Posted on 12/14/2005 9:38:16 AM PST by tgambill
The Serbian province of Kosovo, largely populated by the Albanian majority, has failed to meet basic human rights and political standards set as prerequisites by the international community, but it should nevertheless enter - in the months to come - talks on its future status.
This basic conclusion of the long-awaited report by UN special envoy Kai Eide was approved by the UN secretary general Kofi Annan and fully supported by the EU and the US. But it fails to demystify the paradox.
From a legal point of view, Kosovo is an integral part of the sovereign state of Serbia and Montenegro. However, after Milosevic' clampdown on the province - including taking away its autonomy - and NATO's partwise destruction of Kosovo and Serbia in 1999, Security Council Resolution 1244 declared it a territory administered by the United Nations.
Thus UNMIK (the UN Mission in Kosovo), together with NATO, the OSCE and the EU make up the authority ever since. However, talks and negotiations about the future status and "standards" of the territory shall begin this autumn; UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has recently appointed former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari to lead this process.
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana recently disseminated ideas of the European Union taking over law enforcement in Kosovo from the United Nations as part of a more active engagement in the Balkans.
Bluff from the start? Only two and a half years ago, the international community had charged that talks on Kosovo's status could not start before a set of basic human rights standards was achieved.
Since then, however, as it became clearer that the Kosovo Albanian majority was unwilling to meet the criteria and the UN unable to enforce them. There has been a permanent watering down of prerequisites, until the proclaimed policy of "standards before status" was finally buried with Mr Eide's report.
Why has it failed? Is it because of fear of Kosovo Albanian threats of inciting violence if talks on status did not start soon, or was this policy a bluff from the start?
What kind of signal does it offer for the fairness of the upcoming talks? Will threats of ethnic violence in case "the only option for Kosovo Albanians - independence" - is not achieved again play a role? Or will the international community overcome its fear and offer both Pristina and Belgrade reasons to believe that the solution would be negotiated and long-lasting rather than imposed, one-sided and conflict-prone?
Recipe for future troubles Advocates of Kosovo's independence such as the International Crisis Group, Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrooke and various US members of Congress argue "independence is the only solution."
The US has more urgent problems elsewhere. But full independence cannot be negotiated, it can only be imposed. "Independent Kosovo" implies that the Kosovo-Albanians achieve their maximalist goal while Belgrade and the Kosovo Serbs and Roma would not even get their minimum - a recipe for future troubles.
It would be also counter-productive for Europe and the US: to side with the Kosovo-Albanians and isolate Serbia - a highly multi-ethnic, strategically important, constitutional state with a market of 10 million people - would be foolish. Keeping on punishing Serbia and Serbs collectively for former President of Serbia Slobodan Milosevic's brutality would be immoral.
An "independent Kosovo" would set a dangerous precedent for the region, not least in Bosnia and Macedonia, for international law and for European integration.
And if Kosovo becomes independent, why not Taiwan, Tibet, Chechnya, Tamil Eelam, Kashmir? The world has about 200 states and 5,000 ethnic groups. Who would like 4,800 new and ethnically pure states? The future is about human globalization and integration.
Independence would also violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of 1999 on Kosovo. Not even liberally interpreted does it endorse independence.
The results of Milosevic's authoritarian policies clearly prevented Kosovo from returning to its pre-1999 status. Belgrade recognises that today.
Europe's largest - but ignored - refugee problem The international community on its side refuses to see that the UN, NATO, EU and OSCE in Kosovo have failed miserably in creating the multi-ethnic, tolerant and safe Kosovo that it thought the military intervention would facilitate.
There has been virtually no return of the 200,000 Serbs and tens of thousands of other non-Albanians who felt threatened by Albanian nationalists and terrorists in 1999-2000.
Proportionately this is the largest ethnic cleansing in ex-Yugoslavia. Half a million Serbs in today's Serbia, driven out of Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, make up Europe's largest - but ignored - refugee problem. The economy of Kosovo remains in shambles 70% unemployment - and is mafia-integrated.
There is never only one solution to a complex problem. Between the old autonomy for Kosovo and full independence is a myriad of thinkable options combining internal and regional features.
They should all be on the negotiation table - for instance, a citizens' Kosovo where ethnic background is irrelevant, cantonisation, consociation, confederation, condominium, double autonomy for minorities there and in Southern Serbia, partition, trusteeship, independence with special features such as soft borders, no army and guarantees for never joining Albania.
Least creative of all is the "only-one-solution" that all main actors today propose - completely incompatible with every other "only-one solution."
Finally, no formal status will work if the people continue to hate and see no development opportunities.
If we ignore human needs for fear-reduction, deep reconciliation and economic recovery, independent Kosovo will become another failed state, perhaps consumed by civil war.
Kosovo is about the future of that province and of Serbia, but also about the region and the EU.
Indeed, Kosovo is about global politics. In this 11th hour, the UN, EU and the US should re-evaluate their post-1990 policies and recognise the need for much more intellectually open and politically pluralist approaches than those that have been promoted so far.
Otherwise, political rigidity, lack of principle and wishful thinking could once again prove to be the enemies of sustainable peace in this region.
Aleksandar Mitic was Belgrade correspondent for Agence France-Presse (AFP) from 1999-2005. Jan Oberg is Director and co-founder of the Swedish Transnational Foundation, TFF, a think tank in peace research and conflict mitigation.
And they call Iraq a 'quagmire'?
During the Kosovo war, I kept hearing about "ethnic Albanians." Were these Albanians who had been living in Kosovo for a long time, or were they recent arrivals?
Ethnic Albanians are Albanians that have lived in Kosovo for decades, generations and since their own birth. I am Scot/Irish, my family came over in the 1700's, So, I'm an American by birth. My family is from Scotland. Ethnic Serbs is the same way. They are even distinguished from the Serbs in Serbia as different and sometimes singled out for redicule.
How about modifying this statement to drive home the impact?
From a legal point of view, California is an integral part of the sovereign nation of the United States of America. However, after Hillary's clampdown on the state - including taking away its autonomy - and China's partwise destruction of the western USA in 2009, Security Council Resolution 666 declared it a territory administered by the United Nations.
The mere fact that this international body 'declared' part of a sovereign nation under its control and got away with it is appalling. If they ever think we are too weak to resist they'd do it here in a heartbeat.
...And if Kosovo becomes independent, why not Taiwan, Tibet, Chechnya, Tamil Eelam, Kashmir?...
And the American southwest.
...The future is about human globalization and integration...
An endless Orwellian nightmare.
These people are utter morons. Not once in the entire article does it mention the real importance of Kosovo, the launching point for the Jihad that will destroy Euroweenia.
They're too busy waxing their carrots over their global governence (nightmare) scenario to see that they are about to be killed by the people they helped to destroy Serbia.
Exactly our point.......reference the following articles and more to come.....
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200509\SPE20050927a.html
http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=6899
http://www.kosovo.com/news/archive/2005/October_07/4.html
The UN and other agencies do not want it resolved. That is the trick. There is an effort not to resolve the issue. It was literally designed to fail.
Jihadi invaders.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/world/enp/index_en.htm
Welcome to the European Neighbourhood Policy Website
Won't you be my neighbor?
March 17-18, 2004 riots were only demonstrations of what can be done. The riots have been in the design for use for the past 3 years.....When I was there they were in the process of forming the "Spring Offensive". No one believed it, as we passed the word in all security meetings constantly. When the time was right it was launched. Now, do it again, but put AK-47's, RPG's, and IED's, you will have a different situation.... Things will probably pick up by the Fall of next year.....
Oh, I can't modify the statement as I didn't write the article. However, In a previous post I was involved in about 6 articles since and quoted.....the links are in a previous post today.
Tom
Now they are begging to be invaded and burned.
You are right.....however, it's a very complex issue...if they mentioned the entire scope the article would become a small book.....This was a quick write.....
Tom
"Jihadi invaders."
Exactly....However, we (U.S.) implanted them in the Balkans in the early 90's or so to fight the Serbs. Now we will have to deal with them directly when the time for Jihad is sounded......
It's not complex at all.
Clinton and the Euroweenies destroyed the barrier to Jihad in Europe.
They are idiot socialists who have no idea what to do next.
The right thing to do would be to apologize to the Serbs and leave, allowing the Serbs to reclaim their territory from the murdering Mohammedans.
That's the one thing they won't do.
By we you must mean the lying, perjuring, extortionist, fraudulent, serial rapist, war-criminal, murdering traitor who was POTUS at the time.
He and his murderous bridgetroll, Dullbite.
Now you want us to save Euroweenia from their fate?
Hell no, let them burn.
good point....yep....
Many of the ethnic Albanians already lived there before the war broke out. But I believe records show that the Albanian percentage of the population rose from less than 50% when Tito died to more than 90% under Milosevitch.
That suggests several things: 1) that Milosevitch may have been brutal, but he did not exterminate Albanians; 2) that Muslims tend to have more children than non-Muslims; 3) that a good many Albanians came over the border from Albania during those years, and not just the terrorists.
Since the UN took over, the borders have been open, and a good many more Albanians have come in. I remember noticing that when the Kosovan Albanians fled to Albania after clinton started bombing, they were not very warmly welcomed by their kin in Albania, who considered them to be rich and spoiled. Evidently the "oppressed" Albanians living in Kosovo have it much better than the free Albanians in Albania.
One reason Milosevitch sent the army in was that Albania was sending in terrorists and agitating to take over the province as part of Greater Albania. We really don't want that, because they will not be happy until they have also taken over Macedonia and Montenegro, which also has an Albanian population and would then be on Greater Albania's new borders.
As you know, Kosovo was a province of Yugoslavia. When clinton and NATO attacked Yugoslavia, they attacked a sovereign nation--without permission from the UN or the Security Council.
Taking away a province from a sovereign nation on such weak grounds, after having committed illegal aggression against that nation, would be a violation of everything the UN pretends to stand for.
In earlier centuries, the Serbs stood their ground against the Muslim onslaught, and Kosovo represents all the blood they shed in stemming the tide. The Serbs were also our allies against the Nazis, and later were a helpful couterbalance against the USSR.
The Muslim and African nations tend to stick together in the UN, and Russia, China, and Europe are more and more inclined to stand with them, regardless of the justice of any particular issue, in order to weaken the U.S. We certainly need to stand up against this corrupt coalition. Especially since under clinton's leadership we were responsible for committing a great injustice and fighting a war on the wrong side--both morally, and in our own national security interests.
Yup.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.