Morton Abramowitz and James Hooper are horrified that I urge the West to consider the partition of Bosnia and Kosovo as a partial solution to the ongoing problems in the Balkans. But those gentlemen, and most others in the foreign-policy community who share their views, are marvelously selective about their outrage regarding the acceptance of secession and partition as a policy tool. Relatively few among the European or U.S. political and policy elite had any problem when the NATO powers helped break up Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. Even fewer expressed qualms about forcibly detaching Kosovo from Serbia.
Let’s remember that the NATO/EU fostering of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence in 2008 was an endorsement of secession from a fellow democratic country, not Slobodan Milosevic’s Serbia. And to compound that astonishing insensitivity, the Western powers blatantly bypassed the UN Security Council to impose their will. Why, then, the squeamishness about considering a new Balkan strategy that involves a modest territorial adjustment in Kosovo and a decision to abandon the clearly failed nation-building project in Bosnia?
Such moves are criticized because there are restless ethnic minorities elsewhere in the region, including in Serbia and Macedonia, and so there are worries worry about the precedent that would be set. But that is a less-than-compelling argument. First, these critics didn’t worry about setting a precedent when the West amputated Kosovo from Serbia. Second, many countries in the world have unhappy ethnic or religious minorities, and it is clearly impossible to accommodate the wishes of all of them. The key issue is whether the minority in question is both numerous enough and geographically concentrated enough to pose a serious, ongoing threat to the unity of the state. In most instances, that is not the case. (The Albanian minority in northwestern Macedonia may be a partial exception.)
There is a big difference between the problem posed by small, geographically dispersed, restless minorities and the situations in Kosovo and Bosnia—especially the latter. It is absurd to argue that Bosnia in its current incarnation is a viable country. And if it still is not viable after sixteen years of a nation-building mission, when do proponents of the status quo think that it would be? After sixty years? After 160 years? Clearly, the current approach is not working. And the only proposed alternative to partition—imposing a stronger central government by Western edict—is a nonstarter. The primary problem in Bosnia is not the lack of a strong central government. It is that the central government—indeed, the Bosnian state itself—has zero legitimacy with fully half the country’s population, the Serb and Croat factions. Trying to preserve such a political entity is a fool’s errand.
Kosovo, on the other hand, would still have the potential to be a viable state if the Serb minority north of the Ibar River were allowed to remain with Serbia. It has always been puzzling why so many Western statesman and policy wonks seem to believe that the United States and the EU countries have an obligation to back the maximalist demands of the Albanian Kosovars. Merkel’s confrontation with Serbian president Boris Tadic was simply the latest example of that mentality.
No one suggests that partition is a panacea for the problems in the Balkans or anywhere else. But one ought to ask: What are the probable alternatives if partition is rejected? In the case of Kosovo, it means an angry, resentful Serbia whose leaders and population will continue to believe, with good reason, that whatever Belgrade does, it will never be enough to placate Serbophobes in the West. It means that dozens of countries in the international system will continue to refuse to recognize Kosovo’s independence and block that country’s bid for membership in international institutions. And it means yet another headache involving a persecuted ethnic minority—the Serbs stuck in an independent Kosovo that they loathe.
In the case of Bosnia, it means preserving an international political and economic ward that has no prospect of becoming a viable country. It also means the existence of a political time bomb that could go off at any time and reignite the fighting that so convulsed the region in the 1990s.
Partition is no panacea, but it certainly beats the likely alternatives.
Ted Galen Carpenter, senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of eight books on international affairs, including Bad Neighbor Policy: Washington's Futile War on Drugs in Latin America. He is also a contributing editor to The National Interest.
[Editor’s note: At The National Interest, we have enjoyed the debate between Morton Abramowitz and James Hooper, on the one hand, and Ted Galen Carpenter, on the other, about the merits and dangers of partition policies in the Balkans. This is an issue with sufficient complexities and facets to fuel even further exchanges, but of course we must close it out, and there is no inclination given on the part of the participants to continue it, in any event. But we encourage such give and take as one means to be employed from time to time to lay bare important issues and delve deeply into their inner reaches.]
Comments
Apparently National Interest is closing out the'debate' between Ted Galen Carpenter and the two, joined at the hip, Morton Abramowitz and James Hooper. Obviously Mr. Carpenter won that debate hands down. Who are those latter two, aptly described as 'Serbophobes', to turn the tables on Serbs whose only wish is to have their own tiny space, away from fanatics who plan their demise? What's in it for Abramowitz and Hooper to spout their vitriol against, not only Kosovo's Serbs, but all Serbs? Apparently, those two to cheered US-led NATO's illegal bombing of a sovereign Serbia in 1999, they cheered when Serbia's province of Kosovo was forcefully wrested away from Serbia, and they cheered loudly when USA-NATO gifted the Albanian Muslims with their very own extremist state at Europe's southern end. And, of course, they cheered when USA plunked down Camp Bondsteel on farmland stolen from Serb farmers, over there in the hills of Kosovo. It's become quite obvious that Camp Bondsteel was the real reason for USA-NATO's hostilities in the region. It had nothing to do about humanitarian concerns. So, Abramowitz and Hooper, also quit your battering of those poor Serbs remaining in Kosovo. All they want is to be Serbs in Serbia. Finally, let them be. And, in the process, study up the history of the region, which you should have done in the first place. Lastly, be careful what you wish for. It may come back to bite.
Morton Abramowitz, one time ambassador to Turkey, led the charge to partition Yugoslavia. His pal Leslie Gelb advised Clinton to arm the Albanians in Kosovo.
The debate is by no means closed as evidenced by the comments section here as well as some other venues. What's keeping anyone from further presenting reasonably stated views? I'm not a fan of bully pulpit advocacy. Good point-counterpoint exchanges shouldn't be confused with that manner or trolling off topic diatribe follow-up comments. For quality sake, there shouldn't be a monopolization of a limited select group of individuals regularly getting propped over other sources of worth. Of possible interest: http://www.eurasiareview.com/29092011-russian-limits-in-supporting-serbia-and-some-peripheral-issues-analysis/
Well said Michael, the diatribes are annoying.
So there's no misunderstanding: agree or disagree, the commentaries of Abramowitz-Hooper and Carpenter represent a good differential in the analytical approaches on former Yugoslavia. Like I said: at the same time, there're other good sources to consider as well.
There is significant difference between Bosnia and Kosovo. I am much more optimistic that in Bosnia's case a solution can be found that preserves the unified albeit hight-decentralized country. For one thing, breaking up Bosnia would result in two rather bizzare non-contiguous states, and despite Dodik's rhethoric, I don't believe that's in anyone's interest. Bosnians, Serbs and Croats speak the same language, and have historically lived together in mixed communities. As I understand, Serb and Albanian communities in Kosovo were, even during Tito's era, much more separate, as evidenced by comparatively low level of bilingualism and mixed marriages. The problem in Bosnia isn't so much Serb desire for independence as their fear that their current autonomy will be abolished. Creating a third, Croat, entity, and further decentralizing power from Sarajevo seems far more desirable.
Hi UN, Regarding the problematical situation in Bosnia: http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/fetishes-fantasies-bosnia-5748 Letting Republika Srpska (RS) join Serbia in exchange for Belgrade's recognition of an independent Kosovo serves as one suggestion for resolving the former Yugoslav territorial disputes. The Albanians and Serbs are at odds on a partition formula. I sense that RS joining Serbia in exchange for Belgrade's recognition of Kosovo's independence is something that the Serbs will accept, albeit with some reservations.
All politics is local. In the end the Serbs in Kosovo aren't very interested in what happens in Bosnia and the Serbs in Bosnia aren't very interested in what happens in Kosovo. And the other parties involved - Bosniaks, Croats and Albanians - will care even less on what happens in the other area. So - allthough it might be possible to seduce some Serbian politicians to such an exchange - I don't think it is in the interest of the local people. Local solutions should be negotiated locally.In Kosovo it is not the Albanians but the Americans who are the biggest opponents of border changes. There are enough Albanians who see that it makes sense to cede the North tip to Serbia. But given the American resistance it doesn't make sense for them to speak out. It would only decrease US support for Kosovo without having any chance of succeeding.The US resistance against partition is officially motivated by fear of "precedent". As if setting up the Northern Kosovo Serbs for ethnic cleansing does not set a precedent. Unfortunately the culture in the State Department is still so anti-Serb that a diplomat can get away with anything that harms Serbs while anything that isn't liked by other ethnic groups faces severe lobbying resistance. It is time that some grown-ups take responsibility at the State Department but so far northing has happened.In my opinion the rules should be: 1. "don't change borders". 2. "if you have to change borders anyway do it in a honest way that respects ethnic borders". Until now the US is trying to avoid rule 2 by pretending it isn't chnaging borders when it is. This hypocrisy works very destabilizing as people are puzzled what are he rules.
On the issue of partition, the Kosovo Albanians have brought up Presevo (a mostly Albanian populated area in Serbia, located next to Kosovo) being part of an an exchange. Offhand, I don't see the Serbs so willing to go for that idea as opposed to a Kosovo for Republika Srpska (RS) exchange. The recent violence in northern Kosovo seems to stem from the Kosovo Albanians seeking to have their police takeover that area, with NATO influenced KFOR support. That attempt contradicts UNSCR 1244, which calls for a limited return of Yugo military and police to Kosovo. Serbia is considered the legal successor state of Yugoslavia which signed onto UNSCR 1244, recognizing Kosovo as a continued part of Serbia. In Yugoslav and pre-Yugoslav times, Kosovo was part of Serbia. Over the years, a number of folks have noted how Bosnia has more of a regional dynamic as opposed to Croatia and Serbia, as well as what the Kosovo Albanians seek. For the most part, the under 50% of Bosnia's Muslim population are the ones primarily committed to a Bosnian national identity. Bosnia's Serbs tend to identify with Serbia, with Bosnia's Croats tending to identify with Croatia. Without meaning to repeat what has been said at TNI, see the link posted at this thread regarding fantasies and fetishes in relation to Bosnia. That article and follow-up discussion at that link have contents leaning towards the idea of letting RS hookup with Serbia. Among other things, the hypocrisy factor and mindset evident at the State Dept. is addressed in the Eurasia Review article brought up at this thread.
I have just returned from a week as a tourist in Kosovo. We went there because two years ago we were amazed at the reception we received during 18 days in Albania . We had fantastic trip and spent three days with a famialy in Prekaz. I write this introduction to make it clear where in general my sympathies lie. However as I pointed out to my Albanian friends the "right to self determination " or self government " is not their exclusive right. The borders of Kosovo are not a result of any rational thought but of the Congress of Berlin , three Balkan Wars and the treaty of Versailles. Unlike Ch. Merkel I see no reason they can not be changed . I live in Israel and only wish we could find a way to divide the land and live in peace.
We can be very technical, and very proper, about partitions, etc. However, the bottom line is that in 1999 USA-NATO did not care about legalities and about dialogue, and about being proper, when they bombed Serbia for 78 straight days. That was done solely to steal Serbia's province of Kosovo, in order to set up USA's Camp Bondsteel on that territory. In order to do so, they had the lying propaganda at the ready. There were no concerns about international legalities, or about humanitarianism. The law of the jungle sufficed. Military might ruled the day, in order to re-invent NATO, which was at loose ends after the end of the Cold War. So, who better to attack than Serbia? Fast forward to 2011, and NATO knows no bounds. As the thirst for oil propels it on. What is the name of that pipeline that the West wants to build, passing via the Balkans, in the area of Kosovo? See also: http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-257815-the-fight-for-caspian-gas.htmland have a glance at this: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7941
Partitions, where legitimised by both inter-government negotiations and referenda of the affected peoples, might create more stable borders. But any such process would need to be slow and careful to get as many people on board as possible.
The peace process in Northern Ireland, convincing the moderates and the less extreme radicals of the Provisional IRA and various Unionist paramilitary groups, is an example of such a protracted process. Not everyone can be convinced, but most.
Carpenter writes a great analysis. Partition is the only solution. Yes, it will have a knock on effect. And YES that is good too. The reality on the ground is that the North of Kosovo has never been under Albanian control (neither has the municipality of Strpce down south). The reality on the ground is that the Serbian dominated area in the North is the most stable area of Kosovo with the lowest levels of crime. There are reasons for this and reasons why many people who worked in Kosovo in the UN agree with this reasoning. The reality is that partition will give all sides something, which is what compromise means. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for supporting that the Albanians get all of Kosovo. And to reply to the commenter from Isreal; there is a significant difference between Palestinians and Albanians and that is the following: Albanians already have their own country. It's called "Albania". It's right next to Kosovo.
Hi Betty, some Israelis and others cling to the notion that Jordan should be a Palestinian state. That view doesn't appear as noticeable as it once was. On your partition point and as mentioned earlier in this thread: the Albanians say that northern Kosovo can only be considered in a partition agreement if the largely Albanian populated Presevo area in Serbia (just outside Kosovo) would become part of an independent Kosovo. Come to think of it: on the matter of establishing fully agreeable borders and independent states, the Serbs would be within reason to agree to a northern Kosovo-Presevo exchange in addition to Republika Srpska becoming part of Serbia.
Michael, you are wrong that there should be a Presevo exchange. Why? What sort of precedent is that for any regions of any countries that have a higher proportion of any ethnic nationality? Why does this one rule apply only to Serbia, i.e. where there are more Albanians, that area must automatically be independent or be tied to another state-let that has already been granted independence. The independence of Kosovo was a unilaterally declared independence. And, truth be told, Serbia's Province of Kosovo was not always and ever mostly populated with Albanians. A huge influx of Albanians happened mostly during Tito's era, and they came from Albania because they weren't all that impressed with life in their own country (of Albania). Now, in 2011, there is virtually no border between Kosovo and Albania, i.e. it's free-flow back and forth. Don't forget, Macedonia and Montenegro have high populations of Albanians too. So, what can be expected in the future? Perhaps a Greater Albania in the making, incorporating even more portions of not only Serbia, but also of Montenegro, Macedonia, and even Greece? USA-NATO have opened up a real can of worms in the whole of the region. But, they won't be admitting guilt anytime soon, because that's how they operate. Attack weaker nations, make a mess, then leave it up to others to clean up after them. The Serbs deserve to live together, Just as Albanians, just as Croats, just as Slovenes, and just as Muslims, both in Bosnia and in Albania-Kosovo. Why do the Serbs always have to compromise and give up even more territory to others? Once and for all, the Serbs need to be permitted to live in peace with each other, without others always clamoring for another piece of Serbia's sovereign territory. In the 1990s, all the Serbs wanted was to preserve Yugoslavia. None of the rest of us would want anything less for our own countries. Now, there is this penchant to go for even more of Serbia's territory. Likely, because in the 1990s the West got away with dismembering Yugoslavia into even tinier entities. Enough!
My sympathy is with what you express Liz. The suggestions I give are hypothetically presented as opposed to saying that they should definitely be implemented. I've emphasized that the Abramowitzs and Hoopers aren't accepting of such a land exchange proposal. Instead, they feel that Serbia should get nothing. That's not my position. Meantime, the number of nations not supporting Kosovo's independence remains high - therefore eliminating the need to readily accept what the likes of Abramowitz and Hooper seek. IMO, I'm taking a realist approach, which isn't "wrong." Sometimes reality sucks. Look who is controlling the facts on the ground in Kosovo - something we both don't seem happy about. There's a difference between unnecessarily selling out a view to pragmatically seeking the best possible settlement. I sense that we're in agreement that Kosovo's full independence recognition in exchange for Serbia in the EU isn't an acceptable settlement proposal - in addition to being overrated (by some), given the EU's problems.
Michael, understood. What is so distasteful is how USA-NATO didn't care about any laws, rules or hypothesizing when they chose to dump bombs on Serbia in 1999. Back then, hose two didn't care about 'seeking the best possible settlement', and they still don't. The bottom line is they bombed relentlessly in order to get what they wanted, a military presence in the region. That's their reality, and it 'sucks'. No matter how we assess the situation now, it always comes down to that duo (USA-NATO) stealing territory that rightfully belonged to a sovereign Serbia. The stole for their own selfish reasons (being a military base), which had nothing to do with their lying propaganda about humanitarianism.
Liz, following up on your military references at this thread, note that the attempted Rambouillet diktat (just before the NATO bombing campaign) included a provision allowing for foreign forces to move all over the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). Dusko Doder made the observation that the Serbs aren't a major power, while having acted like one, which in turn got them in trouble. I accept the politically incorrect might makes right reality. At the same time, I believe that Yugoslavia/Serbia wasn't given much of a reasonable choice back in 1999. From a Serb view, some problematical realities exist. The Albanian majority in Kosovo don't want to be a part of Serbia, thereby making it difficult for Serbia to maintain that territory. Prior to the Kosovo Albanian 2008 declaration of Kosovo's independence, I presented the idea of making that territory an irrevocably autonomous republic of Serbia with its own UN and IOC delegations, I think this suggestion might've succeeded with a full big powers (EU, US and Russia) backing before the Albanians declared Kosovo's independence, followed by the countries recognizing such. For now, I see the dispute over Kosovo lingering on for awhile. At present, neither side in that conflict is able to completely achieve its desired objective. Michael Averko - http://www.americanchronicle.com/authors/view/2713 - http://www.eurasiareview.com/author/michael-averko/
Michael, what sort of precedent is set, i.e. "... The Albanian majority in Kosovo don't want to be a part of Serbia ..." ? Does that mean that any ethnic 'majority' in any other country has the green light to unilaterally declare independence? Or does this unique situation only apply when its about Serbia? A dangerous can of worms has been opened in the Balkans.
In not so distant history, newly created borders/nations have been evident elsewhere Liz. The application for such a matter doesn't always seem to be consistent. My point about the majority Albanians population in Kosovo not wanting to be part of Serbia was stated to underscore the problems of maintaining that disputed territory as part of Serbia. This reality also explains why the Serbs aren't against a loose autonomy arrangement for Kosovo. Regarding something you brought up earlier at this thread, I'm aware of how the ethnic demography of Kosovo changed over the last 120 or so years - the result of several factors. From a point of view of Serb interests, it would help to have a strong back to Kosovo movement. Then again, it's not easy right now to live in Kosovo as a Serb, in addition to the Kosovo-Albania border appearing less scrutinzed in comparison to what Serbs face upon trying to enter Kosovo.
Greetings to all of you.For starters I would like to point out why we are facing this situation in Balkans. Unfortunately it was Serbian nationalism that started this unending crisis in Balkans. After starting (and losing) four different wars with four different nations, serbs are now (why only now and not before all the blodshed?) trying to win back territory through constant negotiations that they have lost during the wars. In this particular case concerning Kosovo I can give my humble opinion, for the rest of the isues I am not willing to elaborate to much on them (at least at this time). It is true that Kosovo was part of Serbia as an autonomous province. It had these same borders defined in 1943. The northern part of Kosovo is inhabitated mostly by serbs, but at the same time the majority of serbs in Kosovo live in the other parts of Kosovo and not in the north. So why all the fuss about north when whoever has any knowledge about serbs and their culture in Kosovo is aware of the fact that all the monasteries and cultural heritage, and more important, the majority of serbs live in the southern parts of Kosovo? I am sure Liz will help us out on this. Anyways, in my opinion, albanians are not willing to give up any territory under no circumstances, especially since we have the backing of the EU and USA. And this backing up of albanians came as a result of expulsion of close to a million people by the then serbian military, police and paramilitary forces. Partition would have been godsent if it happened before the war but not any more, especially after 2008.The official serbian governement policy up until 2008 has been concentrated in ignoring UNMIK resolution 1244 and violating the same resolution. After several rounds of negotiations in the past twelve years the int. community finally got tired of waiting for Serbian government to make an acceptable plan for reintegrating Kosovo that would be acceptable to albanian community. Only after declaration of independence they remembered UNMIK and UNSC resolution.I strongly believe that Mr. Carpenter is wrong when he suggestes that partition would be acceptable as a means to an end. It would start with Kosovo but where would it end? Does he really believe that EU is willing to risk another episode of "balkan performance"? I don't think so. Serbia gained Kosovo in 1913 (I am sure none of you need my help to find out what am I talking about) and lost it again in 1999. Mr. Carpenter, as well as Mr. Abramowitz, are theoriticaly discussing pros and cons, but I think that they are forgeting a very important element, that is the people who actually live in Balkans (serbs and everybody else). In northern kosovo we have approximately 40.000 serbs but elswehere in Kosovo live close to 100.000. So what are we going to do about southeastern part of Kosovo serbs? Is it population or territory that serbian government wants? For us albanians the north of Kosovo is vital to our existence and nobody is trying to commit ethnic cleansing. It is of paramount importance to find a solution to let people live free and propserous but at the same time it is impossible to give up the interests of more than a million and a half for a handful of others. There are close to 80.000 albanians living in Presevo valley but they are not asking to become part of Kosovo, and even if they did they would not get support from Kosovo due to the fact that that territory is of vital importance to Serbia..When Liz says that "A dangerous can of worms has been opened in the Balkans." she is completely right, but it was the serbs themselves who opened this particular can. Sooner or later we have to pay the bills for our actions. This time it looks like serbs are going to pay the lions share, but it is them who took this path and not the others. I only hope that never again will there be anything similiar to the nineties.
Hi Njaziu, Among others, the not so pro-Serb late American diplomat Warren Zimmerman felt that Slovenian nationalists were largely responsible for the short war between Slovenia and Yugoslavia, which involved non-Serb casualties on the Yugoslav side. Slovenia didn't prove a prolonged conflict on account of a roughly 90% ethnic Slovenian population in Slovenia happy with independence. In Croatia, there was a series of discriminatory actions undertaken in conjunction with a nationalist government that served in part to provoke a response. In Bosnia, a Muslim nationalist political bloc simultaneously spoke of multiethnic harmony to the West, while supporting an independent Bosnia where Muslims would be the plurality. The Serbs in Bosnia tended to prefer remaining in what was still a very multiethnic Yugoslavia. Bosnia's Croats exhibited a preference for having some Croat populated Bosnian territory link up with Croatia. During the Bosnian Civil War, there were instances of Serbs and Croats fighting against Izetbegovic's forces. There was also a secular Bosnian Muslim leader Fikret Abdic, whose supporters opposed Izetbegovic in a way that included some alliance with the Serbs and Croats. The conflict in Kosovo isn't a simple matter of the commonly stated (in some circles) "Serb aggression." Albanian nationalist terrorism has been a reality. In the latter part of 1998, there was an OSCE brokered ceasefire that included a partial withdrawal of JNA forces from Kosovo. Shortly thereafter, terror attacks against Serbs increased, followed by the Rambouillet diktat, which wasn't an earnest attempt at even-handedness. The latest "fuss" over northern Kosovo stems in part from Kosovo Albanian attempts to have their police force move into that area. That desire contradicts UNSCR 1244 recognizing Kosovo as a continued part of Serbia. UNSCR 1244 calls for a limited return of Yugoslav military and police personnel to Kosovo. To date, there is no presence of a limited Serb police and military contingent in Kosovo. Serbia is considered the legal successor state to the Yugoslav state which signed onto UNSCR 1244. In Yugoslav and pre-Yugoslav times, Kosovo was part of Serbia. Regarding the "autonomous Kosovo" point, keep in mind that in 1974 (if I'm not offhand mistaken) a non-Serb Communist dictator (Tito) arbitrarily gave Vojvodina and Kosovo an "autonomous" status within the Serb republic. By the late 1980s, a consensus was reached among the then Yugoslav republics that the involved autonomous statuses (especially for Kosovo) needed to be changed, which is what occurred. During that autonomy period, Albanian nationalist terrorism in Kosovo was evident, as many Albanians were known to have entered that territory via Albania. The aforementioned terrorism and migration issues were evident before Kosovo was arbitrarily declared an autonomous part of Serbia, as well as after that autonomy status was changed. BTW, the current Serb position on Kosovo isn't against that disputed territory having broad autonomy as a continued part of Serbia. Note that Tito never gave an autonomy status to the then Serb majority (since ethnically cleansed) Krajina region of Croatia's Communist drawn boundaries. The Serbs didn't militarily lose to the Bosnian Muslim and Albanian nationalists. They became hindered by the armed intervention of a foreign military bloc (NATO). I sense that Ted Galen Carpenter agrees that maintaining an anti-Serb bias is neither right nor in the West's best interests. On the matter of partition, I agree that it has aspects which aren't so smooth. The highly publicized movie on Gandhi had a scene exhibiting such. At the same tme, partition has nevertheless been considered as an option among imperfect scenarios. In any event, it comes across as hypocritical to claim being against ethnic partition, while simultaneously supporting Kosovo's independence and denying that right to Republika Srpska. Once again, I commend The National Interest for featuring two diverse views on the subject, inclusive of some (IMO) excellent follow-up comments.
I've now read numerous debates about the balkans and partitioning of a soveriegn states so many times. No matter how much discussion any intellectual or expert has this will rarely resolve the biggest precedent being set in History throughout the world and within the Balkans. If US politicians think they can dominate the world with such tactics employed in the old Yugoslavia they will only create what may spill over into the US itself. I note that the hispanic population in the US is on the rise and before you know it, this race will reach 50% of the population within a decade or so. With this occuring the hispanic population will get the opportunity to run each state by state and gain more power. Now once this occurs you will begin to see some serious cracks appearing in the US. The reason I focus on this point is to show that the debate can switch and become a reality within the US at any time in the next 10-20 years with simular ethnic devisions leading to potential for future conflicts. Now what analyst's predominantly forget, is that the US have severe political issues to worry about at home and they would rather suggest partitions of lands that people like the Serbs and others have lived on for hundreds of years be carved up like this is a civilization game. Well I can tell you as someone has mentioned earlier the US led politicians who decided to preach democracy to the old Yugoslavia and then planned its demise forgot to read up on the history of the Balkans which has led them to the current mess they've created within the balkans. History has shown that major military superpowers that have walked this region have all fallen and that occupying a soveriegn nation under false pretences will fail inevitabely. Thankfully with technology these days even your average person can see what is happening from day to day and in the end will make their own minds up if the injustice towards any nation is justified under false pretences. Lets hope the sooner the US politicians learn to stop occupying other countries, it will be better for all people living on this planet and bring stability in an already unstable world.
The bottom line is as follows:In 1999, NATO was at loose ends following the end of the Cold War. NATO chose to reinvent itself into attack mode, with USA as its lead attacker. At that time, who better to attack than Serbia? USA-NATO began by bombarding the West with phony propaganda (via the main media) in order to hatch their plot to bomb Serbia, i.e. as mentioned above, one phony excuse was "... expulsion of close to a million people ..." That was one of the phoniest - telling us that 1 million Albanians were expelled from Kosovo, never to return. But, did 1 million ever leave? If there were Albanians who left Kosovo, did they ever return? Did NATO bombing have anything to do with that? Yes! When bombs are dropping to close for comfort, most of us would pull up stakes.USA was desperate for a military presence (via a huge military base) in the Balkans. That was USA-led NATO's REAL purpose for bombing Serbia for 78 straight days - to steal Serbia's province of Kosovo for the purpose of setting up yet another huge US military base on foreign territory. Camp Bondsteel came into being on farmland stolen from Serb farmers in the hills in the general area of Urosevac. The main purpose of Camp Bondsteel was to ensure the construction of a pipeline to carry Caspian gas via the region to mainland Europe. Again, I include the following two links:http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-257815-the-fight-for-caspian-gas.html http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7941Surely, by now, we aren't so dumbed down that we cannot see the real reason why certain countries are attacked - IT'S ABOUT OIL AND GAS. NOT ABOUT HUMANITARIANISM. If it was about humanitarianism, there are assorted peoples who would welcome the 'humanitarian' interventions of USA-NATO to spare the bloodshed and turmoil in their countries, whether in Africa or elsewhere. But, no such luck, they don't have oil and gas on their territory. So, forget any 'humanitarian' interventions.Folks, it's not all that complicated to sort out why there is such selective 'humanitarianism', why certain countries are attacked by USA-NATO, why some are ignored. Fast forward to 2011, and all of a sudden there should be dialogue, i.e. a sane discussion about what to do about Kosovo, i.e. how to deal with the mess created by USA-NATO's 'humanitarian' bombing and, then, takeover of a piece of Serbia's sovereign territory. Surely, even that duo should be able to see by now that their selfish greed in the1990s has set a precedent for others to demand independence of a piece of territory, on the basis of being the majority population in a region of any other country. And, yes, that is a real can of worms.
Michael, it is Njazi and not Nizar (assuming that your comment was addressed to me). To keep it short I will point out that during the WWII it was promised to Kosovo albanians that after the end of war they will be free to choose whether to stay in Yugoslavia or join Albania if they join Tito's communists to fight germans. I point this out to refute the claims of "Albanians from Albania", otherwise why would Tito offer Kosovo this option? That promise was broken and later Kosovo managed to get 1974 constitution. Besides being a province of Serbia it was also legally and autonomously part of the then federation. This constitution was annulled by serbian nationalistic regime in 1989 and later we all know what happened. The then Communist Party wanted to centralize all the power in Belgrade which was under serbian control. Slovenia and Croatia counter-offered a new confederation to avoid and decrease tensions in the country but Milosevic strongly opposed this initiative. Serbs wanted everyone to fit according to their plan an whatever anybody else had to say was not important to them. The rest of it is a well known history (or better yet, tragedy). As to Liz's comment, I can say that the bottom line is: USA has not occupied Kosovo, it does not run Kosovo nor do we have any substantial resources interesting for major superpowers. Kosovo was never completely serbian. It was given as a war plunder to Serbia by Russian insistance. The mantra "Albanians from Albania" is a fairy tale to help serbian politicians made up by serbian academicians. 1999 was a time when an isolated conflict was about to erupt to huge proportions envolving Turkey and Greece, both NATO members. How come that there are albanians living in five different countries and majority of them are outside Albania? It was not NATO campaign that made people flee their homes but organized, well planned and successfully executed terror of scorched land that made people run for their lives. To someone who is trying to deduce whether it was propaganda or fact (but from a safe distance of hundred and even thousand of miles away) I can look them squarely in the eye and tell them that this exodus was true. I was in Kosovo before, during and after the war. If you would only stop and check the list of persons indicted and tried in ICTY you would find all the evidence you need to objectively deduce the reasons and the background of the former Yu conflicts. It is not by chance that the majority of people found guilty are serbs (the highest ranking officials including two presidents of state).Camp Bondsteel was initially a US Army base but now it is run by Nato. The land it was built on is not serbian land because it is in the middle of albanian villages. You can check it out for yourselves.The gibberish for oil or whatnot does not stand.Peace talks, or dialogue if you wish, is better than blodshed or expulsion of people. Who is barricading who in northern part of Kosovo? It is serbs barricading themselves. We albanians know better than anybody else what it means to stand up for your rights and that is why there is no action taken to endanger the lives of innocent people in northern part of Kosovo. The instigators of violence are mainly from serbian cities and they are commisioned to create unstability by radical elements in Serbia.Liz, bottom line is that sooner or later we will come to an agreement acceptable to both sides and we will have to live side by side in the near future. I don't know what will happen after 1, 10 or fity years but for now, I think, the serbs will have to swallow this bitter pill and wake up from their illusions of grandour and martyrdoom.Their project of "Great Serbia" was not cheap and now it is time to pay the devil its due. But on the other hand, the way I see it, they will have to deal with a lot bigger issues than Kosovo in the very near future.Personally, I wouldn't mind living in a free and democratic country as long as I would be free to live and prosper without fear of being persecuted because of my name, skin color or religion. Yes, I would even live in Serbia. But, unfortunately, I have a very bad experience under the serbian rule. Moreover try to have a look of what is going on in Serbia and what are people (serbs) going through. If this is what they are offering to their own people, what do they have in store for the rest of us?It was because of serbs that ex-Yu fell appart and no one else. If you say that Milosevic was on USA-NATO payroll, then I have nothing to say to that.
Njaziu, the misspell has since been corrected. I'll address your latest round of comments in a short bit. There's a good deal to follow-up on. At present, some other obligations prevent me from doing so.
Niaziu, you mention, "... I wouldn't mind living in a free and democratic country as long as I would be free to live and prosper without fear of being persecuted because of my name, skin color or religion. Yes, I would even live in Serbia. But, unfortunately, I have a very bad experience under the serbian rule. ..."Where is it you live now, where you have such 'good experience', in a 'free and democratic country'?I'd suggest you read what Danny had to say. He's got a good head on his shoulders, and he knows history.
Michael, I appreciate your effort.Liz, you missed the point. I live in Kosovo, as I always have. We are far away from real and substancial democracy BUT I am free to live and not afraid of being persecuted just because I am albanian. As far as Danny's comment is concerned, I believe I pointed out explicitly that US has not occupied Kosovo (it has less than 1000 soldiers in Kosovo). Serbian government on the other hand has had close to 100.000 troops in Kosovo. USA is defending itself and its interests around the world because they can afford it. Why should they wait to fight back like in 09/11? I can only envy US for being able to do so. And if USA has occupied Serbia(?) or a part of it , can you please tell me why the same serbs are seeking a better future in that country (and elsewhere for that matter)? Although I am not a historian I know a little bit to get my bearings right and I believe that I can substantiate my comments if neccessary. Bottom line (here we go again) is that I am convinced that both serbs and albanians will live in peace in the future. It is the only way for us. Furthermore, I strongly believe that considering the specifics of our region we will cooexist more closely with Serbia than Albania for example.The current prime minister of Kosovo/ the whole political "elite" will gradually disapear from local and regional politics. It is not because they are not suitable to serbs or somebody else but because we want to build a truly democratic country for ourselves and future generations. We are not blind to the fact that they have become a hindrance to achieving our goals for a true democratic society. We have had enough wars and when finally we were able to taste freedom, we will never give it up nor try to oppres our neighbours who are the same like us. We are born men, and only by accident are serbs, albanians or whatnot. The way I look at it is that the international community is brokering a lasting peace for Balkans and its nations. Further partitions (MAYBE with exception to Bosnia) are not likely to foster that peace. Just because of the wishes of a handful of people numbering less than 40.000 to start further secessions of neighbouring countries is iresponsible and inappropriate. I am not against partition per se, but in this particular case I would not recommend nor support it.
Njazi, around the time that WW II ended, a number of ideas were being kicked around. I recall coming across thoughts that considered putting Albania and/or Bulgaria into Yugoslavia. Who specifically "promised" the Kosovo Albanians an independent Kosovo? I've difficulty believing it was collectively the Serbs. The half-Croat/half-Slovene Communist dictator Tito has been referred to as a "Red Habsburg." The Habsburgs weren't known to be particularly friendly to Serb concerns. Tito had an interesting life. During WW I, he was a corporal on the side of the Central Powers along with another corporal, who became infamous. The 1974 arbitrary granting of autonomy to Serb territories in Kosovo and Vojvodina as a continued part of Serbia was reflective of a double standard that didn't include granting autonomy to the predominately Serb populated region in Krajina. By the late 1980s, a consensus was reached among the then Yugo republics that the autonomy situation (especially in Kosovo) was in need of change. Albanian nationalist terrorism in Kosovo between 1974-89 as well as before and after was/is a reality. Many conflicts over territory aren't simple matters of one side being so virtuous and the other constituting the full embodiment of evil. In addition to non-Albanian suffering in Kosovo, some Albanians have been violently targeted for being seen as supportive of the Yugo/Serb institutions in place. The ICTY has exhibited biased traits along the lines of Abramowitz and Hooper, thereby explaining why nationalist non-Serbs with violent attributes haven't been pursued with the same enthusiasm as Serbs. There's evidence that some witnesses against Albanian nationalist terrorism have been intimidated from testifying. It's not a myth that over the past 120 years and before, there has been a noticeable migration of Albanians from the territory of present day Albania to Kosovo. Serb ties to Kosovo go back centuries as the churches and history reveals. The US military isn't the only foreign force currently in Kosovo. There's also a German presence among others. In 2004, German troops stood by as Serbs in Kosovo were terrorized en masse.
Njaziu, so you are an Albanian who lives in a free and democratic Kosovo. Did your forefathers come from Albania? How did Serbia get so populated with Albanians if you found conditions so horrible there?You mention "... Further partitions (MAYBE with exception to Bosnia) are not likely to foster that peace. Just because of the wishes of a handful of people numbering less than 40.000 to start further secessions of neighbouring countries is iresponsible and inappropriate. I am not against partition per se, but in this particular case I would not recommend nor support it. ..." Yes, yes, as long as Albanians get more 'pieces' of Serbia, of Macedonia, of Montenegro, maybe even Greece, then there will be 'peace'. Otherwise, no. Of course, you 'would not recommend nor support' secession for anyone but Albanians. Because you were born that way.
Michael, it was the communist party leadership that made the promise to Kosovo albanians. 1974 constitution was as arbitrary as attaching Vojvodina and Kosovo to Serbia at the start of the preivious century. As stated earlier, it was war plunder and as such was rewarded to Serbia. The concensus you mention was to upgrade the status of the provinces to republics and not their downgrading.I have never stated that one side is comprised of angles and the other of demons. You implied it.As everybody knows, we are not able to influence the ICTY so your claim is absurd.As far as medieval serb ties to Kosovo nobody denies it but the claim that it was serbian territory is outrageous. We bled during 1389 and we (the balkan nations) suffered because of the serbian treachery and as a result we (all balkan nations) suffered the Ottoman Empire for almost five centuries.Albanians migrating form Albania is a fact just as it is the organized colonization of Kosovo with serbs from the then parts of SCS kingdom.Liz, even if they did so what's the big deal? Where did yours come from? Certainly they were not indigenous to Kosovo nor Balkans.As far as your comment on the way I was born, isn't that just a little bit (at the least?) shovinistic if not downright racist? Why would my comments upset you so much? Just because there is another side to this sad story?Michael, I know, or it would be better to say I am under the impression, that you are biased in your claims concerning the current situation in balkans but still, the reason I am debating is that I definitely want to hear what you have to say as this way I can try to analyze the better of what is going on from a different point of view. I thank you for your comments and I respect other opinions as long as they are based on facts.Liz, patronizibg is not a way to refute sombeody elses opinions or in this case, stance. If you are debating about Kosovo and int politics, I assume that you are a hihgly educated person but this does not appear so.All the best to all of you and thank you for your time. Maybe we will hear from each other again. Actually, I hope so.
Njaziu, if you can, kindly provide sources claiming that the Yugoslav Communist leadership promised an independent Kosovo. Is this a well established fact or questionable claim? Like I said, I recall coming across some post-WW II Communist ideas about a Yugoslavia consisting of Bulgaria and/or Albania. Prior to 1912, Kosovo was part of the Ottoman Empire. Before that, Serbs were present in Kosovo, where they governed it along the standards of the time. Comparatively speaking, the Ottoman takeover of Kosovo and other lands better defines the term "war plunder." By the late 1980s, the consensus within Yugoslavia was to change the autonomy status. The desire to give it more autonomy was pushed by Albanian nationalists, with others taking an opposite view. The latter was premised on the situation in that province needing greater central control because of the Albanian nationalist violence that was evident. In your opening salvo, you clearly stated that the Serbs were responsible for the wars of the last decade in former Yugoslavia. In response, I provided detailed specifics countering that questionable opinion. To date, you haven't directly followed up on that reply of mine. In such discussions, this has periodically occurred as shown by what the likes of Hooper and Abramowitz choose to bring up and not bring up. In contrast, I appear more balanced when presenting a viewpoint, inclusive of responding to what others say. Later on at this thread, I brought up how many conflicts aren't clear situations of virtue against evil - suggesting that Kosovo was such a situation. You say that Liz is biased against Albanians. You don't appear so objective towards Serbs. Serbia minus Kosovo is still a noticeably multiethnic country. That aspect contrasts from the situations in Albania and Kosovo. This comparison can serve to underscore the issue of which community exhibits more in terms of multiethnic tolerance. If anything, you're being "absurd" by saying that the ICTY isn't biased because "we" don't have influence over that politicized legal body. With examples given, a good deal has been commented on the ICTY's exhibited bias. Serbs have been indicted for "command responsibility," while it has been acknowledged that proof of their support and/or participation in war crimes is suspect. On the other hand, Nasir Oric wasn't found guilty because proof of his support and participation in crimes was deemed as incomplete - even though he was in a command responsibility position, relative to the forces committing the involved crimes. I sense that this discussion is becoming circular. I'm not interested in what amounts to a pissing contest between the two diverse positions on Kosovo. The bottom line is that neither side can presently achieve their ultimate aim. They can either choose to wait it out, with the hope that future events might favor their respective desire (meaning that one side will definitely not achieve its objective), or seek some kind of compromise in the present. On your repeated bringing up of the situation in northern Kosovo, I once again note the Kosovo Albanian desire to have their police force move into that area. That preference contradicts UNSCR 1244 recognizing Kosovo as a continued part of Serbia. UNSCR 1244 calls for a limited return of Yugoslav military and police personnel to Kosovo. To date, there is no presence of a returned/limited Serb police and military contingent in Kosovo. Serbia is considered the legal successor state to the Yugoslav state which signed onto UNSCR 1244. In Yugoslav and pre-Yugoslav times, Kosovo was part of Serbia. The Serbs in northern Kosovo appear well short of exhibting the goon manner of 2004, when Kosovo Serbs were terrorized, with KFOR taking a comparatively lax stand in trying to stop that violence.
Michael, it was the communist party leadership that made the promise to Kosovo albanians. 1974 constitution was as arbitrary as attaching Vojvodina and Kosovo to Serbia at the start of the preivious century. As stated earlier, it was war plunder and as such was rewarded to Serbia. The concensus you mention was to upgrade the status of the provinces to republics and not their downgrading.I have never stated that one side is comprised of angels and the other of demons. You implied it.As everybody knows, we are not able to influence the ICTY so your claim is absurd.As far as medieval serb ties to Kosovo nobody denies it but the claim that it was strictly serbian territory is not true. We bled during 1389 and we (the balkan nations) suffered because of the serbian treachery and as a result we (all balkan nations) suffered the consequences under the Ottoman Empire for almost five centuries.Albanians migrating form Albania is a fact just as it is the organized colonization of Kosovo with serbs from the then parts of SCS kingdom but not to the extent it is propagated by different "academic" circles.Liz, even if they did so what's the big deal? Where did yours come from? Certainly they were not indigenous to Kosovo nor Balkans.As far as your comment on the way I was born, isn't that just a little bit (at the least?) shovinistic if not downright racist? Why would my comments upset you so much? Just because there is another side to this sad story?Michael, I know, or it would be better to say that I am under the impression, that you are biased in your claims concerning the current situation in balkans but still, the reason I am debating is that I definitely want to hear what you have to say as this way I can try to analyze the better the situation from a different point of view. I thank you for your comments and I respect other opinions as long as they are based on logical and consistent facts, or at least are not emotional responses.Liz, patronizing is not a way to refute somebody elses opinions or, in this case, stance. If you are debating about Kosovo and intl. politics, I assume that you are a highly educated person but this show of emotions is surprising and does not give credit to your "objective" comments.It is extremely inappropriate to comment on one's "way of birth" and totaly unnaceptable to assume who one is based on a few paragraphs of discourse. I never claimed that Kosovo's democracy is thriving, quite on the contrary (I should know since I live in Kosovo). Also, I have clearly stated that I am albanian, and the way I see it, just because of my ethnical background there is an animosity in your comments towards my person.I sincerely hope you will get over it. I don't hate serbs nor anybody else because they are members of an ethnic group.I like to listen to what other people have to say about things that interest me, and I see no harm in an open debate. Demonizing or generalizing a whole community or nation based on the actions of individuals is not the right way to give conclusions. I did say that the serbs are paying the lion's share but I never implied that the whole serbian nation is guilty of what has happened in ex-Yu. Concerning Bosnia, it is not that just because it is not albanian it is all right to be partitioned. What I meant is that half of Bosnia is inhabited by serbs in a single territory with state attributes and they are clearly opposing the unitarity of Bosnia. We are talking about a great number of people and not a few thousands as in Kosovo.I don't know why but I feel that it is futile to discuss with you on such sensistive issues for you if I am not "proserbian".All the best to all of you and thank you for your time. Maybe we will hear from each other again. Actually, I hope so.
Njaziu, for sure I'm not attempting to patronize you. And, I'm by no means chauvanistic. But, it's convenient for you to say so - so you do. Listen, Albanians aren't the only ones who've 'bled' throughout history. I simply mentioned that a tidal wave of Albanians came to former Yugoslavia, into Serbia, from Albania. I believe you agree with that. That's why, today, you are 90+ percent of the population of Kosovo, and you make up a huge chunk of the populations of southern Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and even Greece. These are all countries who share borders with Albania. You're the one who posted that life was miserable for you in a Serb-ruled Kosovo, yet your ancesters didn't like it much in Albania either. You (and most Albanians) seems to take as a given that wherever Albanians are in the majority, they should amalgamate, i.e. break away and form an independent entity. Thus, those of us who have 20-20 vision, can see that a Greater Albania is the name of the game. Your UDI (Kosovo) was heartily supported by USA and many NATO and EU countries, and USA-NATO enabled the UDI. But, the UDI didn't come because the militarily powerful all of a sudden had a love for humanitarianism. They needed a military foothold in the Balkans, and they got it via Camp Bondsteel. And, in the meantime, there is now a power play in Kosovo by extremist Muslims to also get a foothold in that region. And, there is some Albanian guy (from Kosovo) on trial over there in Germany who shot to death a couple of US military guys and injured others. Some of us do pay attention.As Michael mentions above, there was a pogrom in 2004, when Kosovo's Albanians desecrated and destroyed Ancient Christian holy places, and terrorized the Serbs in the south of Kosovo. And, you can't deny that over the decades countless Serbs have been terrorized out of Kosovo by Albanians. The ones who remain in your 'free and democratic' (southern) Kosovo are confined within barbed wire enclosed ghettos, without human rights or freedom of movement.
Michael, I apologize for the late reply. I would indicate Mr. Noel Malcolm's "Kosovo: A short history" as a very informative and objective source of information (it has a very extensive number of sources from the Serbian Communist Party archives). I was referring to page 300 of the same title concerning the promise made explicitly by Mosha Pijade and backed up by the highest ranking CP members(my own grandfather, an ex-communist has told me the same story about 30 years ago). As far as you stating "You don't appear so objective towards Serbs. Serbia minus Kosovo is still a noticeably multiethnic country." I would like to point out that I am all for that that we should first of all look at serbs or/ and albanians as people and not members of a respective nation. As to this all I am saying is that their politicians (for whom they voted and supported them) failed them in not delivering what they promised, that is Great Serbia. They also failed to warn them on the consequences of starting and losing in such an adventure.They made a bet and they lost it. Simple as that. The facts are there for whoever wants to take them into account. Belgrade was never attacked during the wars up until 1999. I am not claiming that I am an expert on intl. politics nor am I claiming that my version is the right one. I have simply stated my opinion based on facts known to me. All your references to my opinion are biased but I will not disregard them as fabrications because I do believe that nothing is as simple as it looks.As far as Serbia being more "multiethnic" than Kosovo i am a bit confused. What does democracy and human rights have to do with one's ethnic background? If only enumeration of ethnic groups is the issue, I will concede to your point and say that there are more ethnic groups in Serbia than in Kosovo. My question to you would be how come that in this democratic Serbia it is all the ethnic groups (and if not more the serbs are getting the same deal) who are suffering because of the lack of the rule of law? 40 percent of the population is supporting extreme right wing parties seeking closer ties with Russia. Human rights in Serbia; what rights? To cut it short we don't want any of that, thank you very much.As far as 2004 is concerned, I can assure you that we (in this case I) are not proud of that. It was totally unacceptable and unreasonable. I know for a fact that UNMIK was not a favorite in the eyes of albanians.I don;t know what future will bring, but I would point out that if Serbia was a truly democratic state I don't think all this would have happened. I can imagine that in the future we will become one country again irelevant to the borders or ethnic background.Liz we make a big chunk of population because we always lived in the countries you mentioned and not just because we fled Albania. Migration is a natural phenomenon to people worldwide and not only Albanians migrate. Of course we were not the only ones who bled through history. Furthermore during history we have had strong alliances with serbian princes and kings, after all we had the same enemy.I do happen to know a little bit of serbian history and there are many things to admire in their (your?) culture and traditions.Once upon a time Russia was strong and able to influence the world politics and especially Balkans. Serbs were traditionally allied with Russia and that is why they were able to dominate their neighbours. Today things are a little bit different. Tomorrow? Who knows? If USA only wanted a foothold in Balkans and in the process we could get rid of russian influence we are all for it. As far as the barbed wire in southern Kosovo, please do pay us a visit. It would be a great pleasure to tour Kosovo (and Serbia) with you or Michael. Nobody is perfect and nothing is forever. Today it is US that has the upperhand tomorrow it might be China or India. And then what? Should we cry to havens that it is not fair? We can but I fear nobody would care. Until then the show must go on (and even after that).
Njaziu, your use of "biased" and "objective" is biased. You haven't successfully refuted my comments at this thread. You were the one who said that the Serbs started four wars in reference to the last decade. I provided facts and fact based opinions to the contrary, which you've yet to directly address. That presentation on my part includes reference to Warren Zimmerman's assessment of Slovenian culpability. Mind you, that Zimmerman isn't considered pro-Serb. The term "Greater Serbia" has been overstated for apparent propaganda reasons. Albanian nationalists have maps of a Greater Albania, which includes Albania, Kosovo, Presevo, along with parts of Greece, Montenegro and (the FYR of) Macedonia. Prior to 1999, Serbia minus Kosovo wasn't in a warlike situation because the state of inter-ethnic relations there wasn't as bad as what was evident in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo. The multiethnic comparative point regarding Albania and Kosovo versus Serbia minus Kosovo is to show how Serbs aren't so intolerant as some erroneously suggest. You don't see non-Albanians in noticeable numbers seeking to live in the overwhelmingly ethnic Albanian Albania. In contrast, over the course of time, Albanians have left Albania in good numbers for Kosovo and other parts of the Balkans. Much of that reality has to do with primarily seeking better economic conditions. Nevertheless, if Serbia was so bad, the non-Serbs there would either be fleeing en masse and/or Serbia minus Kosovo would be ripe with ethnic violence. These circumstances don't exist (when compared to what became evident elsewhere), albeit with some problems that are to be found in most, if not all countries with different ethnic groups. BTW, on the matter of ethnic Hungarians outside Hungary, the Hungarian government has periodically been critical of Romania and Slovakia much unlike Serbia. The situation in Serbia minus Kosovo doesn't look worse than what has been evident in Kosovo. The latter is specifically mentioned as a main source of organized crime by outside observers with no preexisting noticeable bias towards Serbs or Albanians. What happened in Kosovo in 2004 was horrid. The attempts to have Albanian police takeover northern Kosovo is ominous and in contradiction to UNSCR 1244. I appreciate your follow-up to my request on what Yugoslav Communists said about Kosovo. Mosha Pijade wasn't the top person. I understand that Pijade suggested the Krajina region be given an upgraded status. That didn't happen. Tito granted an autonomy status to Kosovo and Vojvodina within Serbia unlike Krajina vis-a-vis Croatia. "Backed up" doesn't specify whether an idea would be actually implemented. Without further elaboration on what actually transpired, it could be that the idea in question (republic status for Kosovo) would be "backed up" for further thought. Like I said, I came across other talk of a Yugoslavia, inclusive of Albania and/or Bulgaria. In any event, Yugoslav and other European Communists had some ruthless individuals and policies. At times, some cherry pick the thoughts and decisions of such elements, when it suits a particular agenda. As someone interested in history, I'll try to follow-up on this matter. Some aspects of history are legitimately more open to interpretation than others. Noel Malcolm (who you call "objective") is known for favoring the Albanian view over the Serb one. In a certain regard, the Albanian-Serb dispute over Kosovo isn't unique, as others have contrasting views of the past and present as it relates to their respective conflict. Once again, I prefer to keep the discussion in a less circular manner. Serbs and Albanians each have contentions that I think have been duly noted at this thread. I'm hoping for new approaches if possible.
Michael, the only reason why I mentioned Malcolm's book is because that was the only source available in English and because its bibliography.I would also reccomend George Fred Williams's "Albanians". To be honest with you I will have to do a lot of follow up reading on the claims you stated concerning the facts(?) brough up here.And for the record I do not agree with your views on the history and the genesis of this conflict.New approaches? On this I definitely agree with you. Why Serbia not recognize Kosovo and at the same time create a confederation with kosovo? Both "parties" would get what they want. Kosovars its republic, and Serbia its cultural heritage and their national pride(?). But of course it will not be considered because serbs don't really care about cultural heitage nor Kosovo population (serbs or albanians) but only territory.You are interested in history and I am interested in "opposite" opinions and so far this debate (if I may call it so) has been benefitial to me. I will most certainly try to refute your claims but, as stated previously, I am no historian so it will take some time on my part to do so. I think that you are aware of "Nacertania" (1844) by Ilija Garasanin and later on the works of Vaso Cubrilovic on how to solve the serbo-albanian problem or issue. I would love to hear from you and discuss the importance of their work in the light of happening in 1999.Until then I wish you a good reading.
Njaziu, Cubrliovic was one person in pre- WW II Yugoslavia. Towards the end of his life, he was known to have been concerned about rising ethnic tensions, while preferring moderation (as per a New Republic article on him as well as some other sources). Some of his detractors say that his earlier views were in line with how others of that period often sought to settle potential or existing disputes. Keep in mind the views of the late Croat Cardinal Stepinac, who the Vatican beatified. On Malcolm and Kosovo, I came across a Wikipedia claim that he acknowledges Kosovo likely having a Serb majority for a good period prior to the 1900s. Not that Wikipedia is always accurate. For example, it claims that Kosovo had an autonomous status for most of Yugoslavia's existence which isn't true. Like I said, the current Serb position on Kosovo acknowledges that it should've considerable autonomy within Serbia. In theory, this is in line with what Tito arbitrarily issued in 1974.
Njaziu, I'll keep it brief. What's really going on in today's Kosovo? Read:http://www.islamicpluralism.org/1907/moderate-clerics-purged-from-kosovo-muslimRe "... As far as the barbed wire in southern Kosovo, please do pay us a visit. It would be a great pleasure to tour Kosovo (and Serbia) with you or Michael. ..."Do you really want Michael and me to tour southern Kosovo with you? If the 'moderate (Islamic) clerics' are being 'purged', what hope would there be for us Christians? Sounds like it would be a pretty ominous 'tour' of Kosovo, with you.Since you say you live in Kosovo, are you telling me/us that those Serb ghettos in Kosovo's south are no longer enclosed with barbed wire, and there is human rights and freedom of movement for the local (ghettoized) Christian Serbs? That is breaking news, and I'm waiting to see it on the news wires.
This was brought my attention regarding Kosovo: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/world/europe/death-of-war-crimes-witness-casts-cloud-on-kosovo.html?_r=1&ref=europe - Excerpt - The death of a key witness in Germany in the war crimes trial of one of Kosovo’s most powerful politicians has cast doubt on the effective prosecution of the case and threatens to derail local and international efforts to establish the rule of law here. Intimidation, fear, clan loyalties and a culture of silence have long impeded the development of a functioning justice system in Kosovo, analysts say, and the death is seen as a major setback. ...... “The E.U. is recklessly hunting for a symbolic success in Kosovo,” Mr. Zogiani said. “They want to show European public opinion that the E.U. can have a foreign policy success while ignoring what is happening on the ground in Kosovo.” In the war crimes trial of the former Kosovo prime minister Ramush Haradinaj, 34 of 100 witnesses were allowed to conceal their identities, the most of any case at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, prosecutors said at the time. Eighteen had to be subpoenaed because they refused to appear, and others, once inside the courtroom, said they did not dare testify. He was acquitted of all charges in 2008, but in 2010 a partial retrial was ordered.
Liz, I believe i wrote in plain English. To anwer you (if it is neccessary), yes you are both invited to visit Kosovo as my guests and see especially the "radical muslims" torturing and harrasing Christians. BTW, can you tell me what's up with "muslim" albanians and "christian" serbs?! Now we are discussing religion? FYI albanians traditionally have had Christian (in earlier times the majority of us (and even today we have Catholics and Orthodox churches) and Islamic beliefs.One way or he other we had never have had clergy people blessing people goint to war as your "popovi" did. This is turning into a real pissing contest. Please give me a break.Michael, not even a blind man would deny the organized crime and corruption in Kosovo. Concerning the allegations against our politicians, hopefully all the charges made will be clarified in a court of law. If they prove to be true I hope that justice will be swift. I can not easily claim anything about the veracity of charges brought by Mr. Marty but I can tell you that they are horrifying.To be honest with you, I personaly hope that they are fabrications from the serbian security structures (as so many times in the past) but in case that there is only a sliver of proof of such crimes, rest assured that no albanian would stand up to defend such a person, even if a PM.PS. Still working on getting you some materials that might be interesting to you.
Njaziu, it's unreasonable to not expect negatively inaccurate comments about Serbs to go unanswered by Serbs, as well as others who seek a more objective overview. The "popovi" in question has supported peace. There's no contradiction in giving support to a side in a given war while preferring peace. There've been numerous "fabrications" against Serbs from the nationalist anti-Serb side. Marty and Del Ponte don't impress as people who would be duped by your stated "Serbian security structures." Regarding your last sentence, I look forward to any new information.
Some different views expressed on the subjects matters discussed: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/10/06/serbias-prospects-for-eu-membership/#comments
Mr. Carpenter has made a very poignant och sensible case for partition in the Bosnia and Kosovo. If Kosovo and Bosnia are ever to be democratic states (they are not really today) then they cannot be holding large portions of their populations hostage. The Bosniaks and Kosovo Albanians would be better off and their states more stable if they didn't include large minority ethnic groups. Partition is obviously the best (or least bad) way of achieving this (the worse alternative being massive ethnic cleansing).
Njaziu, I thought I was clear. I even sent you internet links. I can't be more clear than what is out there in the news, and what's been documented. You are telling me, and others, that the only info. we should pay attention to is what you tell us. So, please also send me/us a few legitimate sources that back up what you're saying.