FT.com | Gideon Rachman’s Blog | Kosovo and the Russians

November 29, 2007

Kosovo and the Russians

Perhaps there is something wrong with me - or I am badly missing the point. But I can’t help feeling a certain sympathy for the Russian position over Kosovo. All my friends who follow Russian foreign policy and/or the Balkans tell me I’m wrong and that the Putin government is behaving provocatively and irresponsibly. But, as far as I can see, it is the Russians who are sticking to the letter of the law.

Let me re-cap. The situation in Kosovo has been building steadily towards a crisis for months. By December 10 the Serbs and the Kosovars are meant to have reached an agreement. Everybody knows that this is not going to happen - and that the Kosovars will almost certainly declare independence soon after the breakdown of talks. At that point the US will in all probability recognise Kosovo, as will many EU countries (although not the EU itself).

The justification for the US-European position is that Kosovo is over 90% Albanian. The argument is that by their vicious treatment of the province in the past the Serbs have forfeited the right to rule it. Refusing recognition to the Kosovars might just provoke a renewal of violence. Independence, at some point, is inevitable. We might as well just get on with it.

The Russians respond that recognising a new independent state, without agreement between the two parties or a UN resolution, sets a very dangerous precedent for other parts of the world. What about the Russian-majority territories in the Caucasus like Abkhazia or South Ossetia? What happens if the Serb-majority bit of Bosnia declares independence, as it is now threatening?

Now part of this is clearly just mischief-making. It might well suit the Kremlin to find excuses to make trouble for Georgia, for example, by backing the Abkhazians. But the precedent argument is not totally without merit. Clearly, there are members of the European Union who are worried by it. It is no accident that the Spanish - concerned by the possibility of eventual Catalan or Basque declarations of independence - are among the Europeans who are most reluctant to recognise Kosovo.

The argument about UN resolutions is also a powerful one. Of course, there is an element of circularity about the Russian position. The main reason there will not be a UN security council resolution recognising Kosovo is that Russia (and China) would veto it. But nonetheless, how would the US or the EU react if the Russians were rushing to recognise a country that had unilaterally declared independence, without UN recognition? Not very well, I suspect.

November 29th, 2007 in Russia | Permalink

194 Responses to “Kosovo and the Russians”

Comments

Catalan and Basque ‘independence’ is an excellent idea. As is ‘independence’ for Brittany and Provencal. Of course, they would not be fully independent as long as they remain in the EU, and that is why such ‘independence’ should be allowed: What is the use of these anachronistic ‘nation-states’ to which the regions are currently tied? What purpose do these redundant middle layers fulfill? Regions should be allowed to secede whenever a clear majority of their population wills it, as long as they remain in the EU. In fact, they should be allowed to re-combine at their own discretion, for example: Sardinia and Corsica, Flanders and the Netherlands, Greece and Cyprus.
Posted by: RCS | November 29th, 2007 at 1:22 pm | Report this comment
Dear RCS,

In view of what you say above, I look forward to receiving your support for removing artificial states in the holy land where they are trying to impose a two-state solution but where a one-state, secular, democratic state would do.

You also have my vote if you want to start a MEU (Middle East Union) to rival the EU and have the USHL (United States of the Holy Land)join it.

Shalom,

P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 29th, 2007 at 1:35 pm | Report this comment
Dear Mr. Rachman,

The answer to the question you pose at the end of your article shall become apparent shortly after the independence for Kosovo when places like Abkhazia and Transnistria, (reluctantly part of Moldova), declare their secession.

Sit back and enjoy the show!

Best,

P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 29th, 2007 at 1:51 pm | Report this comment
Dear P

Actually it’s the other way round: In line with what I said above, I also support a two-state solution in the Holy Land, so that each of its different communities may go its own way. Please re-check your logic.

As for an MEU, I wouldn’t object, but I’m afraid that will have to await the end of days prophecied by Isaiah.
Posted by: RCS | November 29th, 2007 at 1:52 pm | Report this comment
Good post from Robin Lustig of the BBC on his blog. He seems to be thinking along the same lines as me:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldtonight/2007/11/kosovo_the_train_wreck_ahead.html
Posted by: Gideon Rachman | November 29th, 2007 at 2:03 pm | Report this comment
Your post is timely and raises sound concerns and questions. The broader issues of “nations” that sits behind the immediate Kosovo risk needs urgently to be addressed. Inexperienced State Department diplomats have been running around the region thinking they could make everybody happy with empty promises while standing in front of a Disneyfied bad guys/good cops backdrop of a miserable history that was given reprieve only by human exhaustion and time.

On the ground, people in Pristina and Belgrade today are increasingly apprehensive about what will come next, despite a near total disrespect for their current governments/leaders scepticism of international leadership.

It is important to look back at how badly the Bush I and Clinton administrations managed the dissolution of the region: Tudjman; the bandits who were then the KLA; and ultimately Milosevic. Few talk about Milosevic’s industries, how they were broken up, or the trans-Balkan pipelines and other contracts that had US, UK, EU and RU fingerprints on them.

GHWB first aligned with Mitterrand and Kohl in 1991 on supporting a negotiated breakup, as one seemed inevitable. Then John Major, with Lady Thatcher screaming in the back hall, invoked the ghost of Churchill, fears of Deutschland ûber alles, and GHWB reversed, thus setting free local warlords, tyrants and opportunists to make trouble. Then Clinton decided to engage, but with more than a touch of naïve arrogance and terms that would permit the US only to participate from 35.000 feet, drop bombs and lead discussions.

Fortunately, Richard Holbrooke emerged together with Carl Bildt and the two worked damn hard to sort out a very fouled mess. Few on the ground have forgotten US diplomatic and logistical incompetence. Kosovars have not forgotten the initial bad choices of alliances within the KLA that led to the deaths of many respected Kosovar elites. Thus, the US should not assume it has as much moral authority today as it seems to believe.

It should not be forgotten that Austria is less than trusting in either Washington or Brussels on affairs relating to points south. Slovenia may not be a risk, but Croatia still has many ghosts.

I was surprised not to see Belgium noted yet. You cold also add Friesland, which is becoming increasingly Christian Right and at odds with Den Haag’s government. Where does it end? Certainly there will be dinner discussions this evening here in my Parisian quarter, which is known as a “Gotha” and is home to at least half of the nation’s grandest families, of secession or gates.

The economics behind these many torn maps may be more interesting than folkloric pretensions of nationalism. Without inspired leadership, expect fragmentation in a world where capital is increasingly beyond the scope of any governance. Banks and corporate finance departments are seen as the real governments, while the ones that demand our taxes and allegiance are merely caretakers of the discontented masses. It is unclear we can do better than this, and maybe never have.
Posted by: WCM | November 29th, 2007 at 3:20 pm | Report this comment
Thank you for raising this topic. I guessed you would. Let me remind you that until three years ago, mantra of so called ‘international community’, this fluid and vague entity apparently residing in US State Department, was ‘standards before status’. This was supposed to mean that Kosovo was to become a ‘multiethnic society’ before status is further discussed. Than 17th of March 2004 happened, when Albanian mobs burned, pillaged and killed all over the province, with KFOR acting as a little more than confused spectator. Suddenly standards became less important and negotiations on status were forced.
Today, Kosovo is anything but multiethnic society. One can easily do an internet search on ORAHOVAC. It’s only an example of what is going in Kosovo and it is something that apparently, according to Mr Sarkozy and Ms Merkel, is in full compliance with European Convention on Human Rights to such extent that it should be rewarded with independence. Under UNMIK and the rule of Albanian War Lords closely linked with Narco Mafia, Kosovo has become a little Afghanistan in heart of Europe. Just this morning a group of smugglers were caught with 10 kg of heroin, trying to enter central Serbia from Kosovo. 90% of non-Albanian refugees from Kosovo still do not dare to think about going back.
So rather than trying to complete a job which appears to be too difficult, ‘international community’ has decided to paint it over with fresh and bright colors, because, according to the French KFOR commander, this conflict shall anyway meet its biological end. Apparently average age of Serbs in Kosovo is 54, and Albanians 28. Children of those die-hard people have escaped to central Serbia, just like generations before them, and all ‘international community’ has to do is to make sure that they cannot go back to their inheritances. The only safe way to achieve that is to make Kosovo independent.
There are also filthy little secrets to be exposed, like rumors about certain former Secretary of State who has personally heavily invested in certain Mobile operator in Kosovo, which resulted in shutting down not only of all Serbian operators, but also anyone else who tried to enter the market. This requires deeper investigation.
So when you sum all these brilliant arguments up it becomes rather obvious that your doubts, dear Gideon, are rather silly and that Kosovo has to become independent, even if it turns the rest of the world up-side-down. It is not confused and personal motive driven politics, but well thought-through plan, which includes polar cap melting and sinking of Holland, because Spaniards planed to invade England from there, and this plan will, among other brilliant achievements, finally make sure that England is safe from a Catholic invasion. Just ask Gordon Brown what his real motive for supporting it is.

Kind regards,

Dusan
Posted by: Dusan | November 29th, 2007 at 3:44 pm | Report this comment
Dear Dusan,

I fully agree that Kosovo is likely to be a failed state from the start and if not an Afghanistan, then quite a replica of its Mafia-dominated ethnic kin.

But as a Serb, do you agree that Serbia lost the moral authority to hold Kosovoa after the treatment that it gave the Muslim population during the Milosevic period? How can the majority Muslim be expected to feel as one nation with Serbia, after the treatment they got?

Best,

P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pm | Report this comment
It would seem we are due some deeper coverage of what really is transpiring in Kosovo. Much of what Dusan describes coincides with observations and extensive information that is circulating. The drug activity is an on the ground fact; so are questionable US commercial activities and investments. The FT reported on corruption in the Serbian central bank several years ago, but not a word has been written since. We know it is not the same institution it was before. Would there be any reliable audit reports? Who is supervising the region’s banking system? So many questions and, if you are right, they will be asked again the in the coming weeks.

Dusan–I’m afraid I wasn’t with you when I read your last paragraph. Otherwise, to the extent it can be confirmed, you have given us a compelling account. We need more light, as Europe and the euro may be more vulnerable as we write than most thought yesterday.
Posted by: WCM | November 29th, 2007 at 4:09 pm | Report this comment
Regarding repercussions of the Kosovo independence elsewhere in Europe, there is one fact that people in the US and UK overlook (or, probably, simply don’t know): in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, most people (more than 80% of total population) carry Russian passports.

One may say that Russia was wrong to make its citizenship too easily accessible (and until recently, by Russian law, any former Soviet citizen anywhere in the former SU could ask for Russian citizenship). But the fact is that these people were not forced but have voluntarily chosen to become Russian citizens.

It is wrong to think that Russia is ready and willing to annex Abkhazia and Ossetia – that would mean a war with Georgia, with all possible international repercussions for Russia. But the Kosovo precedent may strip Russia of an excuse for avoiding the annexation (especially given pro-Russian referenda there). The question really is, how do you decline a majority-voted request from your own citizens, if the only excuse you could refer to – international norms – has just been demolished with cheers from the international community?
Posted by: Vlad | November 29th, 2007 at 4:46 pm | Report this comment
There seems to be some sort of idealistic view that once you break away and become independent all is great and wonderful.

I don’t pretend to know this situation very well. But wouldn’t a Serbia including a semi-autonomous Kosovo part of the EU be a good idea? Surely the EU’s values, laws, regulations and influence would coerce the people into behaving themselves.
This is the sort of stuff the EU has been great at: coercing people into being good neighbours. In the 50’s, the proposal of Jean Monnet to create the predecessor of the EU by gathering the coal & steel assets of France, Germany and the Benelux was very unpopular in France as it meant forgiving the means to go to war to a supranational entity.
So the EU should probably step up with a bold political proposal - that would not only show intent and power but it would also be a statement to both the US and Russia that the EU can play its part in foreing affairs.
Unfortunately, most politicians are short-sighted and have enlargement hangover. They tend to focus on the short term, for example- the people’s fear of immigration and disregard the long term benefit of having peaceful EU members in the balkans.
I, for one, hope the next generation will not even understand the word balkanisation - that would be a great success.
Posted by: a | November 29th, 2007 at 5:06 pm | Report this comment
Kosovo is entitled to independence, as is any other ethnically homogenous region in Europe. The existence of the EU has changed the rules of the game: previously non-viable polities are now made viable by din of their membership in the larger supra-national entity. What claim does Serbia have on the territory other than mere sentiment? If this is allowed to pass, then Silesia must be returned to Germany.

Satiated Western Europeans, afraid to rock the boat. All is well in their towns, so long live the status quo!
Posted by: RCS | November 29th, 2007 at 5:47 pm | Report this comment
Colonialism, imperialism, expansionism, secessionism, separatism, redentism, all elements of civil war. Why Kosovo and not Corsica, Cyprus, Sicily, Spanish Basque Country, Catalonian, Valons, Brittany, Alsace, Upper Silesia, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and for America the Southern Confederation –what a little war that was– Puerto Rico, Vermont, New Hampshire, Quebec and many others. Certainly for Palestinians it must be strange to see the big cats of the world getting all excited about a Kosovo independence deadline as if the world cared. This order of priorities must hide another agenda I suspect. There must be a greed for the independence of my friends of convenience at the expense of the territories of my enemies. Kosovo independence will not be blessed by the United Nations Security Council among other reasons because it was this body which undertook to preserve Kosovo Metojia as part of Serbia. Not all members of the Council have a case of common western amnesia. So, now the lovers of legality will like the EU to replace the moral weight, as if it had any, of a UN Resolution, European Union resolutions replacing United Nations resolution. Doubtless the World is Eurocentered.
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | November 29th, 2007 at 7:08 pm | Report this comment
Independence is a funny thing. From one point of view, what right does any government have (apart from mere sentiment) to claim dominion over any set of individuals who want to be independent from it? From the other, what is then to stop me from declaring independence and trying to become a nation onto myself (which is clearly ridiculous)?

It seems the only way is for every bid for independence to be judged ad hoc, and individually by all parties affected. Taking into account conflicting biases and interests, this leads us right to the present mess, right down to the (not entirely unreasonable) self-righteousness of all concerned sides.

People suffer while politicians bicker, usually with little more in mind than the extension of their own personal power and prestige.
Posted by: Aidan Clarke | November 29th, 2007 at 8:26 pm | Report this comment
RCS,

¿Ethnically homogenous? ¿Why should be countries ethnically homogenous?

That racist way of thinking led to WWII.

Today coutries are increasingly ethnically heterogenous: look at the US, or at the UK, or Spain, or France…there is no reason why countries should be ethnically homogenous.

The next step after calling for “ethnic homogeneity” is “ethnic cleansing”, no matter if ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Turkey, Jews in Germany, Palestinians in Israel, Germans in Czechoslovakia…

Not the right end for a color blind, religion blind Democracy where there is separation of Church and State.
Posted by: Enrique | November 29th, 2007 at 9:16 pm | Report this comment
Gideon,
I am kind of a Russia specialist, and would first like to say that Russian diplomacy has behaved like an awfully spoiled and paranoid child in the last couple of years. Having said that, I fully agree that with respect to Kosovo - and the precedent that this is going to set - they have a damn good point, and the West is bloody naive about the whole issue. Was therefore delighted to see your article.
Posted by: RussiaGuy | November 29th, 2007 at 9:17 pm | Report this comment
Vlad is right that Russia is bluffing — it would not officially absorb South Ossetia or Abkhazia; it’s busy enough with the territory it has, and these breakaway regions serve as good leverage in its ever-tense relations with Georgia. Russia’s assertiveness in this regard is to demonstrate its increased global relevance.

Europe will not shatter were Kosovo to become independent any more than it did when Croatia and Bosnia declared their own.

Steve LeVine, author
The Oil and the Glory (Random House)
http://www.oilandglory.com
Posted by: Steve LeVine | November 29th, 2007 at 9:32 pm | Report this comment
UN Resolution 1244 is now being trashed by the United States. It is this resolution that Russia is trying to preserve. Don’t forget Vladimir Putin came to power because Yeltzin’s failure in Yugoslavia. This will not happen again. Not in Kosovo nor in Iran.

Here a link to Resolution 1244:http://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | November 29th, 2007 at 10:17 pm | Report this comment
I didn’t say countries should necessarily be ethnically homogenous. I said that if an ethnically homogenous population living on contiguous territory WITHIN THE EU, would want to secede, it should be allowed to do so. The EU makes redundant all those nation-states (such as Spain) which stand between the EU and the various regions. As another example: what need is there for the babushka doll of a Wallonia or Flanders nesting within Belgium, nesting within the EU? This is quite the opposite to talk of ethnic cleansing, more reminiscent, I would think, to “e pluribus unum”.

You could say the EU allows for “managed nationalism”, the best of both worlds: national rights as well as stability. These new possibilities need to be explored. I foresee that a few decades hence some of this will have transpired. Independence for Kosovo could turn out to be the first step in the right direction.
Posted by: RCS | November 29th, 2007 at 10:22 pm | Report this comment
Let me correct myself: the first step in the right direction had already been taken: it was the break-up of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, both of which later joined the EU.
Posted by: RCS | November 29th, 2007 at 11:02 pm | Report this comment
On the one hand people deserve the right to determine their own fate but on the other hand communities on this planet cannot fracture politically into ever smaller units forever.

A nation also has responsibilities towards the stability of the larger political animal of which it is a part which is why even the smallest of European nations actively participate in the EU and NATO.

As far as a nation such as Kosovo has the scale to create and maintain its own institutions it is a viable entity, as far as it is not it perhaps should consider merging with Albania.

Many people in areas such as Scotland or Catalunya desire to create their own independent nations, but most do seem to feel that the nation-state simply won’t scale properly to such dimensions. As long as the EU and NATO can safeguard the independence and institutions of such small nations things will be just fine but any large political or economical dislocation can make this period in history seem like an utter farce. Perhaps considering how the Russian government is composed out of former KGB operatives they already consider it all to be a farce past its date of expiration. That perhaps is obvious from how events are organized in Russia’s own wayward extremities.

While the Russian position has merit and is understandable from their position it’s not anything I would side with or endorse.
Posted by: Felix Drost | November 30th, 2007 at 12:01 am | Report this comment
America is not the best example for granting Independence for those who want it. When Texas fought for Independence from Mexico Americans supported then…but when Texans fought from Independence from the Union they were crushed as the rest of the South.

Unionists won by FORCE with the result of half a million people murdered.
Posted by: Enrique | November 30th, 2007 at 1:09 am | Report this comment
In Spain the majority of the population supports Serbia and Russia.

Woodrow Wilson´s support of Nationalism led to World War II and American support of fanatic nationalists everywhere will lead, are leading, to conflict and ethnic cleansing.

British and Americans are conciously feeding the separatists terrorists in Turkey (kurds), Serbia (albano-kosovars), China (taiwanese, tibetan, uygur, cantonese, hakka…), Russian Federation (chechens, the far east…)…

It is an old game: Divide and Rule.

For this century as we all know the main target is CHINA as the Pentagon surlined years ago. Ethnic and linguistica minorities in China are large and feeding separatist movements is the best way to end with a competitor from inside, like a cancer.

Yugoslavia was, and it is, just an small theatre for practising what will be next in China (not in Russia which has been already divided in a dozen of pieces): mongolians, uygurs, tibetans, taiwanese, cantonese, hakka…there is a huge number (about 200 million people) of Chinese which can be considered an “ethnic minority” just because they are not mandarin-speakers, so establishing the foundation for separatism in their provinces.

Hong Kong is the center of separatism for the whole Guangdong Province. I don´t have any doubt Guangdong will be Independent from the rest of China in 40 years supported by the USA and the UK. Remember: Divide and Rule.
Posted by: Enrique Costas Mira | November 30th, 2007 at 3:04 am | Report this comment
Dear Pacifist, I could reply with a question: ’If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?’

The next thing you should ask me is if I feel Serbs are guilty as a nation, and you’d get a whole set of works of a certain great Finish contemporary thinker and impartial UN mediator.
I guess the answer you’d get from another briliant contemporary thinker and former US President is that whatever you do, just apologize and that makes it ok.

Seriously, even CNN, the most devastating weapon ever used against Serbs, now defines Kosovo war as an action taken by NATO to halt ‘crackdown of Serbian forces against ethnic Albanian separatist rebels’. During the war however, they were reporting on Genocide and hundreds of thousands of missing man of military age. Do you remember anyone coming out to apologize for lying? To answer your question you’ll first have to get properly informed about what exactly happened in Kosovo war, and then you may want to try to understand historical background. I am not going to do that for you.

The question to ask yourself now is, with 43% turnout at latest Kosovo elections where will this new government draw its mandate from. Albanians in Kosovo, above all lack education. They live in a traditional patriarchal society, and they trust ‘educated’ people like Tachi and Cheku to tell them what to do. One is failed history student and the other former communist army lieutenant. The only thing Serbian administration did not do in last century, even when Albanians were minority in Kosovo, is to force their children at gunpoint to go to school, but they were successful in keeping their traditional ways.

Dear WCM, my last paragraph was sarcasm. For a long time now most branches of US administration are being led by Enron type executives. Instead on taking leadership in resolving crucial problems like global warming (the scientists say we are just crossing the point of no return) they are doing everything to make things on this little planet of ours even more unstable. But the problem is not in them. Previous generation of European politicians had enough of a backbone (except UK) not to follow Huckleberry Fin into his most idiotic adventures. This generation, however, does not seem to be able to find it in them.

Information you ask for is available everywhere. News from Serbia can be found on http://www.beta.co.yu. Interpol will tell you what NATO intervention did for crime in SE Europe, however, no one will publish that because most of the people Serbian Security Forces were combating in Kosovo war were those criminals. They had concentration camps organized at several locations in Kosovo long before the war, but no one writes about that. All the relevant people in your governments have all the information necessary, but this will not change their action. Who wants to quarrel with 500 pounds gorilla about principles like Human Rights of some old people and state borders of another country.

Kind regards,

Dusan
Posted by: Dusan | November 30th, 2007 at 7:07 am | Report this comment
Enrique - it was not ethnically homogenous desires that led to world war II, but the breakdown of the balance of power in 1914.

RCS - you are absolutely right. The supranational goal of the left makes redundant the nation state - the precise aim, I believe for why the EU was estatblished.
Posted by: AYC | November 30th, 2007 at 9:44 am | Report this comment
In India, Indonesia and most African states that Anglo-American policy of “ethnic homogeneity” would leave to endless division: India would give birth to over 20 different nations and African states would gave birth to hundreds of nations…

(of course, in the USA that would mean giving Independence to all the Indian Reservations. In fact all indian nations inside the US terrotory fought for Independence and were crushed…)

On the other side that policy of “ethnic homogeneity” fails when Anglo-Americans have to recognise Arabs or Latinamericans as common nations. Then, no, there is no need for “ethnic homogeneity and political union” but from “segregation” and separatism, for Divide and Rule their natural resources and their fragmented markets.
Posted by: Enrique | November 30th, 2007 at 9:50 am | Report this comment
I mean “would lead to endless division”
Posted by: Enrique | November 30th, 2007 at 9:52 am | Report this comment
OK, let’s say Kosovo becomes independent in a few weeks.

What is the betting that within 3-5 years it will be branded a failed state (harbouring terrorism and drug mafias)and attacked and occupied by the US (using NATO as a fig leaf)?

P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 30th, 2007 at 11:26 am | Report this comment
Lots of good points including Rachman’s.

Short to midterm acts to follow:

(i) The Serbs in Bosnia do it very soon and Bosnia implodes.

(ii) The Albanians in Macedonia demand to join Kossovo

(iii) The Hungarians in Slovakia demand to join Hungary

(iv) The Ossetians and the Abhazians already travel on Russian passports. They join Russia de facto but not dejure.

(v) For those of you following developments in the Ukraine it is not news that the majority of Ukrainians speak russsian and demand that it becomes an official lanquage.
If you look at who voted for whom last time you will see that the piece which voted for Yanukovich starts at Odessa
and ends at Russian Borders.
(The old piece that belonged to the Austro-hungarian empire (Lvov) will be the only piece left if the Ukrainians Join Russia.)

I reckon this particular event to come about in about 10-15 years time.

Lots of changes will follow if Kossovo
becomes independent soon.

As most people have noted Europe is an ethnic mosaic. There is no such thing as “pure” state. FRom Catalunia to Cyprus we should let things be. Those of us who are not convinced should pay a visit to Palestine and see where racist views lead ; or re-read Simplicissimus to see where religious fanaticism can lead.
Posted by: Max | November 30th, 2007 at 11:29 am | Report this comment
I would support Dušan’s point of view and state several facts:
-Kosovo is the European criminal hotbed, try to google or check on Interpol website information on Albanian mob and its business operations regarding weaponry, drugs, traficking etc…
-Kosovo is an unviable state on the basis of the lack of own economic capacities - check how many companies are operating there… only important company is Trepca mines and powerplant.
-Constant pressure and hostility from the US versus Serbia even after 7 years of ousting Milosevic is beginning to look very interesting. Maybe there is something more, than just pure “American freedom spreading and sympathy”. But this time, unlike in th 90’s Europe must provide moral and economic support to its European neighbor - Serbia.
Posted by: Nemanja | November 30th, 2007 at 12:45 pm | Report this comment
Hi Nemanja,

There was an article in Asia Times a while back suggesting that the US pressure on countries like Iran and Serbia is the outer ring of a coming new cold war against China and Russia.

That might be one explanation of what you ask in your last paragraph.

Best,

P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 30th, 2007 at 1:16 pm | Report this comment
Have you noticed how the map of today’s Balkans looks very much like during the 1940’s under the Nazis and Fascists?
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | November 30th, 2007 at 1:38 pm | Report this comment
RE: Enrique’s comments below. An independent Kosovoe base on ethnic makeup sets a precedent that could have repercussions around the world. In 40 years, the US may be having its own secession concerns - with an Hispanic majority American Southwest trying to secede from the United States. Quite possibly the US will be too busy with that problem to foment problems in China.

Hong Kong is the center of separatism for the whole Guangdong Province. I don´t have any doubt Guangdong will be Independent from the rest of China in 40 years supported by the USA and the UK. Remember: Divide and Rule.

Posted by: Enrique Costas Mira | November 30, 2007 at 03:04 AM
Posted by: Tory Torrison | November 30th, 2007 at 1:43 pm | Report this comment
As for the Ukraine? Of course the Nazi model has everything to do with her future!

Democracy as proposed by President Wilson when he undertook the destruction of multi-ethnic and multi-national empires is nothing else than the rule of corporatism, what lead to today’s globalism. In such a scheme there was no room for a socialist Yugoslavia, there is no room for multi-national Ukraine which includes Poles and the Donbas with its Kossacs, what could be more Russian.

Putin has kept Russia united and that is not a minor feat. The present Western jitters about Russian elections is that the West does not recognize the loss of Russia and they fear Putin’s successor.

With Putin in power, I have to ad, NATO would not have attacked Yugoslavia, NATO will not be in Pristina today. The Russian Army understood this when they arrived there first, leading to that bitter exchange between a British and US general about “starting world war III” By year’s end (1999) Yeltzin was replaced.
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | November 30th, 2007 at 1:56 pm | Report this comment
What many fail to understand is that what makes a society is its base, and its base is determined by its economy which provides with the means of life, this is determined by geography and natural boundaries. Religion and culture is part of the superstructure, build on the economic foundations. Language is on its own. Neither base nor superstructure. Even Joseph Stalin recognized that in his Pravda editorial of 1950.

So, when the powers of this world troubled themselves with the independence of such and such peoples they are, I can reassure you, thinking on economical gains. That was the only reason why multi-national empires existed, for economical gain. The Czech Republic or Slovakia (another Nazi model)has aspired to be united for centuries and for pretty obvious reasons, but for the corporate world of the EU and US that was not suitable, their economy together meant something, Hitler’s invasion of France in 1940 was successful thanks to the Czech tanks, the whole hardware of the Czechoslovak army he capture intact in March 1939. Who owns Skoda today?
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | November 30th, 2007 at 2:20 pm | Report this comment
Dear Mr. Rachman

In your article you pointed that Kosovo would set a bad precedence for other part of the world like russian majority teritories in Caucasus,for instance Abkhazia which is part of Georgia by the way. Abkhazians were given Russian pasports and that was violation of Georgian as well as international law. You maght say that those abkhasian accepted Russian pasport voluntarily but then what about those 300 000 ethnic Georgians that became refuges in their own country. What about Russian jets bombing Abkhazia in 1990-s, what about ethnic cleaning conducted by Abkhazians and Russians. You said that US-EU justification for making Kosovo independent is that Serb have no right to rule the Kosovos after what they had done to Albanians. With the same token Russians have no right to talk about peace in georgia and Western countries should protect Georgia and should not trade Georgia for Russian natural resources
Posted by: david khrikadze | November 30th, 2007 at 2:26 pm | Report this comment
Those commenting here which are alarmed at the repercussions of the break-up of multi-national countries in Europe, ignore the fact that the EU is a multi-national empire made ‘light’. Mr Lirola laments the Wilson doctrine, but forgets that the EU is the true heir to the Austro-Hungarian spirit. The framework is very different now than in the early twentieth-century. Max can rest assure that Catalunja could be peacefully granted independence.

With the EU, the parameters of what constitutes a viable state have changed. Competencies which a small country would find too difficult to shoulder, needn’t be, as these would be undertaken by the EU. By the Principle of Subsidiarity, all other issues should be left to the various regions. There is no justification for the middling middle to intervene — multi-national countries do not have the scope of the EU in international and global issues, where there exist economies-of-scale, and they needlessly interfere in competencies best left to local discretion — they are ’stuck in the middle’. There is no justification for multi-national countries within the EU.
Posted by: RCS | November 30th, 2007 at 2:48 pm | Report this comment
Dear RCS,

I suspect you will encounter some hollow laughters in many corners of the EU when you talk about “Competences which a small country would find difficult to shoulder needn’t be, as these would be undertaken by the EU”.

Many of the “locals” accuse the EU of inanity, corruption and insufferable bureaucracy. I think the superstate idea works better in theory than practice.

Best,

P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 30th, 2007 at 4:12 pm | Report this comment
Well, that the EU is more an empire to be than a say a federation of sovereign states is, for the moment, pretty clear. Can you say that Yugoslavia was also an empire? Or the Soviet Union for that matter? No, I disagree, the national aspirations of the Catalans will not be better fulfilled inside the EU and away from Spain. Multi-nations countries exist because of the sharing of a common economy within a given geographical boundary.

The current struggle between corporate power and democratic based government will determine the fate of the European Union, the fact that it looks more like the Holly Roman Empire betrays the true nature of the forces behind it. The failure (thanks to 1789 remembered) of adopting the so-called EU constitution leads to the adoption of bilateral treaties doing the same thing: power to the global corporative interests and none to the constituent nations besides your regional language or dialect and your cuisine (as long it does not interfere with McDonald)

Can Catalonia have the same representation than say France, Germany, Italy? Will Scotland be better served away from the UK, will Wales, the Northern League away from Italy?

The idea of breaking away is to keep the benefits but none of the obligations. The Northern League does not want to deal with the burden of the Italian south, the Catalans are happy to have more than a million Andalusian doing menial work in Barcelona but displeased of seeing their taxes spent in social services in say Cordoba.

The problem with EU is not that it was born from a economical union but that they neglected the people. It is not unprecedented, the United States was also created by economical interests, they forgot pretty much the people, and look in what condition her democracy is today.
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | November 30th, 2007 at 4:58 pm | Report this comment
Dear P, there will be no conflict between NATO and Kosovo Albanian Mafia. While NATO troops provide market for Human Trafficking Branch of their business (they bring girls in from all over Eastern Europe to entertain them), NATO turns a blind eye to their drug business. Drug traffickers are caught only by Serbian police and only when they try to enter Serbia, but never in Kosovo. They live and work in perfect harmony. Mob shall be perfectly happy with having NATO as a supreme authority in Kosovo, and will never allow terrorists to infiltrate. Idealism is not good for business. US created this style of state in Latin America before, but had to intervene when drugs started to show up in their schoolyards. This time it will not be the case. Thanks.

Kind regards,

Dusan
Posted by: Dusan | November 30th, 2007 at 9:12 pm | Report this comment
“The argument is that by their vicious treatment of the province in the past the Serbs have forfeited the right to rule it.”

http://www.unmikonline.org/press/reports/N9917289.pdf
Clearly that argument wasn’t on the table when the UNSC resolution no 1244 was put in place. Quoting from the text of the resolution:

“Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2,”

Those calling for independence should be confronted with this commitment.

Also, it strikes me as totally irresponsible NOT to rule out support for unilateral independence declaration by Albanians, in order to preserve peace and stability in the region. Russia occupies a moral high ground in this case.
Posted by: Tomáš Ruta | December 2nd, 2007 at 5:37 am | Report this comment
Dusan,

Are you seriously suggesting CNN invented, or perhaps overplayed, the Srebrenica massacre (as one example)?
Posted by: Sangakkara | December 3rd, 2007 at 10:34 am | Report this comment
Dear Sangakkara, English is not my first language, but I believe my CNN paragraph was pretty clear. If you read it again, and maybe again and again, you may understand what it’s about. FYI Serbian citizens proven to have taken part in Srebrenica massacre are currently facing trial at War Crimes Tribunal in Serbia. The same is happening to those accused for war crimes in Kosovo, if they have not already faced Court Marshal. Nothing similar is happening in Kosovo, and Albanian Capo di tuti capi is currently relaxing in Hague, while no one from Kosovo dears to witness against him. And yes, he appears to be the best friend of former UNMIK head. I understand that there are people who feel that they can still use Srebrenica to cover up criminal activities and other war crimes in the region, and you are welcome to try. It is my belief that you are heavily underestimating the public you are addressing.
It is my belief that European politicians are doing the same, and unless one of them arises to the occasion and helps their partners across Atlantic understand that they got everything wrong, Kosovo will come back to haunt them in more ways than they can imagine.

Kind regards,

Dusan
Posted by: Dusan | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:11 pm | Report this comment
I’ll take a pass on commenting on many of the points and perspectives noted herein, but will suggest that it is important and relevant to ask Hillary Clinton to recap her White House role in shaping what has become a decade-plus-long US policy for the Balkans.

Perhaps the FT should consider interviews with Warren Christopher and Richard Holbrooke. I would dismiss Madeleine Albright’s views as little more than those of a mother-in-law in the back seat.

Sadly, this corner of Europe needs close and honest attention. Again.
Posted by: WCM | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 pm | Report this comment
As for Srebenica, don’t forget to revisit Jamie Rubin’s tell-all piece in the FT some years back on his observations as Mme Albright’s spokesperson at Rambouillet. Remember also that the US’ most famous embedded CNN journalist later became his wife. She became well known amongst other journalists covering Srebenica, Sarajevo, Zagreb, Pristina and Belgrade for her movie-star status and modus operandi. I don’t recall if she won any Pulitzer’s for her work there.
Posted by: WCM | December 3rd, 2007 at 2:13 pm | Report this comment
Any one interested on Srebrenica should read the transcripts of the trial of the late President Slobodan Milosevic at the ICTY in The Hague.

I also recommend reading Jean Bricmont “Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War”
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | December 3rd, 2007 at 3:11 pm | Report this comment
Dear mr rachman,
I have read with great interest WCM’s and Dusan’s post but would like to go back to your question: are the russians right?
In my opinion they are right: it is quite clear that Kosovo’s independence without an agreement with serbia or a UN security council resolution breaches international law; arguably, without serbia’s agreement, even a security council resolution would not be enough. A proof of this are the countless times western diplomats, defying logic, said that kosovo would not be a precedent; by this they meant that they were about to break the rules, but that they wouldn’t have allowed other breaches.
Most likely, the russians are right for the wrong reasons: their motives have more to do with a broader confrontation with the west (gas, the czech missles, etc.), splitting the EU, throwing their weight around, keeping a foot in the balkans and turning serbia into a client (lots of russian deals there, lately). Yet, they are right; and at least one of their motives is valid also for other states: just as the russians are worried about the effects of the kosovo precedent in the restless states of norther caucaus, so other states are worried about large ethnic minorities within their borders; commentators usually refer to spain, slovakia and the like, but often forget that last spring it took a lot of time and effort to persuade the african states sitting in the security council to reluctantly pledge some kind of support for the ahtisaari package: while nobody really believes that spain and slovakia will face serious problems because of kosovo, those african countries with artificial borders drawn with a ruler less than a century ago have real reasons to be worried.
This brings us to the main question: is it sensible to break international law to give kosovo independence?
The case for independence rests on arguments of fairness and justice, based on the ill-treatment of the albainan population at the hands of the serbs; let’s assume – as many reasonable people believe – that this case is rather well-founded (despite what Dusan says), and that, on balance, it is stronger than the case against (WCM’s arguments and many others). The question is whether the international community, in the interests of justice, should endorse a breach of a system that is chiefly intended to protect order and security.
I believe the answer is no: it is only quite recently that the international community has developed instruments to protect order and security (such as the delegation of crucial decision-making powers to the security council), and it would probably be rash to endanger them in the pursuit of justice; especially when, as in this case, justice is what a large group of powerful states says it is, and the risk of dangerous repercussions is real: breaching serbia’s sovereignty will objectively endangers bosnia’s integrity, and boost support for serbia’s radical party.
Except in extreme cases, order and compliance with the generally accepted rules of international law should prevail. By the way, the law protects the weak, and it seems paradoxical that many states which aren’t powerful enough to say what justice is were so quick to go along with US policy on kosovo’s independence: their national interest should make them very suspicious of any departure from international law.
For instance, eight years ago the ban on the use of violence without security council authorization was breached by NATO in order to pursue justice in Kosovo (rather ineptly, by the way: the bombing campaign would probably have breached also the new ‘responsibility to protect’ rule-in-the-making), but it made it objectively easier to invade iraq, against the objections of many EU states that sent warplanes over belgrade; if you give a superpower more freedom than it by nature enjoys, you never know how it will use it.
Yet, kosovo’s independence seems inevitable. Why things have reached this point may be the subject of another blog; for instance, why have serbs and albanians failed to reach an agreement when their interests (not their slogans, admittedly) were largely compatible: belgrade never dreamt of running kosovo again, and pristina wants to get rid of UNMIK at least as much as it wants independence; and what’s the difference between unilateral independence without UN seat, and full autonomy with an independence referendum some years later?
Yours sincerely
Posted by: alc | December 3rd, 2007 at 3:45 pm | Report this comment
The question is not whether Russia is right or wrong in opposing a breach of international law, but rather the fact that certain countries, are willing to breach the law, disregard commitments, UN resolutions and make international agreements worthless. The devil is on us, regardless of who points that out.

Independence is a right, but it is conditioned by many factors. The United States constitution does not say a word about secession and following the principle that “where there is no law there is no crime” the Southern Confederation seceded from the
Union, the North did not like it and a bloody 6 years war followed.

The Yugoslav constitution offered the necessary steps for secession, yet Slovenia, Croatia, BiH encouraged by the West did not follow them. Germany, the EC, the USA recognized Croatia’s independence fully knowing they were adding fuel to the fire. Hitler was no worse, I repeat the fascist and nazis did the same!
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | December 3rd, 2007 at 5:24 pm | Report this comment
Albania was created in 1913 by the Treaty of London after these territories were freed from the Ottomans Turks in part thanks to Serbia. Leon Trotsky describes it all in his “Balkans War”, especially interesting is his description, he was a newspaper correspondent, of the liberation of Kosovo by the Serbs.

Albania was created by the Imperial powers deliberately to cut access to the Adriatic Sea to the Serbs, allies of the Russians.

Before that, Albanians had no international recognized nation. Their origin and their language is obscure, some think they are related to the Illyrians, a rather empty claim since there is little known about them. They lived as shepherds all over the Balkans, Albanian an Indo-European language was studied by Italian monks during the Renaissance, written in Arabic script it was not unified until late in the nineteen century. Two main dialects remain today, Ghek and Tosk.

How Kosovo i Metojia became inhabited by Albanians is another story. There is a formidable mountain range between Souther Kosovo and Albania, this is a natural frontier difficult to breach and here is no continuity between the two regions. Josep Tito offered communist Albania to join the Yugoslav Federation after World War Two. It did not happen.
During the war, Mussolini annexed Kosovo to Albania. The Nazi recruited volunteers, the infamous SS Skanderbeg division among them. I will not go on.
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | December 3rd, 2007 at 7:18 pm | Report this comment
Dear alc, this has become a lot of work, and I cannot do it all for you. Reasonable people usually avoid to operate in unquantifiable and arbitrary terms. That is what makes them reasonable. They stick to simple facts, easy to confirm or deny. So as a reasonable person one would have to decide what constitutes vicious treatment and that Kosovo Albanians suffered vicious treatment from Serbian government
a) Before the war
b) During the war
c) Both
If a reasonable person believes that a) or c) is the case I would strongly recommend that he/she bases his/her judgment on historical facts, rather than personal feeling that one ‘knows’ what was going on. In order to understand the situation better, one doesn’t have to go very far back in history. 1980 and streets of Pristina would do. There one would have witnessed situation similar to 1999, this time with SFRJ government and Kosovo Albanians, and all that in idyllic times when Kosovo had autonomy. Surprisingly, Albanians were presenting the same political concept they did in Baden a few days ago. As a matter of fact, further back you go in history, the worse it gets for vicious treatment theory promoters, and that all the way back to 1689 when Albanians massively moved into Kosovo. How, why and what they did afterwards, reasonable person can easily find out only if he/she applies him/herself.
Now if reasonable person believes that b) is the case, let’s assume that rebels in Kosovo were not ethnic minority, rather members of a dominant nation in the country. Let’s presume they were Serbian drug traffickers, supported by parts of local population. First of kin. What is the reasonable level of force, not to be considered a vicious treatment, that government is allowed to apply against group of people that has taken up arms against it? If we consider Waco incident as a reference point, if rebels are not actively attacking police and other branches of government, government is allowed to kill them all, including children. Of course, in Kosovo they were attacking both civilian population and police. Let me remind you that a drug trafficking criminal gang in 2003 took up arms against government in Serbia and killed Serbian PM. State of Emergency was declared and two gang leaders were shot on the spot when they were found. No one complained about their vicious treatment.
So let’s go back to Kosovo 1999. It was not that something legally undefined was going on there. The problem was that Ms Albright, a.k.a. ‘international community’ declared Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo null and void. This is how suddenly a legal security forces operation becomes a reason to attack a country conducting it. Another astonishing remark of the same person was that the fact that lots of resources are located in Russia does not necessarily mean that they belong to Russians. They were supposed to belong to human kind. I wonder what would she do if I applied the same logic to content of her living room. Called police? The same person has, as Marie Jana Korbelova, a Jewish girl, apparently survived WW II in Kraljevo, Serbia, so dear WCM, I think one can hardly write off twisted perceptions from early childhood as a source of US policies in the Balkans.
As for negotiations, what should be one’s motive to negotiate if US State Department is going to get things done for him anyway when negotiations fall through. That one was easy.
Please, those of you who consider yourselves reasonable, do not allow yourself to be mislead. Truth is only a web search away.
As an American president from the days of decency said ‘you cannot lie to all the people all the time’.

Kind regards,

Dusan
Posted by: Dusan | December 3rd, 2007 at 7:49 pm | Report this comment
Albanians in Kosovo deserve independence. Despite what Dusan says, it is a fact that Kosovo Albanians were terribly treated by Milosevic. In a way, a lot of the comments on this board reinforce my belief that Europe is a collection of “impotent” states who never learnt anything from history. These are nations that killed each other for centuries and brought the most horrific violence upon the human race but they never stopped creating artificial countries like Yugoslavia into being. It is a well known fact that Yugoslavia was created by France and England so that Serbs could rein over the other nationalities. It was a prize to them after the WWI. At the same time, no one has stopped and thought “What is the right thing to do?”. What would Albanians vote if they had a referendum? What would the Scotts want? How about the Basque population? What about the Kurds? Why can’t these people exercise their right to self determination?
I read a lot of you talking about the mafia in Kosovo etc. Say what you want but all the former colonial powers went to subjugate people all over the world so they could bring progress to them. How does Africa look like now? It looks like a continent full of artificial countries created by England, France, Portugal, Holland etc.

In the end, the only lasting solution is the one that does the right thing. People of Kosovo want to be independent. No country like Russia, Serbia, or Spain for that matter should try and stop what is evidently the right thing to do.
Posted by: Michael | December 4th, 2007 at 5:15 am | Report this comment
michael - these people do not deserve the right to self determination because at some point in history some legal, legitimate, rightful event occurred (including capitulation in war) and as a consequence of this these people were included in some nation-state; this is the case of basques in france and spain, of catalans or galitians in spain, as well as of slovenians or south tyroleans in italy, or to go further back in history of the french and occitan minorities in italy, of the corsicans in france, and so on. all these people, in many different ways claim some form of independence or of self determination; all of them do so against the history and against international law. it is only the history, or an international tribunal having a jurisdiction accepted by all parties involved which may state that if these people want to be independent, they have “evidently” the right to do so, and nobody else can. the european nations are not “impotent”: european nations are the result of the course of historical events (wars, treaties, etc). you say
that these nations “killed each other for centuries and brought the most horrific violence upon the human race but they never stopped creating artificial countries like yugoslavia”. these nations FOUGHT each other with comparable forces in legitimate wars for centuries and they concluded treaties at the end of these wars, and the historical and legitimate result of this is europe such as it is now. to the contrary, a
country such as australia is a good example of an artificial country which is the result of mere conquest, illegitimate expropriation of lands and mass killings of natives. there must certainly be other similar cases but at the moment none of these comes to my mind.
Posted by: bazancourt | December 4th, 2007 at 8:47 am | Report this comment
Dear michael,
I entirely agree with bazancourt’s criticism of your views. by liberally granting the right to self-determination to all the ethnic minorities you name (to every ethnic minority, if I may interpret your views) you are doing precisely what I fear: creating the seeds of disorder, instability and possibly wars. It may seem the right thing to do – though not when this right is based on a selective reading of history – but it’s very dangerous: in the name of justice, you destroy order. But is it right to grant ethnic minorities the right to self-determination simply because they are ethnic minorities? Are you not implicitly saying that no sufficiently large group of people should be forced to live in a state in which the majority of citizens belongs to another ethnic group? This is saying that the state must be based on ethnicity. Is it not better to insist on the separation between state and nation, citizenship and ethnic origin, and to protect minorities with the instruments of the state: equality of all citizens, in the first place, and some meaningful autonomy?

Dear dusan,
no doubt: the history of kosovo and of the relations between serbs and albanians is long and complex, and reading its last 20 years as a struggle between a good and weak population against an evil oppressor would be grossly inaccurate; for instance, I agree with what you say about the march 2004 riots: a carefully planned act of blackmail, which almost overnight turned the ‘standards before status’ policy on its head. Yet, few reasonable people would dispute that kosovo albanians have good reasons to feel aggrieved.
In any event, if you wish to discuss the merits of kosovo’s independence on the basis of history I believe you will go nowhere: you will end up asking yourself exactly who the forefathers of the albanians were, and a belgrade archaeologist recently told me that this question has at least three equally plausible answers.
Posted by: alc | December 4th, 2007 at 11:12 am | Report this comment
Yugoslavia an artificial state? Created by France and England?

Not quite. The aspirations of the Southenr Slavs for a common country goes back centuries. Of course it could no be achieved without independence and this finally came at the end of the Great War, when at last the Central Powers were defeated by the Allies (western Empires)

So, at Versailles and then Trianon, Yugoslavia was finally born, along side Czechoslovakia, a Western Slav nation longing for a common home after centuries of Germanic influence (Wilson lend support for a Kurdistan, but judging by today’s situation there, one can assume he was, how shall we put it, ahead of his time)

The dream of Yugoslavia goes a long way, Napoleon supported the idea and created a short live Illyrian Republic in 1808 which annoyed Austria very much. Napoleon contrary to popular belief spread modern ideas and above all equality and abolished many class privileges, without him (and the French Revolution) Europe would still have very much a feudal system and probably very much divided along the lines the new rules of this world want to divide us once more, fracturing any possiblity of life!

As George Orwell once said: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength”

Yugoslavia would not go away.
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | December 4th, 2007 at 3:52 pm | Report this comment
Dear alc, non of states with Belgrade as a capital were racist, and citizens of Albanian ethnicity received same treatment as anybody else. Cheku was an excellent example. Another Albanian called Kelmendi killed a platoon of his army comrades in 1987 while they were asleep, and that is how Albanians stopped serving in JNA. And this in idyllic times when Kosovo had autonomy. Next they stopped attending government funded public schools. Isolation was self-imposed and it kept growing, serving interests of clan and brotherhood leaders who were getting more and more involved in crime of all shapes and sizes. The situation is even worse now, with no reminiscence of a state and corrupt international official joining in.
I have no interest in Albanian origin, but historical facts are quite useful while trying to understand state of mind of human beings populating Kosovo, and yes pinpoint state racist behavior, if one can.
I’m not an investigative reporter but I tried to present public with simple facts contradicting well established truths on this, lately most successful, Gideon’s topic, receiving only emotional criticism. I believe this is the right moment for a real reporter to move in. There’s enough dirt here to cover five Watergates.

Kind regards,

Dusan
Posted by: Dusan | December 4th, 2007 at 6:55 pm | Report this comment
bazancourt and alc
Ask yourself, why did everyone of the other populations want to separate from the serbs? Even the Montenegrins wanted out. I understand your points about every state becoming an ethnic state, but it is obvious that, in the case of Serbia, no one wants to live with them. Let the people go and let the Albanians move one with their lives. I keep hearing that most ordinary serbs do not even care about Kosovo. They do not want it. It is the politicians trying to score points that still keep trying. There is so much information online from liberal serbs that admit themselves that the Albanians were the “Negroes” of the former Yugoslav republic. It is time to move on. Let the people free.

As far as Europe being a collection of “impotent” countries, I think that it is clear as day. Just think of Srebrenica and the Dutch soldiers tied to bridges. A strong Europe, would have never allowed that to happen. It was pathetic. Do the words strong, tough and courageous come to mind when you think of Spanish, Dutch or Italian soldiers?
Posted by: Michael | December 4th, 2007 at 7:50 pm | Report this comment
Montenegro made the best Serbs in history and now they don’t want to be federate with Serbia. Truly no better example to clarify what is going on in the Balkans. The choice is not for the Montenegrin to be made, it was made by NATO and EU for them. That is what divide and rule is all about. 600,000 people mostly related to Serbian culture, language, etc., if not directly family related are told: breakaway from the federation and you will rewarded by being on the right side of the fence, NATO welcomes you and the EU will rain money on you. Otherwise you will be on the other side and there the future looks dark. The west does not want Serbia with their strange script and Orthodoxy, that proud nation belongs to the east, and “the East is East and the West is West and they will never meet” to quote a Medieval philosopher.

You see, what makes empires, is power and might. Hitler made the Balkan divided like today because nobody could check him, the partisans spoiled the party a little. The Ottoman run the same region for 500 years with some persuasion and a great deal of force. The Austrians found most Croats very willing to assimilate German culture and after the incident in Sarajevo 26 Juin 1914 demanded impossible conditions from Serbia, looks familiar, does it not?

Today, “the Yanks can do to you with the checkbook what the Nazi did with the gun” and to make it all possible there is NATO and the US Air Force to do the “humanitarian” handy work. So let Montenegro enjoy the party while they can, nothing new, that is why the name Montenegro appears in Western maps and not Cerna-Gora. Has Serbia done anything to them? Western newspapers were heralding “yet another Balkan war” before Montenegro would break away. What beef could possible be between Serbia and Cerna-Gora? What terrible deeds have the Serbs committed in Makedonia for them to be so “independent and free” nowdays, with street and schools names like Moshe Pijade.
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | December 5th, 2007 at 12:36 am | Report this comment
Michael, these are the facts:

1)Kosovo Albanian minority was the most privileged ethnic minority ever. They were given a whole province of a host country to run. Their language was, and still is, official.
2)They refused to get educated in a free of charge educational system that included universities and was opened for citizens of any ethnicity. Entry was guarantied at any university in the country. They refused to integrate and even Albanians who tried to, and served in either Kosovo or other governments, were considered outsiders. However, they welcomed all benefits of social security system.

This is the theory:

Desire of Albanian criminal elements and Albanian community leaders to have unhindered control of their clans, brotherhoods and their territories coincided with personal desires of powerful individuals elsewhere, and just maybe with US national interests.
The total chaos in Kosovo is both how the above imagine a state should be run and the best they can do.
Pushing a plan to grant it independence and send a mission of currently uncorrupt officials, just shows how arrogant, ignorant and unapt current generation of European politicians is. Very soon the mission will be corrupted, isolated and forced out so that Mafia can continue unhindered rule over this territory, this time in internationally recognized country. Of course, NATO stays and US gets all they wanted or needed. European drug addicts get what they want. ‘Aggrieved’ ethnic minorities in other European countries (France, Austria, UK…) get what they want too. To the rest of you, if you are an European, good luck.

People in Kosovo are also confused hostages, and low election turnout proves it. This has nothing to do with torment and desires, it’s pure dirty business and politics.

Kind regards,

Dusan
Posted by: Dusan | December 5th, 2007 at 7:47 am | Report this comment
Dusan,

I think even you yourself do not believe what you are saying. It seems you are feeling aggrieved at this time. I am sorry for you. It is time now for Serbia to move on to a different chapter of its history. Liberal capitalism, progress, economic freedom, transparency, non corrupt government etc. I think the people of Serbia will be much better by concentrating on what works. Look at South Korea, Singapore, Ireland and even your neighbour, Slovenia. The world has changed. Serbia has to change as well.

Best regards and good luck!
Posted by: Michael | December 5th, 2007 at 8:43 am | Report this comment
Michael, you seem to be very emotional person and it is nice to be a subject of you emotions. You are right I feel aggrieved and that with a treatment nation I belong to received in last couple of decades, only partly as its fault. Exposing facts to get things right is one of my hidden emotional motives.
My other hidden emotional motive is that southern and central Serbia are awash with heroin. A heroin addict stabbed a child with a used syringe needle in a schoolyard in Southern Serbia a month a go. He was laying there, and child approached him to ask him if he was ok. He lashed out and stabbed him. You see, I am a father too, just like many readers here.
Also, my belief is, and that has nothing to do with emotions, that justice has to be served at all levels, and that criminals, particularly those who misused public trust or office for personal gain, or promotion of personal agendas, have to be tried and put in prison if proven guilty. Just like Milosevic was.
So much about me. If you wish to sell globalization and human rights, I suggest you should personally go to Kosovo and face really tough crowd. It would please me greatly if you shared your experiences when you come back.

Kind regards,

Dusan
Posted by: Dusan | December 5th, 2007 at 9:20 am | Report this comment
Dusan,

This is a serbian writer. This was published in September.

http://www.signandsight.com/features/1582.html
Posted by: Michael | December 5th, 2007 at 9:54 am | Report this comment
This is an excerpt from the article:

A few years ago the Serbian media reported for months on end on mass graves whose dead had been identified by forensic experts as Kosovo Albanians. One of the most horrific images was that of a refrigerated lorry out of which murdered Kosovo Albanian women, children and old people were disposed in Lake Perucac, near the mouth of the river Derventa. On our screens we saw half-decayed, clothed corpses being pulled out of the water, we heard the shocking confession of the driver, who had been told to transport the dead out of Kosovo in order to cover up the crime. At the time a Belgrade television station broadcast an interview with a man bathing untroubled in this beautiful lake from whose green waters the corpses had just been pulled. When the reporter asked whether this bothered him the simpleton stood there shaking his head as the water dripped off him. Blinking innocently and smiling laconically, he looked at the camera and said without turning a hair: “To be honest, I don’t believe all that,” and dived defiantly back into the water.

The guy is mad, you might think. But actually the opposite is the case. His reaction is absolutely understandable. Serbian citizens have a decade of brainwashing by politicians and the media behind them, a decade of lessons in how continuous lying can eventually make people believe their own lies. The bathing man was simply using that acquired skill.

Dusan,

I think it is time to move on.
Posted by: Michael | December 5th, 2007 at 9:56 am | Report this comment
And this is how normal state handles such crimes

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=12&dd=04&nav_id=45923

Michael, civilized society has to be run by reason, not heart. Things on rational side are hard enough because of really evil people, psychopaths and sociopaths, who do not care about others at all. Yet, you emotional individuals are making things only worse for us, being manipulated into taking their side at every possible occasion. I’ve seen it happening, I know what I’m talking about.

Kind regards,

Dusan
Posted by: Dusan | December 5th, 2007 at 10:32 am | Report this comment
Dusan,

All my comments have to do with the fact that Serbia has completely lost its moral right to rule over Kosovo. Serbia has lost Kosovo and it needs to move on. The people of Serbia will be much better without Kosovo as I think people of Kosovo will be much better without Serbia.

Best of luck!
Posted by: Michael | December 5th, 2007 at 10:46 am | Report this comment
Moral right? I don’t know of any international or national law that speaks of moral rights. Is the United Nations based on moral rights?

But lets assume such a thing existed, there is still legal rights, and the United Nations resolution reinforces that point, Serbia is the legal, de jure, sovereign nation in Kosmet, I mean Kosovo and Metojia, de facto, the right of the brute so to speak, Kosmet is ruled by the guns of Nato. And that will be so until the rule of law is returned or a bigger gun will outbid Nato’s.

By the way, the word Kosovo is Slavic, meaning black bird, it survived the 500 years of Turkish rule, the few attempts to extirpate it away from Serbia, even the Albanian can find a better name for it than koshovah, how original!
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | December 5th, 2007 at 4:07 pm | Report this comment
Does the “black bird” have something to do with the black eagle on the Albanian flag?
Posted by: Michael | December 6th, 2007 at 12:29 am | Report this comment
Not at all.

The eagle is taken from Albanian folk tales, it protects and guides the king, the “son of the eagle” and it relates to George Castriota, an Albanian Christian who became a Turkish general named Iskander Bey, or Skanderbeg, a national legendary figure. Albania has after the fall of communism returned to clang life, with awful blood feuds among them and the return of the Kanon of Leke. Western writers in their eagerness to condemn communism have approved the return of the blood feuds blaming the communism of oppressing the people by depriving them of their traditions. The blood feuds were, under communism, considered barbaric and illegal, the usage of courts was encourage as a way of resolving conflict. Freedom can have strange allies.
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | December 6th, 2007 at 1:45 pm | Report this comment
Here is what the American press was saying in 1987 about Kosovo:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE1DA1439F933A25752C1A961948260
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | December 6th, 2007 at 3:50 pm | Report this comment
I forgot to mention: the KLA had not come into existence yet.
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | December 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pm | Report this comment
Whatever you say about Albanians, which I doubt it is true, the Serbs were even worse. Just think about this: Why is it that no one wants to live with the Serbs? Slovenians, Croats, Bosnians, Montenegrin, Macedonians etc. If no one else wants to live with the Serbs, why should Albanians be forced to. You are saying exactly what the Serb propaganda has said for years: Albanians are so awful, worse than animals and they need to be annihilated. It is this kind of racist and hateful thinking that keeps Serbia behind. What you write is exactly what this Serbian writer Vladimir Arsenijevic describes in his article. I am quoting some of it below.

” “The further south, the more deplorable” (”Sto juznije to tuznije”) was the popular saying used to describe the ladder along which a specifically Yugoslavian brand of racism was always directed at those who were on the next rung down geographically and economically. Hence the Slovenians showed the contempt they felt for the country bumpkins, idlers or failures of the other republics most clearly towards the Croatians; the Croatians for their part passed it on to the Serbs; and the latter, in turn, took pleasure in making fun of the Macedonians or Montenegrins. The Bosnians, on the other hand, as the people who inhabited the centre of the Republic of Yugoslavia, were the object of mockery from all sides.

But right at the very bottom came the Albanians who lived in the southern Serbian province of Kosovo. Their language wasn’t a Slavic language. They were poorer than the rest of us. Their culture was pretty alien. In the motley collection of different kinds of Yugoslavs they, as the southernmost ethnic group, were condemned to play the role of the absolute outsiders.

Anything that the rest of us in former Yugoslavia claimed to know about the Albanians was put together from a hodgepodge of offensive cliches. They were generally referred to derisively as the Siptari or the shiptars. If we didn’t hate them openly, it was only because we did not consider them worthy of our hatred. Even at the best of times there was never any dialogue between “them” and “us.”

The Kosovo Albanians were for us just a bunch of primitive, at most sometimes comical golliwogs, our Uncle Toms. In other words, they were our negroes. Yet just as the existence of the despised Albanians scarcely penetrated the consciousness of the average Yugoslav of the Tito era, so the casual cultural racism of that time seems, from today’s perspective, rather harmless compared with the violent, murderous hatred of the “shiptars” that seized the Serbs following the death of Tito and after the first wave of “unrest” in Kosovo at the end of the twentieth century. This resentment became particularly intense throughout the phase of burgeoning nationalism in all the republics, during the brutal tyranny perpetrated by Slobodan Milosevic, who set out to ruthlessly tear apart the common state. During the 1990s politicians and the media also began using the colloquial and derogatory term “shiptars,” a label that increasingly stuck to make them the object of our paranoia. More and more often people began to speak of them as though the only reason they existed was to crush and annihilate “us Serbs”.

One of the legends that did the rounds in Milosevic’s version of the news was a historical myth that went roughly like this: “Once there were far fewer Albanians than Serbs in Kosovo. But over the years (by means of a miracle that has never been fully explained! V.A.) they came to Kosovo across the Albanian border and just settled here in our country, before our very eyes, without so much as a ‘by your leave’.” Equipped with what in our eyes were positively animal-like qualities, they developed the collective determination of termites and, what is more, bred like rabbits. Their uncontrollable virility and high birth rates made us shiver, indeed we shuddered with disgust. At the same time the Serbs were constantly being publicly entreated to profess their hatred of the “shiptars.” No Serb was considered worth his salt unless he cherished this hatred. Thus official propaganda during the Milosevic era, supported unerringly by the media, declared the “shiptars” to be the Serbs’ archetypal enemy; indeed, without this enemy the Serbs’ own existence would have been practically unthinkable. For where would Batman be without his Joker? Now the “shiptars” were no longer pathetic Uncle Toms. On the contrary, they had transformed themselves into terrifying, dangerous demons, intractable and persistent in their mission to take over our historic territory, to snatch away from us the Kosovo Polje, the Kosovo Field, “the cradle or our culture,” to steal our myths, to rob us of that which belonged to us by “historic right”. (More here)

Determined to settle scores with these “shiptars” once and for all, our President Milosevic conceived a fantastic plan. In his murky empire of evil, poverty, ethnic hatred and hyperinflation, the army and the police aided by the mass media were to be allowed to discriminate against and humiliate the Kosovo Albanians without incurring sanctions. The Albanians would be able to be arbitrarily dismissed or arrested, their property plundered, their families and villages destroyed. Absolved of any responsibility and encouraged by popular support, the president for many years painstakingly put his plan into action, bringing violence and destruction first to Kosovo and then to the whole territory of Yugoslavia. Following the Dayton Agreement in December 1995 there was a brief ceasefire, but in 1999 the spiral of violence finally led Milosevic back to where it had all started, back to Kosovo. ”

There is a lot more in the article.
Posted by: Michael | December 6th, 2007 at 5:35 pm | Report this comment
Did everyone spot this article in today’s FT?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a438f6e-a467-11dc-a28d-0000779fd2ac.html
Posted by: Pacifist | December 7th, 2007 at 3:07 pm | Report this comment
Michael writes:

“Whatever you say about Albanians, which I doubt it is true, the Serbs were even worse. Just think about this: Why is it that no one wants to live with the Serbs? Slovenians, Croats, Bosnians, Montenegrin, Macedonians etc. If no one else wants to live with the Serbs, why should Albanians be forced to.”

Good Michael, you should doubt. However doubting alone is not going to lead you to the truth, that only the facts can do and I don’t think the facts are coming to you but rather you have to seek them, inquiring and discerning.

The Slovenes seceded not because the Serbs but because Yugoslavia, the Slovenes may have not wanted to be part of a federation including Serbia, but they don’t want to be associated with Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro neither.

Croatia, not only does not like Serbs but they make it very clear that only Croats have full rights and anyone else is a second class citizen.
The same apply to the rest.

That Serbia is the largest nation in the region is a matter of demographics, the same way that Germany has a larger population than Austria. The Austrian constitution prohibits any form of association (imposed by the Allies) with Germany, yet they are clearly similar. Yet Serbia was the first Slavic nation in the region to achieve independence and to create a modern state. Croatia and Slovenia achieved theirs much later.

History does not explain everything but without history you can’t understand anything.
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | December 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pm | Report this comment
It seems like you are saying everyone in former Yugoslavia is bad but the Serbs. I do not think your argument is believable.
Posted by: Michael | December 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pm | Report this comment
This discussion has turned out to be very useful for me too. It finally dawned to me how EU crew thinks. These politicians are coming mostly from middleclass families. They had a bit of leftist scuffle with police or lying to clients in law offices when they were starting up, than a bit of backstabbing in party couloirs, enough to think of themselves as sharks. And than they face characters like Osmani brothers in Hamburg or Haradinaj.
So they think – we’ll give them all they want, we’ll annihilate Serbian bogyman, we’ll cover up their criminal and war crime history and create respected politicians out of them. In a small corrupt country this means they can just sit around and money keeps coming in. We pure money in, Kosovo flourishes under your government. You will be registered in history as a liberator and enlightened ruler. Just cut off your Mafia ties and you’ll live happily ever after.

The problems with this plan are:
a)No matter how much money EU pours in, Kosovo will not flourish. Even if there were competent graduates in Kosovo, it is easier to set power plants on fire after reconstruction money has been split, or to live off smuggling than to study. This is what SFRJ found out hard way, and what lead it to bankruptcy.
b)Both sides of heroin supply lines are populated with very powerful and rich individuals. Drugs will have to continue flowing, and if not, someone is going to get hurt. Even if Thachis or Haradinajs decide to go through with the deal, they will not be able to take all their cronies with them. For some of them drug money shall be much more than what their former masters can offer, and somehow I can easily predict conflict result. So whatever they promise, they won’t keep. They also prefer to live.
c)Both parties in the deal believe that they can outsmart the other. The problem is that, after recognizing Kosovo EU has no more leavers left, and they believe that this is the only way they can get into Kosovo. Also, in the back of their minds they plan to get rid of their current sweethearts as soon as they decriminalize Kosovo, and for some reason they believe that the other party cannot figure that out.

Is this a foolproof plan or what? After SFRJ, and UNMIK failed in exactly the same way, this is the best that Solana, Sarkozy, Merkel and the crew can think off. You should take bets on when EU mission is going to be forced out, after they ‘achieved all goals’. Mafia’s of course.

Kind regards,
Dusan
Posted by: Dusan | December 7th, 2007 at 6:17 pm | Report this comment
Dusan,

It never fails. The only rhetoric coming out the Serbian side is a racist one. Albanians are scary mountain people, worthy of nothing and the only way to make them better is to crush and kill them. You sound like Milosevic. In all honesty, I am amazed and, in a level, your arguments are kind of grotesque. Wow!
Posted by: Michael | December 7th, 2007 at 7:07 pm | Report this comment
The mafia came to Kosovo, it is not an Albanian or Serbian creation. It comes from the West, it works for the West where the lucrative market is.

The same applies to Afghanistan, the Yanks brought it. They did the same in Vietnam where general Key, a great American allied used to pilot his own bomber to transport the drugs. Later for many years he lived in the USA and had some lucrative business there.

Imperialism and drugs is all fashion. Ask the Chinese about the three Opium Wars they had to endure with Great Britain so that the latter could sell their Indian opium production. The Royal Navy opened the Chinese port to “free trade”, Hong Kong became a British colony for that very purpose, to keep the opium flowing!
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | December 7th, 2007 at 7:24 pm | Report this comment
Latest:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3013628.ece

And what is “supervised independence” if not a colony?
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | December 7th, 2007 at 10:43 pm | Report this comment
Your conspiracy theories about the west bringing the Mafia to Kosovo are absurd. How do you come up with this kind of stuff? Do you think anyone believes you? Just think about this: What is more important to a capitalist society? To have its citizen drugged and non productive or hard working and productive?

You seem to want to have it several ways. First you claim that “The aspirations of the Southenr Slavs for a common country goes back centuries” (see one of your posts above) but then you claim that “The Slovenes seceded not because the Serbs but because Yugoslavia, the Slovenes may have not wanted to be part of a federation including Serbia, but they don’t want to be associated with Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro neither.

Croatia, not only does not like Serbs but they make it very clear that only Croats have full rights and anyone else is a second class citizen.
The same apply to the rest. ” Which is it?
Posted by: Michael | December 7th, 2007 at 11:33 pm | Report this comment
Michael,

Here something for you to watch from Dutch TV (not exactly Serbian lovers) There are 5 segments including Americans from the State Department and from the “public relations” industry (what Goebbels used to call propaganda)

Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfjQXzJ0F-I&feature=related
Posted by: Jacinto Lirola | December 8th, 2007 at 12:53 am | Report this comment
Kosovo police has apparently yesterday seized 13.5 kg of heroin, after ‘intercepting’ a private car on the road leading to Thaci’s birthplace and stronghold. I have no doubt that this is supposed to demonstrate something to someone, and that it’s very much related to what I’ve been writing about yesterday. The ‘sharks’ will bite, no doubt.

I have been trying not to offend you Michael, but you seem to be pressed hard to express your feelings about me. I had to deal with people like you in Serbia before, and I know that you and I have nothing to discuss. Please concentrate on describing how bad Serbs are, leaving my posts out. I’m sure you’ll find people of similar beliefs to share your enthusiasm with.

Kind regards,

Dusan
Posted by: Dusan | December 8th, 2007 at 1:26 pm | Report this comment
Dusan,

I have been criticizing your arguments, not you. Since this is a public forum I think it makes sense I respond to your posts. You can always go to a private forum.
Posted by: Michael | December 8th, 2007 at 4:25 pm | Report this comment
My understanding of the Balkans situation is that when the initial talks were taking place between NATO and then Yugoslavia previous to the war, Milosovich at one point stormed out and refused to negotiate further. This to me indicates that NATO were pressing for some condition that he found wholly unacceptable, hence the breakdown of talks, the war etc.

Knowing the likely demands of the USA I suggest that the condition was something to do with allowing US interests access for building and operating oil and gas pipelines across the then Yugoslavia. Milosovich would certainly have denied this, and the US would have then turned to plan B which was to negotiate with Albanian interests. With the Albanians in control of Kossovo this would then have given the USA a corridor across the Balkans for pipelines etc. I believe this was their endgame, which they were well aware of before the war itself.

Of course Milosovich is conveniently dead, so cannot tell us what broke down in those initial talks where the failure of diplomacy led to the war itself. And of course we are not likely to hear any of this from NATO or its allies.

If you want an explanation of why the USA so rigidly holds to the Albanian occupation of Kossovo I don’t think you will find a better one than the above. Just look at the geography of the Balkans and you’ll see where the likely corridor goes - across Kossovo.
Posted by: Eusebius |