The article tries to describe the situation of the region as objective as possible. Only the listed challenges and consequences of the different scenarios should be regarded as personal views. In these comments I would like to explain why I personally recommend the independence of Kosovo :

1. Kosovo does not have any precedence in any other region. Neither Republika Srpska nor the Basque country have ever had the same degree of autonomy as Kosovo has had in Yugoslavia since 1974. Furthermore, genocide has never been attempted on the people of Republika Srpska or the Basque Country .

2. It is not natural that Serbia wants to rule a region where almost two million non-Serbs are living.

3. The Albanians do not trust any Serbian autonomy. The Albanians were already granted autonomy in 1974 but it was abolished overnight by Milosevic. How are they going to trust the Serbs ever again ? Are the Serbs actually going to grant the Albanians autonomy ? And that is when the majority of the Serbian parliamentarians are nationalists !

4. The independence of Kosovo would also be advantageous for Serbia that could then concentrate on EU integration. The re-entry of Kosovo into Serbia would have the opposite effect. Through some years, Serbia would be involved in maintaining the peace in Kosovo.

Réagir à ce commentaire

Hi everybody,

thanks for your messages. As editing director of this webzine, I just would like to point out :

1. that the author, Sören, is an expert in this field and I personnaly think that his analysis gives you objective details about the situation and is not biased. He preferred to give his own point of view (with arguments and in the Comment space) and he has the right to do so.

2. The article published on the German version has led to an important debate and I am sure Sören will appreciate to join the debate on the EN version when he will have the opportunity to do so.

3. This debate space is here to provide you with a tool to debate openly but also politely (what you have done since then). I just prefer to warn you all about this fact especially when discussing burning issues like this one.

thanks for your understanding,

Pierre

Réagir à ce commentaire

Pierre,

I am not disputing Sören’s expertise. What I’m trying to argue here is a chronic ’inertia of thoughts’ and the premise on what too many analysts and journalists base their conclusion on what we have to do with Kosovo.

It seems to me that Kosovo issue has many properties of inverted process of logical conclusions. ’We’ made our minds up on what we have to do (with Kosovo) then try to justify our action by steering premises towards pre-determined conclusion.

How about something like this :

1. Kosovo is a province of internationally recognised, democratic and sovereign state of Serbia. What are the current rules for breaking up sovereign states ? Were these rules established for a reason ? Are they still valid ? Do we want to change them ? Do we want to change them in an orderly way ?

2. Kosovo Albanians like any other, have a right to live in peace and democracy. What about other breakaway regions of Georgia, Moldova etc ? Are we going to recognise their independence too ? Why not ? Shall we recognise the right for self-determination of 260.000 Bangladeshi community in east London ? Why not ?

3. If we have to break the rules - what is the overriding, universally accepted reason for this ? Do we have an objective reason to believe that our evidence is correct ?

4. Have we objectively evaluated both sides’ arguments ? Why not ?

5. If we break the rules anyway - are we prepared to face the consequences ? Are there likely to be any ? If we break the rules, can we expect other to stick to them ?

Let’s not be naive. Let the sanity prevail and make every conceivable effort to make the right decision based on rules. We all know very well what comes When rules fail.

Réagir à ce commentaire

Lol ! The author is an expert !

It’s a basic article with but the briefest rundown of ’how we got here’ and a list at the end of the ’options’. Bearly a shred of analysis. Expert my foot.

1 : No mention of Kosovo prior to Milosevic, i.e. the massive demostration for ’indpenedence’ in 1981, sparked off by albanian students who claimed they had been poisioned (a very popular theme with the albanians, repeated again in 1988 and in 2003 (Macedonia)) ;

2 : No mention of the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from the region since the Albanians got their autonomy in the early 1970s (after another massive riot, Tito gave in yet again) ;

3 : No mention of Marek Anton Nowicki, the former Ombudsman for Kosovo and author of Pro Memoria, the only voice not to follow the West’s propganada line that everything was hunky dory in Kosovo. Well, he didn’t have his mandate renewed. Talk about killing the messenger ;

4 : Nothing about the massive economic drain Kosovo was on the rest of the SFRY and a major reason that the economy tanked ;

5 : Nothing about KLA affiliates (the same people) starting the war in Macedonia in 2003 ;

6 : Nothing of « Standards before Status » becoming « Status before Standards » ;

7 : Nothiing about the total lack of law and order, jobs etc. for most ordinary albnians either, let alone that 55% didn’t vote. Now what kind of ’independence’ mandate is that or is the fact that they don’t want the albanina mafia to continue to ’run’ Kosovo, even though they are the most preferred by the West.

As for the YPA’s methods, the author is remarkably loose with his terms. Funny, the US and their allies regularly drop high explosive bombs and annihilate small towns (or large ones) under the guise of the ’war on terror’, yet terrorists like the KLA who dress in civilian clothes and use their own families as human shields are the victims. They had plenty of women in ther ranks. He shows a distinct lack of knowledge of what kind of war was being fought, i.e. a classic counter insurgency campaign, hence has to rely on the usual journalistic clichés (Apartheid ! Raus Juden ! Waht a joke). He has no idea.

He neither addresses the ’credibility’ of NATO, a fundamental reason that they went to ’war’ with Serbia in 1999 - ’credibility’ is what NATO said, not massacres or human rights. What of the credibility of the UN which the West continues to undermine, really a continuation of their behavior in the 1990s where ’humanitarianism’ trumped all laws, but of course for the ’right’ people.

So Kosovo gets its independence and NATO will stand there and watch as the remaing Serbs, Goranies, Roma pack and leave. They might even provide transport. That would be absolutely brilliant for NATO’s ’credibility’.

Absolutely nothing will be solved with the usual quick fix ’solution’, so who will be to blame when it all goes wrong ? Ridiculous. At least the West and the KLA have something in common : total disregared for any law when it stands in the way of their interests. The Indians and the Chinese won’t forget, let alone trust the West. Unfortuately, the consequences of the West’s actions will resonate for decades in all sorts of places and ways. Maybe not immediately, but it will occur.

Réagir à ce commentaire

Dear Aleks, thank your for your comments. Indeed I did not mention those events. Thank you very much for adding facts to my analysis, which attempted to give a very brief introduction of why Kosovo is as tricky today as it is.

Several authors mentioned the NATO intervention in Kosovo as illegitimate. It is true that there has been no UN Security Resolution on this intervention, it was Russia who blocked this. However, the literature discusses this case critically and some authors claim it to be legitimate as a form of Humanitarian Intervention. Now again, this can be discussed. However, there has been a resolution after the intervention namely 1244, which indeed states that Kosovo is a part of Serbia (at this time Yugoslavia) Again, if Kosovo declares indepence unilaterally, it will be a breach of international law. Now, one could argue that the principle of self determination has been the underlying principle of international law since the 1940s, and taking into account the specialities of the 1974 constitution of Yugoslavia and the events in the 1990s one could argue that the Kosovars deserve the right to self determination. Again, this could be questioned. Indeed Mr Jenkins raises important questions. And I confess that I do not have an answer to them. However, my question would be, what alternative to Kosovo indepence could be implemented peacefully and successfully ? And this questions stands. Independent of the support of the International Community, how could one answer this question. Both, the USA and Russia have made important mistakes. The US in the way that say agreed to accept a unilateral indepence before the end of the last talks and Russia with its early support for Belgrade that it will not support any decision against the will of Belgrade. However, we have seen over 2 years of negotiations and there is just no way for a common solution of the problem. So what to do ? Negotiate again, knowing there will be no outcome ? Let the conflict rest and continue to support the economic recession in Kosovo and accept all the instabilites this will bring to the region ? Send the Kosovars back to Serbia, a decision 90 per cent completely oppose ?

Réagir à ce commentaire

Illegitimacy is in the eye of the beholder, as is legitimacy. My problem with ’brief’ explanations is Sun Zun like. By omitting certain key facts, one is left with an inaccurate representation of the situation, which, I think we all agree is certainly not simple. I understand there are time/other constraints, but loose wording such as rape camps (have you actually read the Dame Anne-Warburton report on the camps, which incidentally only investigated cases against non-Serbs ?) and Vukovar which if anything reflected the paralysis of the JNA General Staff who had no idea how to deal with the HOS behaviour, not to mention regular units that had haemorraghed good parts of their multi-ethnic personnel etc. etc.. The same with Srebrenica - have you read the interview in Dani of Mirsad Tosacka(sp ?) by Emir Suljagic where it is clearly stated that those ’men and boys’, as our free media likes to call them, were officially members of the ArBiH (and everthing that entails on the international law on genocide etc. etc.). Still, there’s no point debating that because it has already been ’decided’ by the powers that be (as is always the case).

Returning to your highlighted point, what alternative indeed ? The West took its position long before Russia put its foot down (i.e. finally under Putin, they are laying down their red lines, much as the Chinese did much earlier over the spy plane ’incident’) and has had the game entirely in hand, and still screwed it up. Explain to me how ’negotiation’, as I oft hear from well learned journalists (and I know quite a few across the spectrum of media) equals only the Serbs agreeing to independence, whatever euphimism politicians and their friends decide to call ? Does a 45% turn out equal a mandate for independence ? Is the fact that Kosovo is not independent the cause of its ills ? Why do I read report of thousands of kosvo albanians applying for, and receiving serbian passports ? Is it simply because as a Serb it is easier to travel or is it because the police actually can do something ?

Again, the question you pose has no answer. Maybe you should ask what is the price the West is willing to pay for this quick solution ? Independence is the desperate solution. Can you eat it ? Does it give you jobs ? Does it educate you ? Does it protect you ? How is it possible to have a clear and frank debate about Kosovo when the Kosovo albanian leadership is not held responsible for any of the mess (any straight international like Nowicki is cleaned out) but can dial up a mob at short notice (as was done over the drowning ’by Serbs’ of albanian boys in 2004) ?

Your question also presupposes an egality between Western and Eastern positions, which is not even a neutral standpoint to start from. That standpoint is UN resolution 1244. If the West didn’t like it, then why sign up to it (rhetorical - they totally screwed up their war aims, a 2 day bombing campaign that turned into 78 days - does anyone question the competence of these people ???). The Serbs have clearly stated that they would be involved only minimally, just short of independence. They have move a long way. The albanians have not moved and inch, nor 2.54cm. The West was dishonest from the start when they launched the ’negotiating process’. Rule no.1, choose a safe pair of hands. Enter Ahtesaari, a member of the infamous International Crisis Group of former has beens who just can’t say goodbye (check out their member page and ’special advisors’ page to get an idea of how balanced they are). The ICG has been give uncritical and very wide media access across the world as an expert group, rather than an advocacy group that has always championed independence. It has been a struggle to get Media organizations to even introduce them correctly. Why does this matter (am I not going off on a tangent here ?) ? It matters because it is the unofficial arm, propaganda arm if you will, of certain states advocating certain solutions. As we have seen through out the 1990s, most interventions have been preceeded with seeding of atrocity stories in key media outlets regardless of veracity or checking (e.g. 1993 200,000 ’bosniaks’ killed, 80,000 ’bosniaks’ raped, 1995 7,000 ’men and boys’ executed).

Now, where did Russia enter into this ? It didn’t, apart from backing the Serbs in 1999 and the WWIII episode with General Clark.

Why is independence the only solution ? Why not ask, « why are we still saying that any solution is better than no solution » ?

So what happens if Kosovo doesn’t get its independence ? Who will be worse off ? Will the Serbs attack ? No. Will millions of albanians die ? No. Will Kosovo suddenly implode ? Unlikely. Why on earth are we stuck in this one dimensional thought that ’the albanians, out of frustration, will lash out and kick out all the Serbs’, i.e. talk of the kosvo albanians as 1 : not responsible for themselves (or to put it another way, I killed my wife because I had a bad day at work), 2 : that they are somehow incapable of controlling themselves (now that is very colonial, johnny foriegner being less advanced/developed but they can’t help it as they are just mere savages). The whole one-sided ’debate’ is false. Kosovo will implode and take the rest of the world with it if it is not given independence. So why bother with talks in the first place ? To buy time to punish, beg, threaten etc. the opposition into agreement. WTF are they called ’talks’ ? Is the West really afraid of ’an explosion of violence’, as we are regularly promised by breathless reporters or just using it as a figleaf so that everyone looks the other way when the UN is kicked bodily between the legs ??? I question every single assumption that is made and especially those that are not spelt out.

You talk of instabilities brought to the region. Only the Albanian ’leaderships’ in Kosovo and Macedonia can answer that. As I pointed out, KLA & co. started a war in Macedonia which had nothing to do with Kosovo, though many try to link the two. Only with NATO/the West on their side did they have disproportionate influence on talks, hence the Ohrid agreement. It is basically the case of a minority threatening to bring down the whole region into violence if it does not get what it wants. How does this fit into Western ideals of democracy exactly ? Human rights (i.e. or in this case, the ’human rights’ of some over others) ? Do you think it is reasonable for the West to allow itself to be held (and I must emphasise the word ’apparent’ here), hostage to further destabilisation ?

To me it looks like the gamble is that the Serbs won’t risk jacking in joining of the EU for Kosovo. What if they are wrong. After all, it was only the Serbs who said ’No’ to the Nazis. The famous ’Inat’. What are the politico-strategic implications for the EU stability, security and energy policies if Serbia does a Switzerland or goes totally East ? Is this risk really worth taking. It’s implications certainly go way beyond the consequences of kosovo albanian violence if they do not get what they want.

A further arrow to add to the bow. What of China and India ? The ’enlightened’ often focus solely on Russia, the fact that China and India have not been vocal on the issue is totally ignored. China is behind Russia. They are more than happy that Russia takes the media flak. What of the other growing super-power India ? The struggle it is facing can be seen the US-India nuclear deal which may well sink because it is a too significant shift away from India’s traditional non-aligned politics. And the UN. Whatever form it takes in future, neither India nor China will ignore such a blatant disregared of a UN resolution. What are their options ? Say nothing, but when it is in their interests, invoke the same arguments ? Everyone recognises that power is shifting East. The UN was useful to the West during the Cold War as it served as a balance against the Soviet Union. Since then, it has been seen as a hindrance, from the OSCE wresting monitoring of elections away from it (how strange for the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) and politicising elections (i.e. giving the all-ok to the truely corrupt elections of Yelsin in 1996), to bombing Bosnia when Boutrosx2 Ghali was on holiday and Kofi Annan was incharge who kindly provided the second ’key’ to the dual key system for bombing when needed - the US vetoing relection of the truely popular Ghali for their own man.... Kofi Annan. Why is it that no-one seems to care a damn about a system that the West will need in future ?

Is independence for Kosovo worth resolution 1244 and all its consequences ? Does humanitarian intervention override everything ? Where has it been successful ? Bosnia doesn’t count because the Serbs militarily won in 1993, but the West froze this and provided military and political support, thus prolonging the war another 2 years, resulting in Dayton, a plan really not very different from that proposed by Jose Cutilehro in...1992. Or should we mention the Congo, where the withdrawl of Belgian ’peace keepers’ was the last barrier to the biggest killings of civilians in the last 20 years ? Or maybe Somalia, another great success, in 1994. Or Somalia again, that was peaceful under the Islamic courts, but not ’acceptable’ to the West and not surprisingly, the fighting has continued and is kiling more and more people. Or bringing peace and democracy to Afghanistan and equality for women ? The humanitarian argument has nothing to do with foreign policy because foreign policy cannot function in the short term and would ultimately serve to undermine the state’s power, i.e. 5% action, 95% effect. How long would the military powers in the world last politically if they were involved in every single conflict globally ? Someone has to pay for it, in cash or in blood, and people in democratic countries don’t like to pay for either. Knee-jerk, atrocity motivated actions have many implications, not to mention money, resources, manpower etc. etc. Humanitarian intervention is only adopted when it is in line with current thinking, hence the importance of supposedly ’independent’ groups like the ICG and brainless parroting Media to prepare the way. When it is not in our interests (too far away, too foreign, we have no companies there of significance), then no-one cares, hence the genocide in the Congo.

Whatever, I’ve gone on far too long. I just don’t accept the question you pose in those terms. It is presenting a one dimensional presupposed situation where we all agree that it is far, far more complicated. The refusal to accept, let alone debate or discuss, any of the Serb’s numerous propositions, and the albanias offering absolutely nothing from their side, shows how fixed and one-sided this pony show is, and always was. It’s not a debate or negotiations, it’s a shouting match. Hand wringing by the Media (« we must do something ! ») shows how far the trade has fallen. They should be grilling those who are elected and not giving them an easy ride....

P.S. Is ’your’ government willing to accept hundreds of thousands of young albanians with no hopes nor prospects into the country. I suppose being white is in their favor...

Réagir à ce commentaire

I am from Romania and i suport Serbia... The independence of Kosovo is nothing but a way to make a new Albania...we will see in the future the jonction of Kosovo with Albania...

Réagir à ce commentaire