From Hitchens:
"Kosovo, which was legally part of Yugoslavia but not of Serbia was never manipulated as part of the partition or intervention plan of another country—the United States, in fact, spent far too long on the pretense that the Yugoslav federation could be saved—and, for a lengthy period, pursued its majority-rule claims by passive resistance and other nonviolent means.
"NATO intervention occurred only when Serbian forces had resorted to mass deportation and full-dress ethnic "cleansing.""
I fail to see how the independence of Kosovo is different IN ANY WAY from that of, say, Croatia, Slovenia or Bosnia. All are simply parts of the old Yugoslavia which decided to go their separate ways.
>”Kosovo, which was legally part of Yugoslavia but not of Serbia
Actually, Kosovo was considered a Autonomous Province of Serbia-their words, not mine. In other words, while it had political autonomy, it was still a Serbian province, at least more or less.
>I fail to see how the independence of Kosovo is different IN ANY WAY from that of, say, Croatia, Slovenia or Bosnia. All are simply parts of the old Yugoslavia which decided to go their separate ways.
Under the old Yugoslav constitution, Republics had the right, at least on paper, to suceed, while autonomous provinces or regions (which Kosovo was), didn’t.
“I fail to see how the independence of Kosovo is different IN ANY WAY from that of, say, Croatia, Slovenia or Bosnia. All are simply parts of the old Yugoslavia which decided to go their separate ways. “
Kosovo was historically Serbian long before Yugoslavia was formed. Croatia, Slovienia were not.
Hitchens is trying to rewrite History!
Besides being historically Serbian, Kosovo was recognized as Serbian by the Treaty of London and the Treaty of Bucharest.
The mass movement of people out of Kosovo started after NATO bombs started falling! The UCK also encouraged Albanians to leave.