lists have appeared with names similar to opposition lists in numerous municipalities. "The aim of these phantom lists is to further confuse voters, and I believe that in all this confusion, some votes will be cast in error," said Spasojevic.

While the opposition is pinning its hopes on high voter turnout, the ruling SNS is leaving nothing to chance: President Aleksandar Vucic will hold a large SNS rally in Nis on the final day of the campaign.

Is this an indication that the SNS is rattled and fears losing? Igor Novakovic of the Socialist Party of Serbia, which is in coalition with the SNS, is confident that there will be no surprises. And if there are, he claims it will only be the citizens of Nis who will suffer.

"The opposition's proposals depend on the government of the Republic of Serbia, because the city doesn't have the money to finance them. And what will happen if the opposition wins in Nis while the Serbian government remains in power for the next four years? How will Nis develop without alignment between the city and the national government? I'm not threatening or trying to scare anyone, but that's the electoral and political system," he said.

Edited by: Aingeal Flanagan

 

May 29, 2024

Aleksandar Raković: Serbia and the Republic of Srpska: Is a Common Future Possible.?

valdaiclub.com

Serbia and the Republic of Srpska: Is a Common Future Possible.?

Aleksandar Raković

8–11 minutes


If Serbia had joined the anti-Russian sanctions, it would have lost Russia as an ally in international forums. Apart from Russia, no one else would have so strongly represented the just views of the Serbian people regarding the Western occupation of Kosovo and Metohija and Bosnia and Herzegovina as an imprisoned Western protectorate or even a colony. Russia has influence on the countries of the free world, which do not accept Euro-Atlantic hegemony.

After the start of Russia's special military operation in Ukraine, Western pressure on the Republic of Serbia, the Republic of Srpska and all Serbian people on the territory of the former Yugoslavia increased. The fact that the Republic of Serbia has not imposed sanctions against the Russian Federation has contributed especially to renewed Western political violence against Serbia. Serbs have been put at risk because the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Srpska have refused to align themselves with the Western policy against Russia.

At this moment, the political West worked in a coordinated manner on two tracks: to accept so-called independent Kosovo into the Council of Europe and to adopt a resolution in the General Assembly of the United Nations on the so-called Srebrenica genocide, in order to place collective guilt on the Orthodox Christian Serbs. If the Serbian people were to be stigmatized as genocidal, it would open the door to the process of abolishing the Republic of Srpska, as well as further hijacking the southern Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija from the Republic of Serbia.

In both cases, Berlin, Brussels, London and Washington play the alleged card of support for the Muslim population in Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina, but only in order to throw dust in the eyes of Muslims around the world. Namely, at the same time, the politicians of the West provide support to Israel in its war against the Muslim population in Gaza. Therefore, the West wants to divide Orthodox Christians and Muslims, to impose collective guilt on the Serbian people, and to establish Western dominance over others by sowing the seed of discord within the United Nations. 

The West needs more occupied territories, more protectorates, more colonies. While Kosovo and Metohija is occupied by NATO, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a Western protectorate which looks more and more like a modern colony. Westerners gave the so-called High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina the right to replace and punish political figures, as well as to impose laws and decisions that would harm the local population. Serbs and Croats are openly arguing for the abolition of this Western stick of power. At the same time Russia and China don't recognise the so-called High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The majority of Bosniak Muslims have assented to being a Western tool. Bosniak leaders believe that it allows them to preserve the favour of the Euro-Atlantic imperialists amid a time of increased Western Islamophobia. Also, Bosniak politicians, as subjects of the West, see a chance to establish Bosniak hegemony over the Serbs and Croats in the imposed protectorate of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Asia and Eurasia

Russians no longer have any illusion that a unified Europe can be created from Iceland to Kamchatka. That certainly wonʼt happen. The post-Christian West sees neither cooperation nor brotherhood with Orthodox Christians or Muslims.  

Opinions

However, when it is not possible to remove Western chains in Bosnia and Herzegovina, because Sarajevo will not do it, then Serbs should focus on ways to free the Republic of Srpska from an unnecessary burden. The Serbian people, as a mature and state-building nation, should make the decision regarding the future of the Republic of Srpska. Therefore, the Republic of Srpska, in exercising its right to self-determination, would find a way to freedom, a way that would permanently remove the chains. It would be helpful for all three ethnicities within Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Croats see that, but the Bosniaks don't.

The regular state for the Serbian people is the one that was established in 1918, when and where the Serbs unified into one country. However, time and events have shown that the Serbian unification within a Yugoslav framework was not good. Thus, any Serbian reunification must be only within a pan-Serbian framework.

The destruction of the Yugoslav state – the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1991/1992) and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (2006) – imposed boundaries within the united and indivisible Serbian nation. The Serbian people must not accept such borders. Therefore, Serbs should interpret the current situation as an irregular state and consider solutions that would lead to re-establishment of a regular state.

The national interest of the Serbian people should be the unification of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Srpska into a single state. That state could be called the Federal Republic of Serbia; it would consist of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Srpska. Montenegro would also logically have a place within the reunified Serbian state – in accordance with the vision of Montenegrin Metropolitan Petar II Petrović Njegoš – published in his pan-Serbian ethnic Bible – "of Serbia the whole, from the Danube River to the deep blue sea"  . Therefore, there is a solution for each Serbian state to preserve its institutions within the common all-Serbian state. 

This common future for Serbia, the Republic of Srpska as well as Montenegro is possible. It would arrive and would be based on a new and righteous world order. The contours of that world order we already see. It depends on the success of Russia's special military operation in Ukraine. 

It is important to mention that the Serbian people link a righteous solution to the reintegration of Odessa into the Russian Federation and the establishment of a Russian border on the Danube. In that case, Russia and Serbia would be connected by the Danube as an international waterway.

Finally, the question arises whether the latest Western attacks on the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Srpska in the Council of Europe and the United Nations would have happened if Serbia had imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation and joined the orchestrated anti-Russian hysteria. Of course, the same attacks would happen, because the West has to justify its aggression and destruction of Yugoslavia. Also, the German political elite wants to impose a genocidal stigma on someone else at any cost, in order to amnesty Germany for the genocide it committed in the Second World War. Germany decided that the stigma of collective guilt should be placed on the Serbian people.

If Serbia had joined the anti-Russian sanctions, it would have lost Russia as an ally in international forums. Apart from Russia, no one else would have so strongly represented the just views of the Serbian people regarding the Western occupation of Kosovo and Metohija and Bosnia and Herzegovina as an imprisoned Western protectorate or even a colony. Russia has influence on the countries of the free world, which do not accept Euro-Atlantic hegemony.

Norms and Values

Aleksandar Raković

Almost the entire Serbian population, throughout the former Yugoslavia, has taken a pro-Russian position. In the internal political struggle of Serbia and the Republic of Srpska, there is no Russophobic sentiment at all, even within the ranks of pro-Western parties, writes Aleksandar Raković.

Opinions

Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

 

May 24, 2024

For them, he is "awesome machine", for us, the greatest son of Serbia; Incredible success of Vučić in New York

b92.net

For them, he is "awesome machine", for us, the greatest son of Serbia; Incredible success of Vučić in New York

Novosti

10–13 minutes


Even Zlatko Lagumdžija acknowledged Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić for his energy and strength in the fight against the Resolution on Srebrenica.

The Permanent Representative of Sarajevo to the UN admitted to FTV that he had never in his life faced an opponent or, as he stated more precisely, an "awesome machine", which invested so much energy and strength to reduce the influence of the main sponsors, co-sponsors and other Euro-Atlantic allies.

Also, some stated that Aleksandar Vučić is an "awesome machine", but, as it was published on social networks, for the Serbian people he is "one of its greatest sons. With his feat in New York, Vučić wrote the proudest pages of our history".

In addition, Lagumdžija also referred to the move of President Vučić, who draped himself in the Serbian tricolor in the middle of the UN General Assembly, and as he said, this had never been seen before.

President Vučić sacrificed himself for his people and country. We are not interested in how the "awesome machine" Vučić will end up in the history of those he defeated, because what is important is that he will end up in Serbian history as one of its greatest sons, according to Novosti.

 

May 19, 2024

Kushner project on site of NATO bombings in Serbia draws protest

inman.com

Kushner project on site of NATO bombings in Serbia draws protest

by Ben Verde May 17, 2024 SHARE

3–4 minutes


At Inman Connect Las Vegas, July 30-Aug. 1 2024, the noise and misinformation will be banished, all your big questions will be answered, and new business opportunities will be revealed. Join us.

A planned real estate development in Serbia by Jared Kushner's company has drawn opposition from local groups, according to news reports.

The Serbian government signed a deal with a Kushner-affiliated development company earlier this week that will allow them to redevelop the former headquarters of the Serbian army in Belgrade, which was destroyed by a United States-led NATO bombing campaign in 1999, the Associated Press reported. The planned development will feature a high-rise hotel, a luxury apartment complex, office spaces and shops.

"The economic progress in Serbia over the past decade has been impressive," the son-in-law of former President Donald Trump said in a statement. "This development will further elevate Belgrade into the premier international destination it is becoming."

While the government has cheered on the deal, opposition groups have spoken out against it, as have members of the general public. Many see the bombed-out former army headquarters as a symbol of Serbian resistance to "NATO aggression," according to the Associated Press. 

Among the opposition groups is Ecological Uprising, the leader of which, Aleksandar Jovanović, said  "will use all means, including physical" to prevent the demolition of the former army headquarters and the handover of the site to an American company.

"The moment the first bulldozers appear, we will be waiting for them," Jovanović said at a press conference, according to the AP.

Jovanović called on members of the Serbian public to join him in the blockade, especially members of the Serbian Armed Forces, and "all those who have the courage to defend the old General Staff and not allow this crime to happen."

Government officials have defended the deal and framed it as part of the reinvigoration of Belgrade.

"We will restore the building 25 years after it was destroyed in the bombing," construction minister Goran Vesić said, according to the AP. "For a quarter of a century, no one, before this Government, had thought to rebuild the complex. When this space is revitalized, it will contribute to the development of Belgrade and Serbia."

A memorial to the NATO bombings will be built at the site, financed by the developer, according to the report.

The Serbian project is one of multiple foreign real estate deals Kushner has pursued in recent months, which have raised eyebrows due to his father-in-law's presidential candidacy and Kushner's former role in the Trump White House. In addition to the Serbian project, he is also seeking to develop several hotels and hundreds of villas on the Zvërnec peninsula in Albania.

Email Ben Verde

 

May 13, 2024

The Spectator’s : Why Serbia is becoming China’s best friend in Europe

thespectator.com

Why Serbia is becoming China's best friend in Europe

Tatyana Kekic

4–5 minutes


In a statement published Tuesday in Serbia's leading daily newspaper Politika, Xi said that China's friendship with Serbia "is soaked in the shared blood of the two nations." There were rumblings that he would take the opportunity to visit the former embassy, now a China Cultural Center, to pay his respects to the dead and make a political point — that NATO is not a purely defensive alliance, and that China is far stronger now than it was then.

Since Xi's previous visit to Serbia in 2016, relations between the two countries have intensified, with China emerging as Serbia's primary economic partner. China is the single largest investor in Serbia, and its second largest trade partner after the European Union. Last October, the two countries signed a free trade agreement, making Serbia China's first free-trade partner in central and eastern Europe.

Chinese investment in Serbia, which accounts for around a third of the country's total foreign direct investment, is concentrated in mining and manufacturing. Zijin Mining and Serbia Zijin Copper are now the second and third most profitable companies in Serbia. Chinese companies have also been involved in major infrastructure projects in Serbia, such as the Belgrade to Novi Sad high-speed railway and the Miloš the Great highway.

It is obvious why China is an important partner for Serbia — it has invested billions in the country and has been a bulwark against the international recognition of Kosovo at the United Nations. It might be less clear, however, why Serbia is important for China. China's trade with Serbia is less than one-fortieth of its trade with Germany — and yet it has chosen to visit Belgrade not Berlin.

For China, Serbia is a rare friend in Europe, and one which shares its worldview. Both countries sacralize state sovereignty and territorial integrity in international law. While China has always opposed Kosovo's independence, Vučić has been clear on his position on Taiwan. "Taiwan is China. And it's up to you, what, when, how you're going to do it," he said in a recent interview. 

China also sees Serbia as a gateway to Europe. As an EU candidate state, Serbia could become a conduit through which China could enter the European market. And by occupying a strategic position in the western Balkans, Serbia plays an important role in China's Belt and Road Initiative, connecting the Greek port of Piraeus, run by China's Cosco Shipping, to Hungary in the north.

Serbia's courting of China does raise questions about Belgrade's commitment to EU accession. But after waiting to join the EU for more than two decades, Serbia has little to lose here. The sluggish accession talks and constant moving targets mean Serbia has been forced to look elsewhere to develop its economy and increase growth.

As the governor of the National Bank of Serbia recently remarked, "this waiting room is turning into captivity." Instead of waiting around doing nothing, Serbia has "dared to have its own path and to be different." Since 2009, Serbia has pursued a foreign policy which balances its relations between the US, EU, Russia and China.

Much like the former Yugoslavia, Serbia insists on its right to pursue an independent foreign policy. Serbia has refused to distance itself from Russia since its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and has continued to seek economic opportunities and diplomatic support from China.

So far this strategy has not served Serbia badly.

Serbia's growth rate is among the highest in Europe (its estimated GDP was 4.6 percent for the first quarter of 2024), and its public debt to GDP ratio is among the lowest (and projected to decline to around 50 percent in 2024). Despite warnings from the EU that Chinese investment would create a debt trap, Serbia's total external debt was only around 65 percent of GDP at the end of 2023.

It is uncertain how long Serbia will be able to keep up its balancing act. The country faces pressure from the EU to impose sanctions on Russia and distance itself from China. Perhaps if the prospect of EU membership were more credible, the country would rethink its international leanings. For now, Serbia's alliance with China is serving it well.

This article was originally published on The Spectator's UK website.

 

May 09, 2024

Why Belgrade is cosying up to Beijing

spectator.co.uk

Why Belgrade is cosying up to Beijing

Tatyana Kekic

5–6 minutes


Thousands of Serbs gathered outside the Palace of Serbia today to welcome the Chinese president Xi Jinping, chanting 'China, Serbia'. Addressing the audience, Serbia's President Aleksandar Vučić thanked Xi for choosing to visit Serbia: 'We are writing history today…[Xi] hasn't come to Europe in five years and he has again chosen our little Serbia.'

The visit has been choreographed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of Nato's bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999. The strike killed three Chinese journalists and sparked mass protests across China. It is an incident China will never forget and has been a constant thorn in Sino-American relations. 

In a statement published yesterday in Serbia's leading daily newspaper Politika, Xi said that China's friendship with Serbia 'is soaked in the shared blood of the two nations'. It is likely that he will take the opportunity to visit the former embassy, now a China Cultural Centre, to pay his respects to the dead and make a political point – that Nato is not a purely defensive alliance, and that China is far stronger now than it was then.

Since Xi's previous visit to Serbia in 2016, relations between the two countries have intensified, with China emerging as Serbia's primary economic partner. China is the single largest investor in Serbia, and its second largest trade partner after the EU. Last October, the two countries signed a free trade agreement, making Serbia China's first free trade partner in central and eastern Europe.

Chinese investment in Serbia, which accounts for around a third of the country's total foreign direct investment, is concentrated in mining and manufacturing. Zijin Mining and Serbia Zijin Copper are now the second and third most profitable companies in Serbia. Chinese companies have also been involved in major infrastructure projects in Serbia, such as the Belgrade to Novi Sad high-speed railway and the Miloš the Great highway.

It is obvious why China is an important partner for Serbia – it has invested billions in the country and has been a bulwark against the international recognition of Kosovo at the UN. It might be less clear, however, why Serbia is important for China. China's trade with Serbia is less than one-fortieth of its trade with Germany, and yet it has chosen to visit Belgrade not Berlin.

For China, Serbia is a rare friend in Europe, and one which shares its worldview. Both countries sacralise state sovereignty and territorial integrity in international law. While China has always opposed Kosovo's independence, Vučić has been clear on his position on Taiwan. 'Taiwan is China. And it's up to you, what, when, how you're going to do it', he said in a recent interview. 

China also sees Serbia as a gateway to Europe. As an EU candidate state, Serbia could become a conduit through which China could enter the European market. And by occupying a strategic position in the western Balkans, Serbia plays an important role in China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), connecting the Greek port of Piraeus, run by China's Cosco Shipping, to Hungary in the north.

Serbia's courting of China does raise questions about Belgrade's commitment to EU accession. But after waiting to join the EU for more than two decades, Serbia has little to lose here. The sluggish accession talks and constant moving targets mean Serbia has been forced to look elsewhere to develop its economy and increase growth.

As the governor of the National Bank of Serbia recently remarked, 'this waiting room is turning into captivity.' Instead of waiting around doing nothing, Serbia has 'dared to have its own path and to be different.' Since 2009, Serbia has pursued a foreign policy which balances its relations between the US, EU, Russia and China.

Much like the former Yugoslavia, Serbia insists on its right to pursue an independent foreign policy. Serbia has refused to distance itself from Russia since its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and has continued to seek economic opportunities and diplomatic support from China.

So far this strategy has not served Serbia badly.

Serbia's growth rate is amongst the highest in Europe (its estimated GDP was 4.6 per cent for the first quarter of 2024), and its public debt to GDP ratio is amongst the lowest (and projected to decline to around 50 per cent in 2024). Despite warnings from the EU that Chinese investment would create a debt trap, Serbia's total external debt was only around 65 per cent of GDP at the end of 2023.

It is uncertain how long Serbia will be able to keep up its balancing act. The country faces pressure from the EU to impose sanctions on Russia and distance itself from China. Perhaps if the prospect of EU membership were more credible, the country would rethink its international leanings. For now, Serbia's alliance with China is serving it well.

 

May 03, 2024

‘Disgrace to diplomacy’: Bosnia accuses Israeli diplomat of genocide denial

timesofisrael.com

'Disgrace to diplomacy': Bosnia accuses Israeli diplomat of genocide denial

By Elana Kirsh and ToI Staff

8–10 minutes


An Israeli diplomat in the Balkans has set off a firestorm of criticism this week, after telling Russian state media that he did not believe that an infamous 1995 massacre of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys constituted a genocide.

Speaking with the Kremlin-controlled Sputnik news agency, Yahel Vilan, Israel's ambassador to Serbia, stated that calling the mass execution committed by Bosnian Serb troops in the town of Srebrenica a genocide "diminishes the importance of that term, which, in my opinion, should only be used for genocides."

"And Israel was invited to The Hague because of the alleged genocide in Gaza. For me, Srebrenica should not be called genocide," Vilan said, referencing the recent South African motion accusing Israel of genocide before the International Court of Justice.

International courts in The Hague have branded the crime in Srebrenica a genocide, Europe's first since World War II. Bosnian Serb top army officers and political leaders also have been convicted of genocide by United Nations judges.

Yahel Vilan (Courtesy)

Vilan's comments came as Bosniak Muslim politicians push for the passage of a draft UN resolution commemorating the genocide. While the measure is supported by a number of European countries and the United States, the diplomat said that he was unsure how Israel would vote on the matter.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories

By signing up, you agree to the terms

In response, Bosnian Foreign Minister Elmedin Konaković decried Vilan's "shameful statement," arguing that such claims are "not only deeply wrong, but also insulting to the victims and survivors of the genocide in Srebrenica, as well as to all those who hold to truth and justice in the international community."

Reakcija MVP BiH @DinoKonakovic na sramne stavove ambasadora Izraela u Srbiji @AmbassadorVilan:

"U svojstvu ministra vanjskih poslova Bosne i Hercegovine, osjećam dužnost da se oštro suprotstavim sramnoj izjavi ambasadora Izraela u Srbiji @AmbassadorVilan , koji je izjavio da…

— Ministry of Foreign Affairs of BiH (@mfa_bih) April 27, 2024

"To remind Ambassador Vilan, the comparison of the Holocaust and the genocide in Srebrenica is not a matter of competition in suffering, but recognition that every victim of crimes against humanity deserves equal honor and justice. Downplaying the crimes in Srebrenica under the guise of 'importance of terminology' is not only intellectually dishonest, but also morally questionable."

Vilan, he continued, is "a disgrace to diplomacy and a human disgrace."

Srebrenica Genocide Memorial director Emir Suljagic — a massacre survivor who has been subjected to a campaign of antisemitic rhetoric for refusing to condemn Israel following October 7 — also condemned Vilan's statement, declaring that the latter "does not speak for the [Jewish] people, and especially not for the victims of the Holocaust."

While "until this moment, Israel fulfilled its international obligations by extraditing those accused of genocide at the request of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina," its ambassador's statement "crosses a red line," he continued, adding that "there is no Holocaust memorial today that questions the genocide in Srebrenica."

Suljagic was joined in his opprobrium by senior leaders of Bosnia's Jewish community.

Speaking by phone from Sarajevo, Jakob Finci, president of the Bosnian Jewish community, argued that Vilan had made things harder for his constituents.

Jakob Finci, head of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Jewish community, in his Sarajevo office. (Anne Joseph/Times of Israel)

Many Bosniaks are already against Israel because of the war in Gaza and denying that Srebrenica is a massacre only exacerbates such tensions, he said, speculating that the ambassador's comments were linked to the conflict.

"They are a bit afraid of the final results of Gaza, that some countries will start a case like South Africa [arguing] that this was genocide in Gaza. So it's better to keep to the other side, to deny any kind of crime [can] be called genocide," he said.

Such an approach could rebound on Israel, added Vladimir Andrle, the president of the Jewish community's La Benevolencija philanthropic organization.

"By denying genocide in Srebrenica we are opening the door for Holocaust deniers to use the same logic and to deny verdicts which determine genocide against Jews and courts which brought those verdicts," he said in a WhatsApp message.

"I do hope that this position is the position of one ambassador [and] not the official stand of [the] State of Israel."

A Bosnian man waves a Palestinian flag during a protest against Israel and in support of Palestinians in Sarajevo, Bosnia, October 22, 2023. (AP Photo/Armin Durgut)

Bosnia and Herzegovina remains ethnically divided and politically tense long after the end of the 1992-1995 war. The troubled Balkan nation is seeking European Union membership, but internal divisions — which have been significantly heightened by arguments over the legacy of the conflict — have hampered the effort.

Bosnian Serb separatist leader Milorad Dodik has threatened that Bosnian Serbs, who control about half of Bosnia, would split from the rest of the country if the Srebrenica resolution is passed in the UN General Assembly.

In an effort to enlist Jerusalem's opposition to the measure, Zeljka Cvijanovié, the Serb member of the country's tripartite presidency, wrote directly to Israeli UN envoy Gilad Erdan last month.

In her letter, Cvijanovié argued that the resolution, advanced by Bosniak politicians, stood "in clear violation of Bosnia and Herzegovina's constitutional framework" and its adoption "would cause internal strife in Bosnia and Herzegovina, badly undermining the inter-ethnic reconciliation that is vital to its future."

Speaking on condition of anonymity, an Israeli official with knowledge of the matter told The Times of Israel that "high-level officials from both sides in Bosnia… look forward to seeing how Israel will vote."

"Our vote is very meaningful due to the context of the Holocaust," the official noted, adding that Israel's position on Srebrenica has always been "pretty vague."

"Only two years ago, Israel was the driving force in getting the UN General Assembly to condemn Holocaust denial. And in 2013, Israel did the legally and morally right thing when it extradited a Bosnian Serb accused of participating in the Srebrenica massacre to stand trial in Bosnia," argued Menachem Rosensaft, a Cornell law professor and genocide expert.

Menachem Rosensaft delivering the keynote address at the commemoration marking the 28th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide, July 2023. (Courtesy)

"It would be unconscionable if Israel were now to side with Republika Srpska, Serbia, and most probably Russia in opposing — or even abstaining on — the UNGA resolution," the former World Jewish Congress general counsel said.

"At a moment when Jews and Muslims around the world are drifting farther and farther away from each other, all too often set against one another by political and religious leaders intent on stoking the flames of hatred and paranoia, we must at the very least all come together in according the same respect and dignity to the Bosniak victims of the Srebrenica genocide as we accord to the Jewish victims of the Shoah."

Bosnian and Serb politicians have previously sought to mobilize Israeli politicians and scholars as part of the battle over the legacy of Srebrenica — with former Bosnian foreign minister Bisera Turkovic in 2021 explicitly calling on then-foreign minister Yair Lapid to intervene in a domestic battle over genocide denial legislation.

The following year, Lapid, then prime minister, ordered an Israeli diplomat reprimanded for involving himself in a contentious Bosnian domestic political debate over electoral reform.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

April 08, 2024

Serbia's Been Struggling to Buy Rafale Instead of MiG-29 for Two Years Now to No Progress

en.defence-ua.com

Serbia's Been Struggling to Buy Rafale Instead of MiG-29 for Two Years Now to No Progress | Defense Express

~3 minutes


Back in April 2022, Serbia first announced its intention to purchase Rafale fighter jets from France to replace the MiG-29 received from russia. Belgrade anticipated signing a deal on 12 new aircraft instead of 14 aging MiG-29s.

At that time, Serbia already had in its portfolio an example of successful defense cooperation with France stemming precisely from the intent to find an alternative to "friendship" with the russian federation. In October 2021, the Serbian Ministry of Defense agreed with Airbus on the supply of two C295 transport aircraft to replace the An-26, moreover, it happened right after the russians did not fulfill their promise to supply Serbia with additional transport aircraft.

Read more: russia Boosts Su-34 Fleet Despite Production Questions

Rafale multirole fighter of the French Air Force / Open-source illustrative photo

Once again, Serbia announced it wanted to buy the French Rafale fighters in February 2023. The statement was made by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić on the sidelines of the IDEX 2023 defense exhibition.

As reported, the Rafales from France would cost Serbia EUR 3 billion in total costs. That is while Belgrade was viewing an increase in the overall annual defense budget to 2.2 billion dollars as the maximum affordable measure to at least minimally cover the defense needs of the entire national military.

On the other hand, Serbia was facing a dilemma: since the beginning of russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, buying components for available MiG-29s became difficult. Therefore, the price factor no longer matters.

Serbian MiG-29 / Open-source illustrative photo

In late March 2024, Serbian president Vučić once again stated his country was still interested in seeing Rafale in its fleet, as he was inspecting one of the country's airfields. He also emphasized that if Rafale turned out not viable as an option, Belgrade would look into other opportunities.

However, from what Vučić said, the Rafale deal is currently hanging due to France's political stance, particularly because of the views on the status of Kosovo. In addition, Paris doesn't want to sell Meteor air-to-air missiles to Serbia, which is a non-NATO country.

French Rafale fighters / Open-source illustrative photo

Read more: Ukrainian Forces Strike russian Troops at Avdiivka Coke Plant Using AASM Hammer Guided Bombs



 

April 02, 2024

ZIVADIN JOVANOVIC: US-led NATO is military, nuclear fist of expansionist strategy

March 27th, 2024.

 

Zivadin Jovanovic, president of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

 

THE INTERVIEW FOR "THE GLOBAL TIMES", BEIJING

 

Q. Recently, Serbia marked the 25th anniversary of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. How does the NATO bombing still affect people in Serbia today?

 

R. Yes, indeed. Serbia mourned and paid respect to more than 4.000 people killed by NATO 25 years ago. We also remembered that NATO bombed Chinese embassy in Belgrade killing three Chinese journalists. NATO had used missiles with depleted uranium, cluster bombs and other forbidden means and methods provoking maligned deceases and deaths of people even today. Material damage inflicted by the aggressor amounts to over 100 billion of US dollars.

The objective of USA led NATO was to take the Province of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia, transform it into carrier of USA troupes for expansion to the East, to topple the government of the President Slobodan Milosevic, make a precedent for the future military interventions violating of the UN Charter and the supremacy of the UN Security Council and International Law, in general, as well as to firmly discipline European allies behind the concept of uni-polar world order, behind USA geostrategic interests. In 1999 NATO went beyond its 1949 Founding Act, at the same time, abandoning defensive and adopting offensive aggressive character.

USA/NATO pursues these interests today. Military aggression has been replaced by other means. Right now they use pressure and blackmail Serbia to recognizes secession of its autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija, accepts its membership in the international organizations and so on.  Serbia, of course, will not submit. Economically, Serbia has not as yet fully recovered, ruins from the aggression could be seen even in the heart of Belgrade, but Serbia, nevertheless maintains constant rise of the GDP, even above the European average. Unfortunately, area of the Balkan is far from stable, Europe divided, dependant, militarized. 

 

Q.You attended an international conference in Belgrade in late March that marked the anniversary. The theme of the conference was "From the Aggression to a New Just Order." What are the obstacles to a new just world order?

 

A.Main obstacles to the new world order based on the principle of sovereign equality and non-interference in internal affairs is the policy of expansion and global domination of the minority of western countries led by USA. They seem not to understand the global changes and trends of multi-polarization and tend to believe that they can stop those historic trends, even, reverse them, by force, including nuclear. Such doctrines represent main source of serious threats to global peace and development. It is threat to humanity.

 

Q. Taking into consideration the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia 25 years and the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, what role does NATO play in facilitating US hegemony?

 

A. First, I think that the NATO aggression on Yugoslavia in 1999. was the beginning of the globalization of military interventionism of USA led NATO. Afterwards, we saw many interventions and aggressions based on the 1999 NATO precedent on Yugoslavia. German politician Willy Wimmer has said in 2022 that the "first bombes on Ukraine were thrown in 1999 during NATO attack on Yugoslavia".

USA led NATO, in my opinion, is military, nuclear fist of expansionist strategy, of the global domination within uni-polarity, protector of the the interest of neoliberal, multinational corporative system.

 

Q. The US has leveraged NATO to sustain dominance over Europe. Do you think Europe has the will and ability to reflect on its position? Is Europe feeling more secure or less secure?

 

In my opinion, European autonomy at present is at the lowest level in the whole period after the Second World War. Its dignity, identity and morality too. It is not because of the people, European nations or cultural heritage; it is, first of all, because of the quality of the present political elite which has lost the sense of traditional civilization values, which seems to have abandoned morality, solidarity, justice, legality and which has practically reduced everything and everybody to the profit, profit by all means. I don't know, really, what term would suit the best to express such a characteristics, but perhaps, it is not far from – corruption, one way or the other. Global changes under way, however, could hardly levee Europe untouched. Some changes toward autonomy, dignity, sovereignty, are taking place, particularly in some European countries, like Hungary, Slovakia and others. We shall see what the June EU elections will show. I hope for the beginning of changes to the better. One elections may not be sufficient, but the trends matter.

 

Q.China was also a victim of NATO bombing 25 years ago. In the past two years, NATO has declared China a security challenge. NATO chief also linked what's happening in Ukraine to the Taiwan question. What is NATO's purpose toward China?

 

A.It is true. China was also the victim of NATO military aggression in 1999. I would say, not the victim only, but the target. While the aggression was in full swing destroying mainly civilian infrastructure, passenger's trains in Grdelica, apartment's buildings in Aleksinac, green market in the City of Nis, on May 7th, 1999 USA bombers hit Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing three Chinese journalists and wounding many more staff members.  A dozen of minutes after, I was at the scene seeing public services taking out survivors from debris. Bombs were still hitting nearby Hotel "Jugoslavia" and surrounding park, when Chinese Ambassador Pan Jangling was freed out of ruins and I could express to him personal and my Government solidarity and condolences.

Should anybody wonder why Serbia and China are "steel friends", comprehensive strategic partners ever since?

 

Who, what and why represents the challenge depends on who is assessing it and from positions of which values. Learning from recent history, I suppose, every country insisting on sovereign equality, inclusive World Order, mutual respect – represents a challenge for western power centers. Countries demanding equal security, sovereignty over natural resources, such as oil and gas reserves, uranium and other strategic minerals deposits, huge markets, geostrategic connectivity lines - have always been  challenge for NATO and western power centers.

 

What we have been witnessing over the past decades, is that US/NATO has for years now been expanding and reinforcing presence through its branches in Far East and Indo-Pacific like Quad and some newly born alliances, in attempt. Seen from Europe, US/NATO expansionist strategy is directed to the East, to Russia, Caspian Sea and Middle East. Seen from Far East and Indo-Pacific the same strategy is directed to the West. Asia and Siberia seem to be real objective, from both geographic positions. USA/NATO exploits similar, or the same means and methods: spreading fear, insecurity and disorientation, demonstrating power through series of massive "defenders" exercises, offering protection of scarred ones, use of separatism, terrorism and human rights and soon.  We know of their theses that China represents "systemic" challenge and Russia malign influence. This only means that they have no solutions for their own problems or courage to face new reality. So far, they opt to continue living in the past as privileged ones instead to adapt accepting new reality called – equality and live in togetherness.

 

Interviewer: Ms. Wang Wenwen

 

 

March 08, 2024

How Madeleine Albright Got the War the U.S. Wanted

counterpunch.org

How Madeleine Albright Got the War the U.S. Wanted

Gregory Elich

23–30 minutes


Twenty-five years have passed since the U.S.-orchestrated NATO attack on Yugoslavia. As the United States readied its forces for war in 1999, it organized a peace conference that was ostensibly intended to resolve differences between the Yugoslav government and secessionist ethnic Albanians in Kosovo on the future status of the province. A different scenario was being played out behind the scenes, however. U.S. officials wanted war and deliberately set up the process to fail, which they planned to use as a pretext for war.

The talks opened on February 6, 1999, in Rambouillet, France. Officially, the negotiations were led by a Contact Group comprised of U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia Christopher Hill, European Union envoy Wolfgang Petritsch, and Russian diplomat Boris Mayorsky. All decisions were supposed to be jointly agreed upon by all three members of the Contact Group. In actual practice, the U.S. ran the show all the way and routinely bypassed Petritsch and Mayorsky on essential matters.

Ibrahim Rugova, an ethnic Albanian activist who advocated nonviolence, was expected to play a major role in the Albanian secessionist delegation. Joining him at Rambouillet was Fehmi Agani, a fellow member of Rugova's Democratic League of Kosovo.

U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright regularly sidelined Rugova, however, preferring to rely on delegation members from the hardline Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which had routinely murdered Serbs, Roma, and Albanians in Kosovo who worked for the government or opposed separatism. Only a few months before the conference, KLA spokesman Bardhyl Mahmuti spelled out his organization's vision of a future Kosovo as separate and ethnically pure: "The independence of Kosovo is the only solution…We cannot live together. That is excluded." [1]

Rugova had at one time engaged in fairly productive talks with Yugoslav officials, and his willingness to negotiate was no doubt precisely why Albright relegated him to a background role. Yugoslav Minister of Information Milan Komnenić accompanied the Yugoslav delegation to Rambouillet. He recalls, "With Rugova and Fehmi Agani, it was possible to talk; they were flexible. In Rambouillet, [KLA leader Hashim] Thaçi appears instead of Rugova. A beast." [2] There was no love between Thaçi and Rugova, whose party members were the targets of threats and assassination attempts at the hands of the KLA. Rugova himself would survive an assassination attempt six years later.

The composition of the Yugoslav delegation reflected its position that many ethnic groups resided in Kosovo, and any agreement should take into account the interests of all parties. All of Kosovo's major ethnic groups were represented in the delegation. Faik Jashari, one of the ethnic Albanian members of the Yugoslav delegation, was president of the Kosovo Democratic Initiative and an official in the Provisional Executive Council, Yugoslavia's government in Kosovo. Jashari observed that Albright was startled when she saw the composition of the Yugoslav delegation, apparently because it went against the U.S. propaganda narrative. [3] Throughout the talks, Albright displayed a dismissive attitude towards the delegation's Albanian, Roma, Egyptian, Goran, Turkish, and Slavic Muslim members.

U.S. mediators habitually referred to the Yugoslav delegation as "the Serbs," even though they constituted a minority of the members. The Americans persisted in trying to cast events in Kosovo as a simplistic binary relationship of Serb versus Albanian, disregarding the presence of other ethnic groups in the province and ignoring the fact that while some ethnic Albanians favored separation, others wished to remain in multiethnic Yugoslavia.

After arriving at Rambouillet, the secessionist Albanian delegation informed U.S. diplomats that it did not want to meet with the Yugoslav side. Aside from a brief ceremonial meeting, the two groups had no direct contact. The Yugoslav and Albanian delegations were placed on different floors to eliminate nearly all contact. U.S. mediators Richard Holbrooke and Christopher Hill ran from one delegation to the other, conveying notes and verbal messages between the two sides but mostly trying to coerce the Yugoslav delegation. [4] Albright, Jashari said, would not listen to anyone. "She had her task, and she saw only that task. You couldn't say anything to her. She didn't want to talk with us and didn't want to listen to our arguments." [5]

Luan Koka, a Roma member of the Yugoslav delegation, noted that the U.S. was operating an electronic jamming device. "We knew exactly when Madeleine Albright was coming. Connections on our mobile phones were breaking up and going crazy." [6] It is probable that the U.S. was also operating electronic listening equipment and that U.S. mediators knew everything the delegations said in private.

One day, it was Koka's birthday, and the Yugoslav delegation wanted to encourage a more relaxed atmosphere with U.S. mediators, so they invited them to a cocktail party to mark the occasion. "It was a slightly more pleasant atmosphere, and I was singing," Koka recalled. "I remember Madeleine Albright saying: 'I really like partisan songs. But if you don't accept this, the bombs will fall'." [7] According to delegation member Nikola Šainović, "Madeleine Albright told us all the time: 'If the Yugoslav delegation does not accept what we offer, you will be bombed.'" Šainović added, "We agreed in Rambouillet to any form of autonomy for Kosovo," but secession remained the red line. [8]

From the beginning of the conference, U.S. mediator Christopher Hill "decided that what we really needed was an Albanian approval of a document, and a Serb refusal. If both refused, there could be no further action by NATO or any other organization for that matter." [9] It was not peace that the U.S. team was seeking, but war.

As the conference progressed, U.S. negotiators faced an alarming problem: the Yugoslav delegation had accepted all of the Contact Group's fundamental political principles for an agreement, balking only at a NATO presence in Kosovo. On the other hand, the secessionist delegation rejected the Contact Group's political principles. Something had to be done to reverse this pattern.

On the second day of the conference, U.S. officials presented the Yugoslav delegation with the framework text of a provisional agreement for peace and self-rule in Kosovo, but it was missing some of its annexes. The Yugoslavs requested a copy of the complete document. As delegation head Ratko Marković pointed out, "Any objections to the text of the agreement could be made only after an insight into the text as a whole had been obtained."

Nearly one week passed before the group received only one of the missing annexes. That came on the day the conference had initially been set to end. The deadline was extended, and two days later, a second missing annex was provided to the Yugoslav delegation. [10]

When the Yugoslavs next met with the Contact Group, they were assured that all elements of the text had now been given to them. Several more days passed, and at 7:00 PM on February 22, the penultimate day of the conference, the Contact Group presented three new annexes, which the Yugoslavs had never seen before. According to Marković, "Russian Ambassador Boris Mayorsky informed our delegation that Annexes 2 and 7 had not been discussed or approved by the Contact Group and that they were not the texts drafted by the Contact Group but by certain Contact Group members, while Annex 5 was discussed, but no decision was made on it at the Contact Group meeting." The Yugoslav delegation refused to accept the new annexes, as their introduction had violated the process whereby all proposals had to be agreed upon by the three Contact Group members. [11]

At 9:30 AM on February 23, the conference's final day, U.S. officials presented the full text of the proposal, containing yet more provisions being communicated for the first time. The accompanying note identified the package as the definitive text while adding that Russia did not support two of the articles. The letter demanded the Yugoslav delegation's decision by 1:00 PM. [12] There was barely enough time to carefully read the text, let alone negotiate. In essence, it was an ultimatum.

Quite intentionally, U.S. mediators included provisions in the final version of the text that no sovereign nation could be expected to accept. Neoliberal economic interests are always front and center when U.S. officials are involved, and they surely were not unaware of Kosovo's abundant reserves of mineral resources, ripe for exploitation. The first point in Article 1 of the Economic Issues section of the text states: "The economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles." Western investors were favored with a provision stating that authorities shall "ensure the free movement of persons, goods, services, and capital to Kosovo, including from international sources." [13] One may wonder what these stipulations had to do with peace negotiations, but then the talks had far more to do with U.S. interests than anything to do with the needs of the people in the region.

The document called for a Western-led Joint Commission, including local representatives, to monitor and coordinate the implementation of the plan. However, if commission members failed to reach a consensus on a matter, the Western-appointed Chair would have the power to impose his decision unilaterally. [14] Local representatives would serve as little more than window-dressing for Western dictate, as they could adopt no measure that went against the Chair's wishes.

The Chair of the Implementation Mission was authorized to "recommend" the "removal and appointment of officials and the curtailment of operations of existing institutions in Kosovo." If the Chair's command was not obeyed "in the time requested, the Joint Commission may decide to take the recommended action," and since the Chair had the authority to impose his will on the Joint Commission, there was no check on his power. He could remove elected and appointed officials at will and replace them with handpicked lackeys. The Chair was also authorized to order the "curtailment of operations of existing institutions." [15] Any organization that failed to bend to U.S. demands could be shut down.

Chapter 7 of the plan called for the parties to "invite NATO to constitute and lead a military force" in Kosovo. [16] The choice of words was interesting. In language reminiscent of gangsters, Yugoslavia was told to "invite" NATO to take over the province of Kosovo or suffer the consequences.

Yugoslavia was required "to provide, at no cost, the use of all facilities and services required" by NATO. [17] Within six months, Yugoslavia would have to withdraw all of its military forces from Kosovo, other than a small number of border guards. [18]

The plan granted NATO "unrestricted use of the entire electromagnetic spectrum" to "communicate." Although the document indicated NATO would make "reasonable efforts to coordinate," there were no constraints on its power. [19] Yugoslav officials, "upon simple request," would be required to grant NATO "all telecommunication services, including broadcast services…free of cost." [20] NATO could take over any radio and television facilities and transmission wavelengths it chose, knocking local stations off the air.

The plan did not restrict NATO's presence to Kosovo. It granted NATO, with its "vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia]." [21] NATO would be "granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tools, or charges." [22]

The agreement guaranteed that NATO would have "complete and unimpeded freedom of movement by ground, air, and water into and throughout Kosovo." Furthermore, NATO personnel could not be held "liable for any damages to public or private property." [23] NATO as a whole would also be "immune from all legal process, whether civil, administrative, or criminal," regardless of its actions anywhere on the territory of Yugoslavia. [24] Nor could NATO personnel be arrested, detained, or investigated. [25] Acceptance of the plan would have brought NATO troops swarming throughout Yugoslavia and interfering in every institution.

There were several other objectionable elements in the plan, but one that stood out was the call for an "international" (meaning Western-led) meeting to be held after three years "to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo." [26] It was no mystery to the Yugoslav delegation what conclusion Western officials would arrive at in such a meeting. The intent was clearly to redraw Yugoslavia's borders to further break apart the nation.

U.S. officials knew the Yugoslav delegation could not possibly accept such a plan. "We deliberately set the bar higher than the Serbs could accept," Madeleine Albright confided to a group of journalists, "because they needed a little bombing." [27]

At a meeting in Belgrade on March 5, the Yugoslav delegation issued a statement that declared: "A great deceit was looming, orchestrated by the United States. They demanded that the agreement be signed, even though much of this agreement, that is, over 56 pages, had never been discussed, either within the Contact Group or during the negotiations." [28]

Serbian President Milan Milutinović announced at a press conference that in Rambouillet, the Yugoslav delegation had "proposed solutions meeting the demands of the Contact Group for broad autonomy within Serbia, advocating full equality of all national communities." But "agreement was not what they were after." Instead, Western officials engaged in "open aggression," and this was a game "about troops and troops alone." [29]

While U.S. officials were working assiduously to avoid a peaceful resolution, they needed the Albanians to agree to the plan so that they could accuse the Yugoslav delegation of being the stumbling block to peace. U.S. mainstream media could be counted on to unquestioningly repeat the government's line and overlook the real architects of failure. U.S. officials knew the press would act in their customary role as cheerleaders for war, which indeed, they did.

British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook revealed the nature of the message Western officials were conveying to the Albanian delegation when he said, "We are certainly saying to the Kosovo Albanians that if you don't sign up to these texts, it's extremely difficult to see how NATO could then take action against Belgrade." [30] Western officials were practically begging the secessionists to sign the plan. According to inside sources, the Americans assured the ethnic Albanian delegation that disarmament of the KLA would be merely symbolic and that it could keep the bulk of its weaponry so long as it was concealed. [31]

Albright spent hours trying to convince Thaçi to change his mind, telling him: "If you say yes and the Serbs say no, NATO will strike and go on striking until the Serb forces are out and NATO can go in. You will have security. And you will be able to govern yourselves." [32] That was a clear enough signal that the intent was to rip the province away from Yugoslavia and create an artificial state. Despite such assurances, Thaçi feared the wrath of fellow KLA members if he were to sign a document that did not explicitly call for separation. When U.S. negotiators asked Thaçi why he would not sign, he responded: "If I agree to this, I will go home and they will kill me." [33] This was not hyperbole. The KLA had threatened and murdered a great many Albanians who, in its eyes, fell short of full-throated support for its policy of violent secession and ethnic exclusion.

Even NATO Commander Wesley Clark, who flew in from Belgium, could not change Thaçi's mind. [34] U.S. officials were exasperated with the Albanian delegation, and its recalcitrance threatened to capsize plans for war. "Rambouillet was supposed to be about putting the screws to Belgrade," a senior U.S. official said. "But it went off the rails because of the miscalculation we made about the Albanians." [35]

On the last day at Rambouillet, it was agreed that the ethnic Albanian delegation would return to Kosovo for discussions with fellow KLA leaders on the need to sign the document. In the days that followed, Western officials paid repeated visits to Kosovo to encourage the Albanians to sign.

So-called "negotiations" reconvened in Paris on March 15. Upon its arrival, the Yugoslav delegation objected that it was "incomprehensible" that "no direct talks between the two delegations had been facilitated." In response to the Yugoslavs' proposal for modifications to the plan, the Contact Group informed them that no changes would be accepted. The document must be accepted as a whole. [36]

The Yugoslav position, delegation head Ratko Marković maintained, was that "first one needs to determine what is to be implemented, and only then to determine the methods of implementation." [37] The delegation asked the Americans what there was to talk about regarding implementation "when there was no agreement because the Albanians did not accept anything." U.S. officials responded that the Yugoslav delegation "cannot negotiate," adding that it would only be allowed to make grammatical changes to the text. [38]

From the U.S. perspective, the presence of the Yugoslav delegation in Paris was irrelevant other than to maintain the pretense that negotiations were taking place. Not permitted to negotiate, there was little the Yugoslavs could do but await the inevitable result, which soon came. The moment U.S. officials obtained the ethnic Albanian delegation's signatures to the plan on March 18, they aborted the Paris Conference. There was no reason to continue engaging with the Yugoslav delegation, as the U.S. had what it needed: a pretext for war.

On the day after the U.S. pulled the plug on the Paris talks, Milan Milutinović held a press conference in the Yugoslav embassy, condemning the Paris meeting as "a kind of show" meant "to deceive public opinion in the whole world." [39]

While the United States and its NATO allies prepared for war, Yugoslavia made last-ditch efforts to stave off bombing, including reaching out to intermediaries. Greek Foreign Minister Theodoros Pangalos contacted Madeleine Albright and told her that Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević had offered to engage in further negotiations. But Albright told him that the decision to bomb had already been made. "In fact," Pangalos reported, "she told me to 'desist, you're just being a nuisance.'" [40] In a final act of desperation to save the people from bombing, Milutinović contacted Christopher Hill and made an extraordinary offer: Yugoslavia would join NATO if the United States would allow Yugoslavia to remain whole, including the province of Kosovo. Hill responded that this was not a topic for discussion and he would not talk about it. [41]

Madeleine Albright got her war, which brought death, destruction, and misery to Yugoslavia. But NATO had a new role, and the United States further extended its hegemony over the Balkans.

In the years following the demise of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, NATO was intent on redefining its mission. The absence of the socialist bloc presented NATO not only with the need to construct a new rationale for existence but also with the opportunity to expand Western domination over other nations.

Bosnia offered the first opportunity for NATO to begin its transformation, as it took part in a war that presented no threat to member nations.

Bombing Yugoslavia was meant to solidify the new role of NATO as an offensive military force acting on behalf of U.S. imperial interests. Since that time, NATO has attacked Libya and engaged in military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and a variety of nations in Africa. Despite NATO's claim that it is "committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes," the record shows otherwise.

Notes.

[1] "Albanian Rebels Say Kosovo Independence Vital," Reuters, October 27, 1998.

[2] "Sećanja aktera neuspelih pregovora u Rambujeu: Da li je bombardovanje moglo da se izbegne?" Nedeljnik, February 6, 2019.

[3] Interview with Faik Jashari and other Kosovo Albanians by a delegation that included author, Belgrade, August 9, 1999.

[4] Bogoljub Janićević, "Priprema za bombardovanje u Rambujeu," Večernje Novosti, March 19, 2018.

[5] Interview with Faik Jashari and other Kosovo Albanians by a delegation that included author, Belgrade, August 9, 1999.

[6] "Sećanja aktera neuspelih pregovora u Rambujeu: Da li je bombardovanje moglo da se izbegne?" Nedeljnik, February 6, 2019.

[7] "Sećanja aktera neuspelih pregovora u Rambujeu: Da li je bombardovanje moglo da se izbegne?" Nedeljnik, February 6, 2019.

[8] "Никола Шаиновић за Курир открио тајну последњег папира из Рамбујеа," Socialist Party of Serbia, February 12, 2019.

[9] Christopher Hill, Outpost: Life on the Frontlines of American Diplomacy, a Memoir, Simon and Schuster, 2014, p 149.

[10] Address to Assembly of the Republic of Serbia by Ratko Marković, broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, March 23, 1999.

[11] Address to Assembly of the Republic of Serbia by Ratko Marković, broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, March 23, 1999.

[12] Address to Assembly of the Republic of Serbia by Ratko Marković, broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, March 23, 1999.

[13] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 4a, Article I, February 23, 1999.

[14] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 5, Article I, section 3, February 23, 1999.

[15] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 5, Article IV, section 5, February 23, 1999.

[16] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 7, Article I, section 1a, February 23, 1999.

[17] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 7, Article I, section 1c, February 23, 1999.

[18] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 7, Article IV, section 2, February 23, 1999.

[19] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 7, Article VIII, section 5b, February 23, 1999.

[20] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 7, Article VIII, section 5b, February 23, 1999.

[21] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Appendix B, section 8, February 23, 1999.

[22] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Appendix B, section 11, February 23, 1999.

[23] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Appendix B, section 15, February 23, 1999.

[24] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Appendix B, section 6, February 23, 1999.

[25] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Appendix B, section 7, February 23, 1999.

[26] Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo: Chapter 8, Article I, section 3, February 23, 1999.

[27] "Albright: They Need a Little Bombing," Workers World News Service, June 10, 1999.

George Kenney, "Rolling Thunder: the Rerun," The Nation, June 14, 1999.

 In the Nation article, the quote is attributed to "a senior State Department official." In the Workers World report, further detail is provided: "On the Pacifica program 'Democracy Now' on June 2, Kenney confirmed that the high official was Secretary of State Madeleine Albright."

[28] Broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, 9:15 AM, March 23, 1999.

[29] Transcript, Press Conference by Milan Milutinović, Tanjug, February 23, 1999.

[30] "Cook Warns Kosovo Albanians Over Air Strikes," Reuters, February 21, 1999.

[31] Peter Dejaegher, "Serbs Feel Cheated," De Standaard (Groot-Bijgaarden), March 31, 1999.

[32] Madeleine Albright, Madam Secretary, Harper Collins, 2013, p 406.

[33] Christopher Hill, Outpost: Life on the Frontlines of American Diplomacy, a Memoir, Simon and Schuster, 2014, p 153.

[34] Jane Perlez, "Talks on Kosovo Near Breakdown; Deadline is Tuesday," New York Times, February 23, 1999.

[35] R. Jeffrey Smith, "Albanian Intransigence Stymied Accord," Washington Post, February 24, 1999.

[36] Address to Assembly of the Republic of Serbia by Ratko Marković, broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, March 23, 1999.

[37] Address to Assembly of the Republic of Serbia by Ratko Marković, broadcast, Radio Beograd Network, March 23, 1999.

[38] "Никола Шаиновић за Курир открио тајну последњег папира из Рамбујеа," Socialist Party of Serbia, February 12, 2019.

[39] "Press Conference Held by the President of Serbia," Politika, March 19, 1999.

[40] "Ex-Minister Claims 'Meddling' in Kosovo Prompted Sacking," Athens News, December 1, 2001.

[41] S.J. Matić, R. Dragović , "20 Godina Od Početka Pregovora U Rambujeu: Izbegnuta je okupacija," Večernje Novosti, February 6, 2019.

Gregory Elich is a Korea Policy Institute board member. He is a contributor to the collection, Sanctions as War: Anti-Imperialist Perspectives on American Geo-Economic Strategy (Haymarket Books, 2023). His website is https://gregoryelich.org  Follow him on Twitter at @GregoryElich.