Ultime notizie dal Kosovo

Attualità kosovara

Premessa in italiano:

Oggi le autorità kosovaro-albanesi hanno deciso di avviare il percorso che porterà alla più completa indipendenza dalla Serbia il Kosovo. Da oggi in poi la situazione potrà assumere dinamiche assolutamente imprevedibili e pericolose. Non solo a causa di ragioni interne, ma anche perché il Kosovo sembra essere diventato l’ennesimo scenario della rinascente contrapposizione fra gli Usa e la Russia. Il Prof. Vojin Joksimovich ci fornisce un’esauriente chiave di lettura su quanto sta succedendo nel Kosovo e fuori dal Kosovo.

Articolo in inglese:

Kosovo Independence : 2006—No, 2007—No, 2008—Uncertain

Vojin Joksimovich, PhD

2006 Independence

The UN, the EU, the Contact Group, the U.S. , the UK and others were on record declaring that in 2006 a final status decision for Kosovo must be reached. A stampede to “finish the job” was initiated by the UN Security Council (UNSC) backing on October 24, 2005 abandoning the centerpiece of the program of satisfying eight EU human rights standards before initiating status negotiations. Preceding the Ahtisaari appointment, another special UN envoy Norwegian Kai Eide submitted a status report to the UNSC in which he said “Interethnic relations remained bad, biggest threat to the future of Kosovo...Little has been achieved to create foundation of a multiethnic society...Property rights are neither respected nor ensured...Illegal construction and occupation of homes is a widespread phenomenon.” In 2003, a UN police spokesperson said that Kosovo “is not a society affected by organized crime, but a society founded on organized crime.” All in all a dysfunctional society. The international community was unwilling to seriously confront the Albanian thugs. The risk aversion culture prevailed. Who was responsible for this miserable state of affairs? The answer is nobody in New York , Washington or the Western European capitals.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) and other Serb-bashers have predicted that the international community will grant independence to the Albanians before the year-end.

Numerous columns in the Serb-bashing media predicted the same. Kosovo independence became another test of political correctness. Even in Belgrade doom and gloom atmosphere prevailed. Some argued that Kosmet was lost when Tito allowed uncontrolled migration from Albania . Some argued that it was lost when Serbs sold their houses to Albanians. Some argued that it was lost when Milosevic abolished the 1974 Autonomy and rolled it back to the 1963 level and when he ousted Albanian leaders from running the province. Some argued that it was lost when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999. Finally, some argued that it was lost when the post-Milosevic democratic governments failed to secure powerful allies in the West. A big factor was intimidation by the U.S. and lack of courage to confront the only world superpower.

However, on June 28 Prime Minister (PM) Vojislav Kostunica announced that Kosmet (Kosovo and Metohija) was an integral part of Serbia and will remain so. On September 30 the Serbian Parliament adopted a new constitution that declared Kosmet to be inalienable part of Serbia . This was a shrewd delaying tactic on behalf of the PM. The U.S.-led stampede was halted. The UN mediator, former Finish president Ahtisaari, still planed to come up with a proposal for supervised independence before the year end. The West assumed it needed only to persuade Serbia to acquiesce without a big fight, so all sides had a soft-landing. However, the Russians have compelled Ahtisaari first to deliver the proposal to Belgrade and Pristina before submitting it to the UNSC. The process was extended into 2007.

2007 Independence

Overwhelming pessimism was replaced with a cautions not all is lost attitude. Russian President Putin’s blunt warning, at the February 2007 Munich Security Conference that Russia would not agree to any Kosovo settlement that Belgrade opposed, provided a major boost. In Washington and Brussels there was a feeling that Putin was bluffing and essentially no planning took place in case Putin meant it. It was a policy of “eyes wide shut” attitude. The Russian support was not only based on Slavic friendship, although it was a factor, but on own national interests including the economic ones. The Russian Orthodox Church fully supported Serbia . If Kosovo became independent how would Russia explain to the leaders of South Ossetia , Abkhazia and Transniestria why the situation in Kosovo is as unique as the West has been advocating.

On March 26, 2007 Ahtisaari submitted his report to the UNSC recommending Kosovo independence supervised by the EU with continued presence of NATO troops on the ground. The U.S./UK/France/Germany jumped on the Ahtisaari plan and drafted a UN resolution which would annul the UN #1244 and thus detach Kosovo from Serbia . The third draft filed on June 20 proposed the postponement of supervised independence for 120 days, the time given for negotiations to take place with automatic imposition of the Ahtisaari plan if the parties couldn’t agree. In Belgrade and Moscow this proposal was dead on arrival. Russia opposed artificial deadlines and automatism and Serbia was not interested in the negotiations with predetermined outcome. The resolution did not come for a vote in the UNSC as Russia declared its intention to veto it. Other nations represented on the UNSC such as China , Indonesia and South Africa believed that the rule of law should be the keystone of the international order which would be grossly violated if Kosovo independence would be established on 15% of the Serbian territory. In addition, Russia ’s Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov suggested Ahtisaari unfitness to mediate further talks based on reports that Albanian mafia bribed him. The German BND sent the documentation to the UN Secretary General that he took the bribe from the Albanian mafia. The State Department was unable to deny Ahtisaari corruption charges.

In August negotiations were launched with mediation by the Contact Group negotiating troika: U.S./EU/Russia with a deadline for a report to be submitted to the UN Secretary General by December 10. The mediators Frank Wisner, Wolfgang Ischinger and Alexander Botsan-Harchenko, representing the U.S. , EU and Russia respectively, were tasked with getting the Serbs and Albanians to agree on Kosovo’s future status. The troika will now report that the negotiations have failed after the last session at Baden, an Austrian spa town near Vienna , November 26-28. The U.S. and the EU stated that the mediation ends but Russia insists on further negotiations. Serbian PM said: “We would have a duty to agree to resume the talks and establish a new negotiating process....no one should have any doubt that we will annul any unilateral act, and treat unilateral independence as a null, void and non-binding phenomenon...Serbia will not let an inch of its territory be taken away.”

Hashim Thaci, former KLA leader with blood on his hands known as “Snake” and Kosovo’s next prime minister said: “We can negotiate for 100 years with Serbia but for the independence of Kosovo we can have no compromise.” Despite turnout of only 43% in the November 17 elections, Thaci had audacity to proudly proclaim that “the citizens of Kosovo sent the world a message...that Kosovo is ready for independence.” Guardian wrote: “In response, Europe ’s warnings against a unilateral declaration of independence finally became audible, with Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt speculating that:’ I don’t think they (Kosovo Albanians) want to be independent from the international community.’”

After visiting Belgrade and Pristina on December 3, the mediators will meet with the Contact Group on December 9 to present the document which is supposed to be fact-finding with no conclusions and recommendations because the U.S. and Russia have different standpoints. The UNSC meets on December 19. If the UNSC decides to vote, Moscow will use its veto power for a resolution advocating independence. Other compromises, like replacement of the UN civil administration by the EU, are possible. Italian PM Romano Prodi urged Albanians to delay their declaration as the EU nations have made progress on reaching common stance. That stance would be irreplaceably destroyed if there were hasty decisions. Even a strong backer of Kosovo independence Albanian PM Sali Berisha went along. Hence 2007 ends inconclusively `as 2006 did.

Post-Baden Insights

Early 2008 appear to be a likely a decision-making season if rhetoric of various western governmental officials and the media are to be taken seriously. In the past they were wrong and in addition they badly miscalculated the Russian influence. The Western media will undoubtedly continue its propaganda campaign launched back in 2004 to convince the western public how the Serbs and Russians are “obstinate.” After all the independent Kosovo slogan has definitely become another test of political correctness. However, in view of this writer the ultimate outcome is riddled with uncertainties. Some of them are captured below.

UNSC vs. Unilateral Declaration of Independence

Are we heading back to the UNSC for a resolution of the status in accordance with the international law or for unlawful unilateral declaration of independence as the Albanians are threatening? Prime Minister Kostunica stated: “It will end and must end in the Security Council. Any other way would be a crime, a sort of crime that would seriously damage the international law and the United Nations.” Serbia will absolutely support decisions taken by the UNSC.

The Albanians have initially threatened unilateral declaration on the Albanian Flag Day (November 28), then very shortly after December 10 and now they are claiming that a declaration would be made in close cooperation with the U.S. and the EU. February/March time frame is being mentioned. The Albanians heavily depend on the U.S. /EU and therefore have to listen in particular to the U.S. Thaci made a commitment that renewed unrest was out of the question: no more war, no more killings, and no more violence in the region. He should keep this commitment—otherwise his immunity from the Hague prosecution may expire.

Albin Kurti, who is heading the Self-Determination Movement in Kosovo and is under house arrest in Pristina, views the situation in Kosovo as deadlocked and that there is a “a long way to go towards independence.” He says that Bush “was telling Kosovo Albanian lies” and that Hashim Thaci will not declare independence as long as the international powers do not accept that. Kurti, 32, draws his support from very young Albanians. Half of the population is below 25. He boycotted the November 17 elections which contributed to low turnout.

Bush Blamed for Albanian Intransigence

German Suddeutsche Zeitung writes: “Wolfgang Ischinger failed...due to the intransigence of Albanians. They want only one thing: independence...None of the suggestions the Serbs made during the 120-day negotiations had the slightest chance. Why should the Albanians settle for autonomy when George W. Bush had already promised them their own state?” While visiting Albania in June 2007 Bush declared that “sooner rather than later you’ve got to say enough is enough, Kosovo independent.” Bush wants a puppet state with NATO having the ultimate authority. Opening of a Pandora’s Box with consequences for Europe and the world are essentially ignored.

Lavrov Accuses Western Countries

Russia ’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov accused Western countries of fueling drive for independence by neglecting Pristina violations of UN resolutions. “The conniving indifference of our Western partners toward violations [of UN resolution #1244] by Kosovo Albanians and their attempts to avoid proper actions to enforce the full implementation of this resolution, have inspired a psychological drive toward Kosovo independence.” Furthermore Lavrov accused the Kosovo leaders of using pure blackmail to justify plans for independence. “Our Western partners are succumbing to this blackmail and are starting to say that if we don’t give Kosovo independence, it will cause an outbreak of violence. To threaten us with violence and disorder if we refuse to make certain decisions is a dangerous and slippery path, which may have repercussions far away from Kosovo. If the West recognizes Kosovo as an independent state, Russia will act in accordance with international law.” Furthermore, Lavrov made the following point: “It is only now that many of those who supported calls for a speedy proclamation of Kosovo independence are starting to understand the possible consequences.” The statement was made after his visit to Washington .

Holbrooke: Send American Troops

It is interesting that Richard Holbrooke; President Clinton’s point man in the Balkans, chief architect of the Dayton peace agreement in Bosnia and a likely Secretary of State candidate if democrats win the 2008 elections, wrote: “Kosovo’s eight-year run as the biggest ever UN project will end with great tension and a threat of violence that could spread to Bosnia .” He argues that there is urgent need to beef up the NATO presence before this diplomatic train wreck and blasts the Bush administration for its hesitation and neglect which created this dilemma exploited by Russia . He concludes: “The window of opportunity for a soft landing in Kosovo closed in 2004. Still, Bush should make one last, personal effort with Putin. His efforts must be backed by temporary additional troop deployments in the region. It is not too late to prevent violence, but it will take American-led action and time is running out.”

U.S. Determines Stability in Balkans

Serbian President Tadic thinks Washington has not managed to understand the complex international situation in the Balkans—just as it did understand in Iraq . There is more to it. The U.S. policies in the Balkans have been enigmatic as addressed separately below. However, there is little doubt that the U.S’ final position on Kosovo is crucial regarding stability and peace in the Balkans as the Albanians are under full control of the U.S. Simply speaking, adherence to the UN #1244 means stability and bypassing the international law means most likely long-term instability. Thomas Fleiner, legal adviser to the Serbian government, firmly maintains: “The text of the resolution is quite clear to any lawyer and it calls for respect of sovereignty and search for a solution for Kosovo only within the essential autonomy framework,” and as such “every decision that would step out of that framework will require consensus of both sides and an amendment to resolution 1244.” The U.S. , UK and France had voted together with Russia and China for the UN #1244. Fleiner further asserts that the unilateral declaration would be equal to “the declaration of war and a hostile act against the United Nations.”

Troop Deployments

Regarding American troop deployments, the Pentagon doesn’t even have a contingency plan given heavy commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan . However, Great Britain is getting ready to send additional troops as of 1/1/08. After all Tony Blair takes the credit for convincing Clinton to bomb Serbia . He is a household name; a number of Albanian children are named after him. Russia should consider establishing a military base in Serbia after signing a military agreement with Serbia to protect the Kosovo Serbs who will in all likelihood be threatened by Albanian mobs resembling March 2004 pogrom, when the KFOR had done a miserable job protecting them. While the KFOR is better equipped now to protect all Kosovo citizens they will also ensure that reintegration of northern Kosovo into Serbia doesn’t take place.

“Last Effort” with Putin

With regard to the “last personal effort with Putin,” it should be remembered that they met in early July in Maine . Nothing resulted from that session. It is questionable whether Bush is even capable of addressing the Kosovo issue on one-to-one basis. Putin has redlined the Kosovo issue meaning no deal on the basis of a trade for a possible U.S. concession elsewhere. Putin seems to be in no lose situation. If the U.S. recognizes Kosovo, Putin can recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia causing big blow to Georgia and the U.S. interests in the Caucasus .

However, Bush should realize that Kosovo is too small player on the world stage to risk a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia breaking out. He has enough on his plate elsewhere and needs Russia to help him resolve other burning issues like Iran . Hence, in order to deliver partially on his promise to the Albanians he should offer to offer a Kosovo partition on the basis of northern Kosovo reintegration into Serbia plus bullet-proof international guarantees for the Serbs living in southern enclaves plus protection of the Serbian religious treasures. For the latter to have full credibility the Russian troops might have to return to Kosovo. The EU should be pleased with this solution as it would save tons of taxpayers’ money to them. In addition, the EU should remember that the lessons learned from the Balkans conflicts in the 1990s teach us that there should be no unilateral change of borders, i.e. they should be inviolable unless changes are agreed upon by both sides. Albanians of course would be unhappy with this solution as well as the Serbs to perhaps a lesser degree. So be it but there might not be a better alternative.

The biggest opponent of this partition option within the Bush administration would be of course Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns; a holdover from the Clinton administration schooled in the policy of raping Serbia in order to appease radical Islam in the Balkans. He seems to be beyond redemption as illustrated in a recent BBC interview. After December 10 will follow a transitional period when everyone will have to do "what they have to.” He voiced hope that Russia would act "constructively" and accept the "reality on the ground" in Kosovo, and that it would encourage the Serbian government to accept a compromise. In the past year and a half, we have not seen that the Serbian government was ready to do that, Burns was reported as saying. What compromise is he talking about? Serbia has offered more than one. Of course, the White House can and should shut up Burns in the interest of the U.S. global interests which shouldn’t result in the Cold War II with Russia . He has not been serving well the interests of his country and should perhaps seriously consider resigning.

Troika: Yet Another Negotiating Farce?

In this Washington Post peace, Holbrooke claims that the American diplomacy working closely with the German troika representative Ischinger has largely succeeded in persuading most of European allies to recognize Kosovo rapidly. Is he implying that the 120-day process was nothing more than a farce despite the fact that the troika process was definitely better conducted than the Ahtisaari process which was so transparently biased? It certainly wouldn’t be unprecedented. Rambouillet Conference in February/March 1999 was a setup for war rather than a Peace Conference. Ahtisaari mediation was most certainly a farce. Statements made by Albanian “negotiators” corroborate the farce aspect. Kosovo President Fatmir Sejdiu said: “Even the last 120 days of talks were unnecessary.” Veton Surroi said: “Kosovo can’t remain hostage to procedures. We have fulfilled our obligations. Now it is our partner’s turn.” Obligations of the Albanian negotiators were simply to run out the clock.

Disheartening for Serbian Delegation

The outcome of troika’s mediation must be extremely disheartening to the Serbian negotiators who have done an excellent job by exhibiting necessary flexibility and creativity Belgrade was ready to sacrifice everything, or almost everything, in order to keep Kosovo within Serbia . In the last few months, it has been making one concession after another. It presented in detail the Serbian proposal for unprecedented Kosovo autonomy, to be frozen for 20 years, including most competencies and symbols of a sovereign state: access to financial international institutions like the IMF, trade and cultural representative offices abroad, own flag, anthem and national sport teams. Relations with Serbia would be normalized. Benefits of joining the EU would be enjoyed by Kosovo. Serbia would reserve the right to exclusive representation in the UN, OSCE and Council of Europe. Serbia would also “maintain the right to associate with the provinces’ foreign policy, defense, border control and the protection of Serbian heritage.” Serbian proposals using models of functioning autonomies of Hong Kong, Aland Islands and South Tyrol demonstrated initiatives badly lacking on the other side. The Hong Kong model was presumably used to get China even more involved. It has some shortcomings: the Hong Kong Chinese voted for reintegration into China . Aland Islands is, however, an excellent example. It is an archipelago in the Baltic Sea . It is an autonomous, demilitarized, monolingual Swedish speaking administrative province of Finland . 96.2% voted to cede from Finland . League of Nations in 1921 granted sovereignty to Finland .

Serbian Response: Presidential Elections

Most columns mention likely Belgrade response to unilateral declaration which includes economic measures such as cutting off power supplies, closure of border with Kosovo, travel restrictions, a trade embargo and legal challenges to privatization measures. These measures would not affect much the mafia economy but would badly hurt the life of ordinary citizens who now live on rationed electricity. Most columns are ignoring this aspect as well as overlooking a possible impact on presidential elections in Serbia . In case of loss of Kosovo, pro-EU President Tadic would likely lose to his radical opponent. EU would lose Serbia as a prospective member, a country which is deemed by many to be a key country in the Western Balkans. A European Commission representative recently stated that Serbia has a chance to be a leader in the field of economy and that it has greater potential than Croatia . In case of loss of Kosovo , Serbia would probably suspend the negotiations with the EU and turn to friends elsewhere.

Ischinger Doomed Negotiations

Ischinger performance doomed the negotiating process. His statement that “we left no stone unturned” was disingenuous. Position of independence or nothing has gone unchallenged. There was yet another disingenuous statement: “If they get 50% of their demands, it is better than no solution at all.” Instead of challenging the Albanian maximalist approach he attempted to trick the Serbs into a 1972 agreement aimed at strengthening neighborly relations between West and East Germany . This was immediately dismissed by both sides. Then he came up with proposal of “neutral status,” that “would normalize relations between Serbia and Kosovo, without containing the word on status.” This approach would de facto recognize Kosovo as an independent state. Needless to say, both proposals were in contravention of the UN Charter and UN #1244. He showed no interest in the Hong Kong or Aland Islands models. His approach boiled down to helping Western independence advocates to say that they had wanted a different development and did everything possible to achieve it, but things are the way they are and it is now time to rapidly recognize the reality: the independent Kosovo. As a result of his tactics, the EU is now saddled with a severe test.

The EU has now to contend with the consequences of a unilateral declaration of independence by failing to distance itself from the U.S. ’unequivocal approach. In addition, very few mention that the EU taxpayers would have foot the bill for another failed state founded on organized crime in which the justice system is loaded with 40,000 incomplete criminal cases and in which corruption-crime investigations are virtually non-existent.

EU in Pivotal Position

For the EU, Kosovo independence is a hot potato. If the EU would respect its own system of deciding by consensus, the 27 EU members are supposed to reach unanimity. One member has power to veto a decision of majority. An example being Cyprus veto for closer defense ties between the EU and Turkey . German chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi have affirmed a commitment to achieving a “coordinated and harmonized European stand.” Depending on a newspaper column, 2-7 members continue to have serious reservations fearing it would encourage separatist movements elsewhere. Most newspapers suggest that Spain , Slovakia , Rumania , Greece and Cyprus are firmly opposed. Bulgaria was mentioned by several, but not Belgium which is falling apart. Berlin Zeitung suggests that only Cyprus looks like blocking it. Reuters says that only Cyprus and Greece remain opposed. Spiegel says Cyprus and Rumania . A prevailing view is that those major Western powers, which bombed Serbia in 1999, are determined to recognize Kosovo. However, there is the third group consisting of small countries which would like the see the EU unanimity and a UN resolution. In the absence of both they do not seem to be anxious to recognize Kosovo independence.

Sarkozy Crafty Statement

French President Nicholas Sarkozy says that France will support independence adding he hopes it will happen at the right moment. He said that he didn’t consider December 10 as a firm deadline and urged Kosovo leaders against making a hasty declaration. He said that he wants it to happen at the opportune time, when no one feels humiliated. What does he mean? He might think that opportune time might be after Serbia signs the Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) with the EU which is now projected to happen at the end of January. Serbia and the EU have initialed the agreement in early November. The agreement between the EU and Serbia for aid amounting to 1 billion euros over five years (2007-2011) was signed at the end of November. Sarkozy might think that the SAA removes the humiliation aspect. On the other hand the Serbian leaders have repeatedly stated that they wouldn’t trade Kosovo for the EU membership. Perspective of the EU membership provides the EU with significant leverage but it is a leverage that must be used in accordance with the UNSC resolutions.

Deal with Russia

The Europeans are typically more pragmatic than Americans. This pragmatism will probably compel the EU to reach out to Russia . After all Kosovo is in Europe . Instability there would affect the EU and not the U.S. Xavier Solana, the EU foreign policy supremo, has recently stated that the EU cannot resolve the Kosovo issue without Russia and in addition advocated multilaterism in international relations. Russia is viewed not only as the most important neighbor but as a strategic partner in particular because of the energy dependency. Sarcozy might think that he might reach a satisfactory deal with Russia which wouldn’t humiliate Serbia . Germany and Italy might also arrive at the conclusion that showdown with Putin must be avoided leaving Britain and several other countries in minority.

Enigma behind U.S. Kosovo Policy

The U.S. has been a staunch supporter of Kosovo independence. At this writing it appears that the U.S. is willing to ignore the international laws, bypass the UNSC and recognize Kosovo Albanian unilateral declaration of independence. The U.S. Balkans policy has been mind-boggling to many including this writer. This write-up is an attempt to decode this enigma. Thoughts of James Jatras, Srdja Trifkovic and John Bolton in addition to my own have been used.

James Jatras

American Council for Kosovo Director James George Jatras on November the 20th following the "election" victory of the "Democratic Party of Kosovo," under the leadership of Hashim Thaci, said:

“Take everything you think you know about the stated U.S. policy of combating jihad terrorism, organized crime rackets, trafficking in persons (i.e., sex slavery), the global drug trade, peddling weapons and explosives to terrorist groups, and so on. Now stand everything you think you know on its head - and picture the U.S. supporting all of these activities, not combating them. As incredible as it sounds, that describes in a nutshell American policy in Kosovo, which seeks to separate the province from Serbia and create a new terrorist and criminal statelet in Europe .”

Trifkovic/Jatras/Joksimovich Amalgam

Srdja Trifkovic, foreign affairs editor of Chronicles and Byronica, attempted to explain the mystery of the U.S. policy in the Balkans in an article published by Sloboda-Liberty on September 25, 2007. For irrationality of the U.S. policy Trifkovic offered four elements. The text below represent an amalgam using highlights of Trifkovic’s and Jatras thoughts with my own while retaining Trifkovic’s four element framework.

The power of money and lobbying in Washington : Albanian lobby has been well funded and well placed for decades. The Serbian lobby hardly exists. As a product of money and lobbying, combined with media reinforcement, much false information is accepted as unquestionable fact. I would like to add that the Washington foreign affairs community is with some minor exceptions totally ignorant about the Balkans with no knowledge of history. For most of them the history started in 1989 when the U.S. started paying attention to Kosovo. In this truncated version of history, the Serbs were branded as bad guys and the Albanians as victims. Having bought into this gross simplification they do not want to know about even what happened after June 10, 1999.

Inertia: In politics no one ever admits he is wrong about anything. It is unthinkable that any responsible political actor will go back to suggest we might have misunderstood, or even falsified the facts, or that our actions were misguided. Statements that Kosovo is “the last piece of unfinished business in the Balkans” mean that its solution must reflect the anti-Serb formula applied in the past, because to do otherwise would call into doubt previous actions.

Hegemony: In the post Cold War world notion prevailed that the U.S. is the only superpower and as such its role has been characterized as “benevolent global hegemony.” Jatras sums up the overall tendency in American global policy with one word: hegemony. The concept has particular application to Europe through NATO. No security decision can be taken without the U.S. approval, and preferably sponsorship as exemplified with the military interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo. The concept doesn’t stop in Europe but covers in particular so called Broader Middle East, which includes the Caucasus and Central Asia . The Balkans is seen as much part as it is of Europe . “In wider applications, it means that the opinion of any other power, or the any possible combination of powers, may not outweigh that of the United States on any point in the globe.” In order to enforce this global hegemony, Prof. Chalmers Johnson in his book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, lists 737 American military bases in foreign countries. Furthermore he says if there were an honest count globe the number would probably top 1,000. Camp Bondsteel built in 1999 in Kosovo is the biggest built after the ones built during the Vietnam War. The Roman Empire at its heights in 117 AD required 37 major bases to police its realm from Britannia to Egypt , from Hispania to Armenia . Thus, Moscow cannot be allowed to “win” in Kosovo despite the fact Russia is upholding international legality standards including the U.N. charter, Helsinki Accords, etc and the U.S. wants to violate the backbones of the international law. However, the U.S. is preoccupied with Iraq , Afghanistan , Pakistan , Iran and Venezuela and cannot focus due attention on Kosovo. Hence, it is compelled to rely on its NATO allies which are also the EU members where the unity doesn’t exist.

Islamophilia: Derived in part from the U.S. support for mujahideen in a proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 80ies. The Gulf war in 1991 created an image that the U.S. was hostile to Islam. A need to counter that image led in part to support of the Bosnian Muslims in the civil/religious war in Bosnia , 1992-1995. Clinton boasted that he used military power to protect poor Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Islamists invariably view Kosovo as jihad. Even in the aftermath of 9/11 the pro-Islamic favoritism continued. President Bush considers Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance and meets frequently with Islamic leaders. One needs to recall a photograph of Bush’s visit in June 2007 to the Washington’s Islamic Center, during which he repeated his call for a Palestinian state, touted U.S. support for Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo, characterized jihadists as betrayers of faith, stated his intention to appoint a special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference, and expressed Americans’ collective “appreciation for a faith that has enriched civilization for centuries.” The U.S. is fixated on the notion that victory in the misnamed “war on terror” could only be achieved by getting the Islamic world on our side. A part of that strategy is to make peace with radical Islam including the Muslim Brotherhood. Their radical background is presented in my Prophet book as a longstanding pattern in the U.S foreign policies which peaked out during the Clinton administration. This orientation can be summarized as follows: “in local conflicts, promote Islamic interests; ally ourselves with jihad as long as it is directed against someone else. The underlying logic is: if we—the United States , the West—support Islamic interests, the result will be a moderate Islam that will perhaps threaten others but not us; if we don’t, those interests will be championed by “extremists’ (or at least by extremists we have co-opted and redefined as moderates.” The U.S. intelligence officers are currently meeting not only with the Muslim Brotherhood representatives but also with members of the Deobandi sect in Pakistan . The U.S. State Department has been using the PR, rather than a policy change, using the utopian policy of “If we just explained our policies in a manner they could hear, and then they would understand.” In that PR drive it helps to tell the Muslims that the U.S. supports independence for Kosovo like it supported the KLA. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos called upon “jihadists of all color and hue” to see Kosovo as “yet another example that the U.S. leads the way for the creation of a predominantly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe .” Senator Biden, another Serb hater, said: “Pristina is one of rare Muslim cities in the world where the U.S. is not only respected but loved...The people of Kosovo—already the most pro-American in the Islamic world –will provide much needed example of a successful U.S.-Muslim partnership.” Hence, Islamophilia is a huge factor in the U.S. ’ Balkan policies. It disregards that the Muslims have brought no praise but instead have simply augmented the list of Muslim grievances headed by Iraq and Palestine but including also Chechnya , Kashmir , Philippines , etc.

John Bolton

John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, was interviewed by Branko Mikasinovich of Voice of America. Several of Bolton ’s responses are reproduced followed by my commentaries.

“Historically, it is very difficult to identify a new threat, as the case with Nazism in Europe , and it look us a long time to spot the international danger of Communism. I am not sure whether radical Islam would reach such a level of threat, but the threat is real as we have witnessed during the terrorist attacks on the US in 2001, attacks in Madrid and London , then in Asia, Indonesia , Iraq , Lebanon and the Palestinian-occupied territories. We need to pay more attention to that threat and we shouldn’t take any steps which would further increase it, especially in Europe .” This author asserts that Islamism or jihadism is a global movement and represents a real threat to the Western civilization, just as fascism and communism did. In this context the U.S. Balkans policies based on Islamophilia border with criminal negligence.

“I think that the State Department has had an anti-Serbian policy for more than 15 years. When Yugoslavia was falling apart and Milosevic conducted his policy, there was some logic to our opposition to such a policy. Unfortunately, this biased policy has continued, even though there’s no logical explanation for it. While Serbia is trying to establish an effective and functional democracy regarding human rights and other issues, the anti-Serbian policy has continued, especially with regard to Kosovo, where a decision in favor of its independence could only create other concerns, and such a decision can could impact on the democracy in progress in Serbia, and the possibility that the Security Council would step beyond its authority, which would be very unfortunate.” Bolton is right on the mark with regard to the threat to Serbian democracy, but overstates the case of Milosevic conducted policies. The propaganda lies package portrayed Milosevic almost as omnipotent as Hitler. In this fairy tale Milosevic unleashed four wars so that Greater Serbia could be carved out. The Prosecution at the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), however, couldn’t prove those allegations so Milosevic died after his human rights had been grossly violated in a judicial malpractice case.

Serbianna