Analysis: Kosovo independence divides U.N.

UNITED NATIONS June 1 (UPI) -- Sponsors of a draft U.N. Security Council resolution granting supervised independence to Serbia's southern province of Kosovo have softened wording in the measure due to strong opposition. Yet the bottom line remains independence for the province that has been under U.N. administration since 1999.

Russia, one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the panel of 15, does not agree with taking control of the autonomous province of about 2 million people away from Belgrade. China also is opposed.

Moscow has hinted it would veto the measure when it comes up for a vote, as early as next week.

Serbia inherited what is left of the former Yugoslavia, Montenegro having opted to go its own way in 2006, leaving Serbia the last vestige of Yugoslavia. Now, Serbia is threatened with losing what it calls its cultural and spiritual heartland, Kosovo and its capital Pristina.

Over the years, ethnic Albanians, mainly Muslims, moved from their adjacent homeland into Kosovo to the point where native Serbs, mainly Orthodox Christians, felt threatened and took up arms, attempting to rid the region of Albanians -- ethnic cleansing. Several massacres of ethnic Albanians were reported and rape was employed as a weapon of war against Albanian women. Albanians retaliated.

NATO forces intervened in 1999 and up to 1 million Serbs were reported to have fled. Few have returned, and the United Nations has administered Kosovo since.

Now, the Security Council is considering independence, following a report by former Finnish President Marti Ahtisaari, recommending the province go it alone, after an initial period of supervision. The latest draft resolution fine-tuned language from the earlier draft, such as changing the body "endorses" to "supports" the report.

"The draft does include some minor changes but it does not affect the main concerns and fundamental positions which the Russian Federation has expressed," said Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, adding it was if nothing were changed.

"We are not discussing the draft in a situation where the fundamental concerns we have expressed have not been taken care of," he added. "We are not participating in any kind of a drafting effort."

Asked what needed to be changed to invite Russia's return to the discussions, the Moscow envoy replied, "The approach is to be changed. Instead of endorsing the proposal of the package of Ahtisaari, which has not been agreed on by the two sides, we should encourage the two parties to continue negotiations."

"We should show more patience and perseverance. I just want to remind that also the Russian approach does allow for considerable flexibility. We are not calling for things to be stagnated in Kosovo, for example. We can envisage the transfer of responsibilities from the United Nations to the European Union, but within the framework of the current political status of Kosovo," Churkin said.

In other words, Kosovo remains a province of Kosovo, albeit under international supervision. The reason for Moscow standing behind Belgrade many believe is not just that it is supporting a fellow Slavic state, but it fears setting a precedent of granting independence to breakaway regions. Beijing also traditionally fears such a precedent. For Russia it's Chechnya and China it's Tibet.

The drafts have reaffirmed commitment to a "multi-ethnic and democratic Kosovo" to reinforce regional stability and seek "more progress on the return of internally displaced persons and refugees."

"Unfortunately the philosophy of this draft is ... opening the possibility of Kosovo independence now and the thing is that this is not right," Churkin said, adding Serbia -- in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon -- recently asked for "a new stage of negotiations" on the future of Kosovo.

"This is another reason we believe why we should think in terms of continued effort to find a mutually acceptable solution to the future of Kosovo," Churkin said.

Asked what would happen now if a vote were to be taken, he said, "Under those circumstances unfortunately the outcome would be obvious."

"I don't like this word until I receive final instructions but you are guessing well what is on my mind," the Moscow envoy replied.

The draft measures attempted to work around that aspect by recognizing the "specific circumstances" that make Kosovo "a special case," or "sui generis" as in the latest version, and recognizing "the historical context of Yugoslavia's violent breakup, as well as the massive violence and repression that took place in Kosovo in the period up to and including 1999." The drafts have reaffirmed commitment to a "multi-ethnic and democratic Kosovo"

Hmm. I wonder if that will include shari'a law?

Here's some of what Bat Ye'or had to say about the situation in Kosovo in her book "Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide", published in 2002:

"To anyone with some knowledge of the centuries-old history of Serbian resistance to Ottoman domination, it was obvious that the return of a form of Islamic power in Bosnia- Herzegovina would be rejected by Orthodox Serbs. The five centuries of "harmonious and peaceful coexistence” under Islamic rule, cited by Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic belong to the theological dogma of the perfection of the shari'a and the dhimmi For the Orthodox Serbs, however, this same period is considered one of massacre, pillage, slavery, deportation, and the exile of Christian populations. In their eyes it was a regime which found its justification in the usurpation of their land and denial of their rights; hence it represented the exact opposite of a peaceful, multicultural coexistence based on a system of social and political justice. Thus, two conceptions of history clashed, having never before been confronted. On the one hand, there is the version the dhimmi victims; on the other, that of the conquerors, through jihad.

In their wars of emancipation-and, later, of liberation-the Orthodox Serbs found that their bitterest adversaries were their Muslim compatriots attached to their religious privileges and their domination over the humiliated Christians. During World War II Axis forces invaded Yugoslavia and sponsored the creation of a Nazi Croat state (Ustashi) with which many Bosnian Muslims cooperated. At the prompting of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni, they formed military corps, including the 13th (Hanjar) Waffen SS Division, some of which were trained in France. Early in the war, these Muslim Slavs actively participated in the policies of the Ustashi Croats and Nazis in the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Serbs, Jews, and gypsies. Even their German allies were shocked by the bestial atrocities committed then in Yugoslavia.

The Nazis encouraged secessionist claims by Muslims, some of whose leaders cited the traditional peaceful coexistence under Islam to denounce later these atrocities which they imputed to the Croats-although Muslim participation in the massacres was notorious. In fact, these allegations aimed at exploiting the inter-Christian conflicts between Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs which had facilitated Islam's expansion for a millennium.

Under the authoritarian Communist rule of Tito-a Croat-the Muslim religion benefited from being recognized as Muslim nationality. It was the only group defined by religious criteria, whereas others were characterized by their ethnic differences. The deliberate policy of allowing the Islamization of the Orthodox Serbian homeland (Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina) to continue also earned Tito the economic and political support of the Islamic world and perpetuated inter-Christian schisms. The communist dogma of human brotherhood once again froze the conflicts without resolving them. In 1991, before the conflict erupted, the English edition of Alija Izetbegovic's Islamic Declaration (1970) was published in Sarajevo. It specifically stated: "There can be neither peace nor coexistence between Arabia, the cradle of Islam and non-Islamic social and political institutions." And his conclusion affirmed:

'The Islamic movement must, and can, take over power as soon as it is morally and numerically so strong that it can not only destroy the existing non- Islamic power, but also build up a new Islamic one’.

Underneath the camouflage of "the multicultural Islamic state" and the "five hundred years of peaceful coexistence," Bosnian Serbs recognized the shari'a system which had decimated them. Hence, the cruelty of the fighting in Bosnia reflected the historical confrontation which, instead of being settled by dialogue, erupted in hatred. Its barbarity expresses the revenge of repressed history, a parody of the distorted myth of idyllic coexistence. Izetbegovic described the Canadian UN commander, Major-General Lewis W. MacKenzie, as "an ignorant man" for his statement in New York that:
‘both sides’ in the war were filled with hatred. According to Izetbegovic, this could only have been said by someone who knew nothing of Sarajevo's Muslims and their ‘500-year tradition of tolerance’.

Izetbegovic's reference to an "Ottoman paradise" scandalized Serbs, Greeks, and Armenians. Innocent individuals regardless of religion have become victims of a past which, because it was buried in silence, vengefully returns, accompanied by appalling acts of violence. Those responsible are the politicians who, to safeguard their own interests, tried to impose the myth of tolerance on their victims”. [taken from A Short History of Kosovo].

I first became aware of some of the intracacies of the WWII and post WWII Balkans in "The Rape of Serbia" by Michael Lees, a British Special Ops Officer who was parachuted into Nazi held territory to assist the non-communist resistance.

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.