EU divided over future status of Kosovo

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU member states are signalling disagreement on the final status of Kosovo, just as UN-led talks on the future of the territory get under way.

Diplomats indicate that several states - including the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Greece and Italy - are publicly or privately promoting their own ideas, which in some cases go beyond the EU's common position.

EU member states in June agreed that the exact future status of Kosovo should be decided in UN-led negotiations between Serbs and Kosovan Albanians, while setting out some clear EU principles that any outcome must meet.

The EU conditions include the protection of the Serb minority, no return to the pre-March 1999 status (when Kosovo was directly governed from Belgrade), and, notably, no partitioning of the territory.

However, just after UN special envoy Martti Ahtisaari started his initial talks with Belgrade and Pristina last week, Czech prime minister Jiri Paroubek suggested that partitioning Kosovo could be the best solution.

"A solution could be dividing the territory on ethnic lines. The northern part of the region would belong to Serbia, and the majority of the southern part could be given the status of an independent nation", the Czech politician said, according to press reports.

Cacophony of opinions
The Czech move - clearly in breach of EU principles - ran contrary to a previous initiative by Slovene president Janez Drnovsek, who presented earlier this month a plan promoting full independence for an unpartitioned Kosovo.

Mr Drnovsek's plan caused a row in Slovenia itself, with the country's foreign ministry publicly declaring that the president's action did "not reflect" the Slovenian government's position.

An EU diplomat said the Czech and Slovene moves were "worrying", as the EU seemed "incapable of sticking to a common position" over the issue.

Another diplomat described the Czech plea for a partition as "very dangerous".

On top of this, the president of EU candidate state Romania, Traian Basescu, last week while visiting Paris presented a proposal pleading for a type of Kosovan autonomy that falls short of independence from Serbia, which was well received in Belgrade but not in Pristina.

An EU source described the different statements coming out of European capitals as a "cacaphony of opinions."

Wariness about independence
Although most other member states have so far cautiously stuck to the EU´s guiding principles, in public at least, they have privately voiced their own views over the issue.

Italy, Spain and Greece in particular are said to be worried about what will happen if the territory is given fully-fledged independence, having been under the administration of the United Nations since the 1999 war.

Sources said Spain is "nervous" about an independent Kosovo setting a precedent for its own autonomous Basque region, something a Spanish spokesman did not want to comment on.

Both Italy and Greece are reportedly wary about endangering their close political and economic ties with Serbia, with Rome particularly fearful of a future "failed" state in Kosovo which could produce large numbers of refugees.

A Greek spokesman did not confirm Athens' particular worry about Kosovo's independence, but did highlight that Athens as a "powerful" player in the region would play an active "mediating role" between Belgrade and Pristina.

The EU has to pay the bill
The direct influence of the EU on the final status talks is likely to be limited, though not irrelevant.

UN envoy Ahtisaari, a former Finnish president, will lead the talks, probably assisted by diplomats of the Kosovo Contact Group, which is viewed by diplomats as being very influential.

A representative from the EU has a seat in this group, but its six-nation core consists of the US and Russia as well as the UK, France, Germany and Italy.

"EU members who do not have a seat in the contact group are envious about those who do", one insider said.

But an EU diplomat argued that in the end, the view of the EU as a whole can hardly be ignored, as "we will have to pay the bill", referring to a probable Brussels role in administration and military stabilisation of the territory.

Mr Ahtisaari's efforts to broker a deal will initially be limited to shuttle diplomacy between Belgrade and Pristina, with direct talks between Serbs and Kosovan Albanians not expected to start before February.

Diplomats estimate that the negotiations will last at least six months, possibly more than a year.

Politicians representing the Kosovan Albanian majority have pleaded for full independence for Kosovo, but Serbia is opposed to granting Kosovo sovereign nation status. 

  http://euobserver.com/9/20437

Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments.  Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Wednesday, November 30, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post

STRATFOR (USA)

Kosovo: New War in the Balkans?

November 22, 2005 17 40 GMT

Summary

The current stalemate over Kosovo's status is a perfect example of the palsied international system. One would think that a province that has been a de facto international protectorate for more than six years, by now, would have its status decided; yet the concerned parties in Kosovo ostensibly cannot perform the necessary tasks. The responsibility for this impasse rests first on the shoulders of the Kosovar Serbs and Albanians, who cannot agree, and second on the shoulders of the Contact Group members -- including the United States -- who dare not impose a solution.

Analysis

U.N. status envoy Martti Ahtisaari and his deputy Albert Rohan on Nov. 21 began their Balkan trip in the Kosovar capital of Pristina, with the clear intent of ensuring that status negotiations scheduled for December in Vienna, Austria, do not fail. However, their visit probably will have the opposite effect. At this stage it appears Ahtisaari merely wants to take notice of the contradictory positions at play in the negotiations rather than come up with a clear plan. A further sign of the chaos reigning in and around Kosovo is that disagreement exists both between and among the Albanians and the Serbs.

Two major views have emerged in the Serbian ranks. Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica and Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Draskovic maintain that "Kosovo-Metohija" must remain part of Serbia. It can receive more than autonomy but less than independence, and the inhabitants' minority and property rights must be respected to the utmost. Hence, the Serbian government prepared a resolution Nov. 15 that was adopted by the Serbian Parliament on Nov. 21.

Also on Nov. 15, Serbian head of state Boris Tadic expounded his own views during talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Tadic said Kosovo should be decentralized to create separate Serbian and Albanian entities within the region and allow Serbs to have a relationship with Serbia that would be close but regulated by Kosovar institutions. Earlier, Serbian Vice President Miroslav Labus came forth with a similar proposal, maintaining that a Serbian enclave should be created in northern Kosovo and along the Kosovar part of the River Morava.

What the Serb positions have in common is a simple fact: Kosovo must not, under any circumstances, be allowed to achieve independence.

Here, it must be noted that the international community -- the majority of U.S. and European politicians involved in this process -- are striving to extinguish the independent Serbian enclave in Bosnia-Herzegovina and create a unified state. Hence, it is possible that Tadic and Labus' proposals are designed to safeguard the existence of Serbian entities not only in Kosovo but also in Bosnia.

Events during the last few months testify to the uncertainties among Albanians, too. Though all the Albanians agree that Kosovo must be independent, in October some radical groups attempted to pressure the Kosovar Parliament to declare independence immediately. However, as a result of international pressure -- primarily from Jesen Petersen, leader of the U.N. Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo -- on Nov. 17 a public proclamation was issued stating that Kosovar Albanians want an independent and sovereign Kosovo, and that this position will be represented during negotiations with Belgrade.

The international community could resolve this predicament -- especially if the major powers represented in the Contact Group (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Russia) legally sanctioned the de facto protectorate. That would translate into at least five years of conditional independence for Kosovo, supervised by the Contact Group and protected by international forces, which would give the Serbs in Northern Kosovo not only minority rights (a term they consider an affront in itself) but also the ability to organize themselves -- inside Kosovo -- as a separate entity.

If the Contact Group members are not ready to impose the solution of conditional independence as soon as possible, a new war in the Balkans is almost a certainty. Historical patterns simply are not working: Neither the Ottoman Empire nor Tito's Yugoslavia can be resurrected. But a sort of Bismarckian realpolitik -- a protectorate imposed and supervised by a concert of major powers -- might be worth trying.

Regardless of what path is approached, any removal of international forces will lead to Albanian-Serb bloodshed. Consequently, the international community only has two options. First, the Contact Group could adopt a position of de facto support of Albanian independence. Such a stance would anger Belgrade, but Belgrade currently lacks the tools to retaliate effectively (although the Bosnian Serbs would certainly feel forced to act to protect their own interests). Second, the Contact Group could simply attempt to extend the existing legal limbo.

Unfortunately, another bit of Serbia and Montenegro -- namely, Montenegro -- is champing at the bit to vote on independence itself. And should Montenegro go, the Kosovar Albanians are certain to not wait around for the international community to make up its mind. This leaves just one question in Stratfor's mind: Do the Kosovar Albanians possess the military fortitude to seize their independence should they not receive a blank check from the Contact Group?

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Tuesday, November 29, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post

Using Emotion to Silence Analysis

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/nov2005/chom-n29_prn.shtml

World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org



WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : Britain

Guardian newspaper forced to retract Noam Chomsky interview

By Robert Stevens
29 November 2005

On November 17, Britain's Guardian newspaper ran a statement in its
Corrections and Clarifications column announcing the removal from its
website of an interview with Noam Chomsky.

The interview, conducted by Emma Brockes, was published in the
Guardian's October 31 edition after Chomsky, a professor of
linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was voted
the world's top intellectual in a poll conducted by Britain's Prospect
magazine. Of 20,000 participants in the Prospect poll, 4,800 voted for
Chomsky.

In the published interview, Brockes attacked Chomsky, claiming he had
implied that a massacre of Muslims had not been carried out by Serbian
forces at Srebrenica in July 1995, during the Bosnian war. Her
diatribe marked a new low in the ever more pronounced rightward shift
of a newspaper that still advertises itself as the mouthpiece of
Britain's liberal intelligentsia.

The Guardian dropped the interview only following an open letter to
the newspaper from Chomsky, a complaint from the media organisation
Media Lens, and numerous letters of protest from readers.

The Guardian had initially defended its interview. On November 1, it
published two letters supporting criticisms of Chomsky, supposedly to
balance the "debate". As Chomsky later pointed out in an email copied
to the Media Lens organisation, "Both writers assume that there is a
'debate', as the editors falsely claimed, in which I question the
massacre (or as they pretend, 'massacre') in Srebrenica. That is all
fabrication, as the editors know well. They labored mightily to create
the impression of a debate in which I take the position they assigned
to me, and have succeeded. Now I'm stuck with that, even though it is
a deceitful invention of theirs."

The newspaper also failed to publish Chomsky's entire open letter of
complaint, dated November 13. Instead, they ran a truncated version in
which they insisted, before agreeing to publish, that Chomsky remove
the word "fabrication" from his condemnation of the Brockes article.

Chomsky agreed to do this and later stated that he was mistaken in
doing so. Even then, Chomsky's letter was published alongside one from
a victim of the war in the Balkans under the spurious heading "Fallout
Over Srebrenica". In reality, this "fallout" had been entirely
concocted by the Guardian, which had attributed to Chomsky a statement
he never made.

The newspaper's November 14 retraction admitted as much. It was issued
in the form of an acknowledgement by the "readers' editor" that found
in favour of Chomsky on three significant complaints.

"Principal among these was a statement by Ms. Brockes that in
referring to atrocities committed at Srebrenica during the Bosnian war
he had placed the word 'massacre' in quotation marks. This suggested,
particularly when taken with other comments by Ms. Brockes, that Prof.
Chomsky considered the word inappropriate or that he had denied that
there had been a massacre. Prof. Chomsky has been obliged to point out
that he has never said or believed any such thing. The Guardian has no
evidence whatsoever to the contrary and retracts the statement with an
unreserved apology to Prof. Chomsky."

Brockes' piece was clearly a hatchet job in which she demonstrated a
complete disdain for basic journalistic standards. But why was she
given the task and what was the brief given to her by the Guardian's
editorial staff?

There is no doubt that Chomsky's nomination by the readers of Prospect
will have angered and appalled the Guardian. Both publications
function as liberal apologists for the Labour government of Prime
Minister Tony Blair and both he and his leading adviser, Peter
Mandelson, have written for Prospect. Last year the Guardian published
an article by the editor of Prospect, David Goodhart, in which he
questioned whether an ethnically diverse society and a welfare state
are any longer compatible.

The vote for Chomsky by Prospect's readers on the basis of his left
politics and generally anti-imperialist stance was clearly seen as a
slap in the face. There remains a section of readers who have not got
the message being doled out by both organs.

Why were Brockes and, presumably, the Guardian's editors so determined
to raise the issue of Srebrenica? Because the civil war in Bosnia
represented a political watershed. It was the occasion for a slew of
liberals and radicals to ditch their oppositional stance and make
their peace with imperialismâ€â€a phenomenon that was analysed by the
International Committee of the Fourth International in its December
14, 1995 statement, " Imperialist War in the Balkans and the Decay of
the Petty-Bourgeois Left"

The ICFI noted how representatives of this tendency, in which the
Guardian and many of its leading columnists were to be found, cited
revulsion over Serbian atrocities as the justification for their swing
into the imperialist campâ€â€ignoring similar atrocities by Croat and
Muslim forces. The moral hand-wringing over Bosnia served a definite
political purposeâ€â€to legitimise support for Western military
intervention aimed at the break-up of Yugoslavia and the installation
of various pro-Western regimes that would ensure imperialist control
of this strategic region. The Bosnian war provided an opportunity for
these layers of ex-radicals to realign their politics with those of
imperialism.

This analysis has been amply borne out in the past decade. The
Guardian's role in justifying Britain's military intervention in
Bosnia by citing atrocities such as Srebrenica was only a practice run
for its subsequent abandonment of opposition to the Iraq war and shift
to support for regime-change in Iraq, once again citing the crimes
committed by Saddam Hussein.

An essential function of the pro-war propaganda of the Guardian has
been to intimidate and silence all those who refuse to accept the lie
that the imperialist powers are undertaking a great civilising mission
by organising regime change in the Balkans, the Caucasus and the
Middle East: Hence Brockes' choice of ideological weapon against
Chomsky.

The interview was published under the headline "The Greatest
Intellectual?" Its subhead was designed to be read as an excerpt from
the interview. It stated, "Q: Do you regret supporting those who say
the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated? A: My only regret is that I
didn't do it strongly enough."

Below, Brockes writes of Chomsky's career as an intellectual: "This
is, of course, what Chomsky has been doing for the last 35 years, and
his conclusions remain controversial: that practically every US
president since the Second World War has been guilty of war crimes;
that in the overall context of Cambodian history, the Khmer Rouge
weren't as bad as everyone makes out; that during the Bosnian war the
'massacre' at Srebrenica was probably overstated."

Chomsky has never put quotation marks around "massacre" in relation to
Srebrenica as Brockes implies. Indeed, he has referred to the massacre
at Srebrenica several times in his writing. More important still, the
question and answer that was used by the Guardian as a subhead was
made up either by Brockes or whoever edited her article for
publication.

The Guardian acknowledged in its retraction:

"No question in that form was put to Prof. Chomsky. This part of the
interview related to his support for Diana Johnstone (not Diane as it
appeared in the published interview) over the withdrawal of a book in
which she discussed the reporting of casualty figures in the war in
former Yugoslavia. Both Prof. Chomsky and Ms. Johnstone, who has also
written to the Guardian, have made it clear that Prof. Chomsky's
support for Ms. Johnstone, made in the form of an open letter with
other signatories, related entirely to her right to freedom of speech.
The Guardian also accepts that and acknowledges that the headline was
wrong and unjustified by the text."

The book by Diana Johnstone is entitled Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia,
NATO and Western Delusions, and was published in 2002. It is a
critique of the Western coverage of the war and seeks to shed light on
what lay behind the propaganda campaign of the imperialist
governments, which sought to demonize Serbia and lay sole
responsibility for the war at its door.

In 2003, Chomsky was one of a number of prominent signatories to an
open letter opposing the withdrawal of the book by its Swedish
publisher. That decision followed a press campaign in which both
Johnstone and her book were vilified, led by the daily newspaper,
Dagens Nyeter.

Chomsky was simply defending the author's right to free speech and,
while describing Johnstone's book as a "serious" work, has never said
that he fully agrees or disagrees with her analysis.

In his open letter to the Guardian, Chomsky states, "The reporter
obviously had a definite agenda: to focus the defamation exercise on
my denial of the Srebrenica massacre. From the character of what
appeared, it is not easy to doubt that she was assigned this task.
When I wouldn't go along, she simply invented the denial, repeatedly,
along with others."

An indication of just how importantâ€â€personally as well as
politicallyâ€â€it was for the Guardian to discredit Chomsky is Brockes'
description of "my colleague, Ed Vulliamy" as a "serious, trustworthy"
person. This is written in the context of an attack on Chomsky for
daring to question Vulliamy's reporting of the war.

Vulliamy wrote regularly on the war in the Balkans. His essential
theme was that the Serbian regime was responsible for the war, that
the Bosnian people were being systematically wiped out, and that
failure to support Western intervention was tantamount to supporting
Serbian atrocities.

As Diana Johnstone points out in her November 14 article on the
Brockes-Chomsky episode, entitled "Kulturkrieg in Journalism: Using
Emotion to Silence Analysis," it is entirely conceivable that Brockes
based her conversation with Chomsky on a few culled paragraphs from
Vulliamy, even down to his spelling mistakes. Vulliamy had previously
spelled Johnstone's first name incorrectly in printâ€â€a mistake repeated
by Brockes in her article.

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Tuesday, November 29, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post

November 17, 2005

Guardian Apologizes to Chomsky

Total Retraction of Emma Brockes's "No Massacre at
Srebrenica" Slurs

By CounterPunch News Service


The following unusually detailed and categorical apology to
Noam Chomsky appears in The Guardian for November 17. The
Guardian's "readers' editor", Ian Mayes, issues this
virtually unprecedented climb-down--in effect a savage
rebuke to its reporter Emma Brockes--after complaints by
Chomsky himself and others, and by detailed exposes, first
by Alexander Cockburn and then by Diana Johnstone on this site.


The headline and text of The Guardian's retractions follow.


Corrections and clarifications
The Guardian and Noam Chomsky
Thursday November 17, 2005
The Guardian


The readers' editor has considered a number of complaints
from Noam Chomsky concerning an interview with him by Emma
Brockes published in G2, the second section of the Guardian,
on October 31. He has found in favour of Professor Chomsky
on three significant complaints.


Principal among these was a statement by Ms Brockes that in
referring to atrocities committed at Srebrenica during the
Bosnian war he had placed the word "massacre" in quotation
marks. This suggested, particularly when taken with other
comments by Ms Brockes, that Prof Chomsky considered the
word inappropriate or that he had denied that there had been
a massacre. Prof Chomsky has been obliged to point out that
he has never said or believed any such thing. The Guardian
has no evidence whatsoever to the contrary and retracts the
statement with an unreserved apology to Prof Chomsky.


The headline used on the interview, about which Prof Chomsky
also complained, added to the misleading impression given by
the treatment of the word massacre. It read: Q: Do you
regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was
exaggerated? A: My only regret is that I didn't do it
strongly enough.


No question in that form was put to Prof Chomsky. This part
of the interview related to his support for Diana Johnstone
(not Diane as it appeared in the published interview) over
the withdrawal of a book in which she discussed the
reporting of casualty figures in the war in former
Yugoslavia. Both Prof Chomsky and Ms Johnstone, who has also
written to the Guardian, have made it clear that Prof
Chomsky's support for Ms Johnstone, made in the form of an
open letter with other signatories, related entirely to her
right to freedom of speech. The Guardian also accepts that
and acknowledges that the headline was wrong and unjustified
by the text.


Ms Brockes's misrepresentation of Prof Chomsky's views on
Srebrenica stemmed from her misunderstanding of his support
for Ms Johnstone. Neither Prof Chomsky nor Ms Johnstone have
ever denied the fact of the massacre.


Prof Chomsky has also objected to the juxtaposition of a
letter from him, published two days after the interview
appeared, with a letter from a survivor of Omarska. While he
has every sympathy with the writer, Prof Chomsky believes
that publication was designed to undermine his position, and
addressed a part of the interview which was false. Both
letters were published under the heading Falling out over
Srebrenica. At the time these letters were published,
following two in support of Prof Chomsky published the
previous day, no formal complaint had been received from
him. The letters were published by the letters editor in
good faith to reflect readers' views. With hindsight it is
acknowledged that the juxtaposition has exacerbated Prof
Chomsky's complaint and that is regretted. The Guardian has
now withdrawn the interview from the website.


[No need to worry--the article will live forever on the
innumerable right-wing sites that copied it, and no doubt
its admittedly false allegations will forever remain part of
the Chomsky lore endlessly repeated by his detractors.--DC]


--
Dan Clore

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Tuesday, November 29, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post

RE: Hague court bids to rein in former Kosovo PM
31/10/2005

Your articles notes that the former Kosovo prime minister and Kosovo Liberation Army leader Ramush Haradinaj, although indicted for war crimes against Serbs, Roma and fellow Albanians, has been allowed by a preliminary judgment of The Hague Tribunal's judiciary to return to the province and resume political life while awaiting his trial.

This extraordinarily lenient treatment should come as no surprise. After all, the international community's recent decision to discuss the status of Kosovo handsomely rewards KLA ethnic cleansing. Apparently, it is asking too much of Kosovo's Albanians, having won outright, to welcome back the many Serbs, Roma and other non-Albanians whom they expelled during the early days of the NATO occupation and to stop harassing those Serbs who stayed behind. To ditch "standards before status" is to appease the province's Albanians in their non-negotiable demand for an independent and ethnically pure Kosovo.

So much for Gen Wesley Clark's comment during the bombing of Serbia that "There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states." To add to the irony, there now appears to be a place in Europe for Croatia, a more or less ethnically pure state as a result of its expunging of the Krajina Serb nation.

Yugo Kovach
European Co-ordinator
The Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies (www.balkanstudies.org)
22 The Barons
Twickenham, Middx TW1 2AP
United Kingdom
020 8892 1979
01258 880 283


United Kingdom
------------------------------------------------------------

Hague court bids to rein in former Kosovo PM

ISN SECURITY WATCH (20/10/05) - Prosecutors at the Hague-based International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) late on Wednesday lodged an excoriating appeal to prevent Kosovo's former prime minister Ramush Haradinaj from returning to political life.

The appeal was couched in unusually strong language and noted angrily that despite being indicted for extremely serious crimes, Haradinaj was gradually “being reinstated as a key player in the political scene in Kosovoâ€Â.

Hague prosecutors said they would submit more evidence to the Appeals Chamber on Thursday or at the very latest on Friday. However, the contents of these submissions are to remain confidential as potential witnesses could be identified if they were made public.

Haradinaj, 37, is a former commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army (UCK/KLA). His indictment, along with that of two subordinates, was made public last March. It accused the three men of 37 counts of abduction, murder, torture, and "ethnic cleansing", committed against Serbs, Roma, and fellow Albanians in 1998.

When his indictment was made public, Haradinaj was prime minister of Kosovo and was widely acclaimed as having achieved much during the 100 days he was in office. On his departure for The Hague, Soren Jessen-Petersen, the head of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), publicly lamented the fate of his “close partner and friendâ€Â.

On 6 June, Haradinaj was released from custody pending trial. The terms of his conditional release allowed him to pursue limited work within his own party, the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo. Haradinaj’s defense team then asked for these terms to be relaxed, a proposal supported by UNMIK.

On 14 October, the UN Tribunal agreed, saying: “The accused may appear in public and engage in public political activities to the extent which UNMIK finds would be important for a positive development of the political and security situation in Kosovo.â€Â

On 17 October, the prosecution succeeded in stopping this, pending further submissions, the major one having come late on Wednesday.

In its appeal, the prosecution says that the lifting of restrictions - which would not, however, permit Haradinaj to become prime minister again while he awaits trial - creates “a terrible perception†for victims and witnesses and an impression of unfairness, since similar privileges have not been granted to other indictees.

The prosecution says that if upheld, the decision to allow Haradinaj to return to politics would strike fear among his victims and witnesses, who would gain the impression that “power still resides in the hands of the accusedâ€Â.

They also reminded the judges of the so-called Dukagjini Case, in which at least five witnesses in a case of murder involving Haradinaj’s brother Daut and his co-accused, Idriz Balaj, were killed.

No date has been set for the Appeals Chamber to make a final adjudication on the case, but it is expected within the next few weeks.

The fact that UNMIK has lobbied hard for the relaxation of Haradinaj’s terms of release confirms stories circulating in Pristina that the UN and Western diplomats are keen to have Haradinaj play a key political role in the coming months.

Kosovo is now entering a particularly tense period, as talks on its future status are likely to begin by December.

Haradinaj’s successor as prime minister is Bajram Kosumi. However, not having been a guerrilla commander, his authority is limited and his administration has been weakened by media reports of alleged corruption.

One diplomat who deals with Kosovo told ISN Security Watch that he believed that Haradinaj could “play a useful role in terms of telling hardliners he knows to stay calmâ€Â.

Agron Bajram, the editor of the daily newspaper Koha Ditore, told ISN Security Watch that he, like most Kosovo Albanians, would be “delighted†if Haradinaj could return to politics, because he had been a “much-needed†figure while in power and could play a major role in unifying the Albanian side during the upcoming talks on Kosovo’s future.

By contrast, Dusan Batakovic, a senior advisor on Kosovo to Serbian President Boris Tadic, told ISN Security Watch: “We see this as appalling. This unbalanced approach to indictees of different sides is a sending a very wrong message to both Serbs and Albanians.â€Â

What is clear is that since Haradinaj's release, the UN and diplomats in Kosovo have courted him in ways that would have been deemed outrageous and inappropriate if the indictee had been a Serb or Croat.

For example, on 26 September, a huge party was held at the Hotel Grand in Pristina to celebrate the wedding of Haradinaj’s brother. Among the guests were deputy UNMIK chief Larry Rossin and other senior officials and diplomats.

Haradinaj is frequently seen dining in fashionable restaurants in Pristina with foreign guests, who also visit him at his home in the village of Gllogjan.

Oddly, considering the alleged power and influence of Haradinaj, armed men in masks and uniforms have recently begun setting up checkpoints and searching cars not far from Gllogjan.

The Kosovar Albanian press has reported that a group calling itself “The Army for Kosovo’s Independence†has threatened UN officials with death and kidnapping if they act in any way to prevent Kosovo’s independence.

Officials from the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) have said they were only aware of criminal activities.

(By Tim Judah in London)
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=13210

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Monday, November 28, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post

Serbia fights to hold on to Kosovo, Montenegro

As Kosovo status talks begin and Montenegro prepares for an independence referendum, Serbian analysts say the government in Belgrade could survive losing Montenegro, but losing Kosovo would have far-reaching consequences.

 ISN By Igor Jovanovic in Belgrade for ISN Security Watch (27/11/05)


Serbian lawmakers last week passed a resolution enabling the government to participate in negotiations on the future status of its UN-administered southern province of Kosovo, but at the same time making it clear that an independent Kosovo would be unacceptable.

The 21 November resolution essentially calls for Kosovo, which has a majority ethnic Albanian population, to be given autonomy, just short of independence.

Last Thursday, three days after the resolution was adopted by Serbian parliament, a team was formed to participate in the Kosovo status negotiations. That team will include Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica, Serbian President Boris Tadic, Foreign Minister Vuk Draskovic of Serbia and Montenegro, and Thomas Fleiner, the director of Switzerland’s Federalism Institute, who will serve as an advisor to the team.

The Serbian resolution is in direct opposition to a resolution adopted by the Kosovo Assembly a few days earlier, which states that independence is the only option for the province.

The status talks started on 21 November with the arrival of UN special envoy Martti Ahtisaari in Pristina, the capital of Kosovo.

The Serbia resolution advocates a compromise solution for Kosovo, but says it “will proclaim any imposed solution illegitimate, illegal, and invalid†- a warning to the international community not to attempt to force the independence issue unilaterally. The representatives also advocated direct negotiations with the Albanian side, another veiled rejection of international interference.

Prime Minister Kostunica told lawmakers that a solution for Kosovo’s status must guarantee the preservation of Serbia and Montenegro’s sovereignty as well as essential autonomy for Kosovar Albanians.

Kostunica said Serbia was “not only defending its national interest, but also the principles on which today’s international law is basedâ€Â.

All caucuses except the Democratic Party, led by Serbian President Tadic, voted for the resolution. However, although the Democrats disagreed with some aspects of the resolution, they concurred that independence for Kosovo was unacceptable.

Tadic proposed that Kosovo remain part of Serbia, but be divided into two entities, one Serb and one Albanian. The proposal, which was first unveiled by Tadic during his recent visit to Russia, has been rejected by ethnic Albanian leaders.

The two entities would have both joint and separate institutions similar to the way Bosnia and Herzegovina was divided up by the Dayton Peace Agreement, which ended the 1992-1995 war there. That model, which the international community in Bosnia is now hoping to revise, has proven to be politically complicated, bureaucratically inefficient, and extremely expensive.

The planned Serb entity of Kosovo would have institutional links to Belgrade in areas such as education, health, and some forms of security. Tadic’s associates said the Serbian president’s proposal focused more on concrete details, while the existing resolution was centered around a vague notion of “more than autonomy, less than independence†for Kosovo.

But Tadic’s idea of dividing up Kosovo has been rejected out of hand by the US and the EU, though Russia and China oppose full independence for Kosovo and are more likely to accept such a plan.

The head of the Coordinating Center for Kosovo, Sanda Raskovic-Ivic, who is also the vice-president of Kostunica’s Democratic Party of Serbia, said the 21 November parliamentary resolution on Kosovo should not be taken lightly.

Raskovic-Ivic told the Belgrade daily Politika that the Serbian side would insist on “the point that Serbia’s borders cannot be changedâ€Â. But she also stressed that “more than autonomy, less than independence†was a compromise between two extremes - the Kosovar Albanian “independence or nothing†and the Serbian “centralism or nothingâ€Â.

According to the resolution, the ethnic Albanians (who have the overall majority in the province) will be offered judicial, executive, and legislative power in areas where they are the majority, while the same principle would apply to Kosovo Serbs in those municipalities where they are in the majority.

“There is no politician in Serbia who would accept […] independence for Kosovo, even if it were conditional,†Raskovic-Ivic said.

Cedomir Antic, political advisor to Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Miroljub Labus, who is also the leader of the G17 Plus party - the second-largest party in Serbia’s ruling coalition - said any kind of independence for Kosovo would rule out any Serbian financial aid for the province.

“This would lead to a new displacement of Serbs from Kosovo,†Antic told ISN Security Watch. Some 100,000 Serbs remain in Kosovo, while around 200,000 fled the province after 1999 when international security forces took control.

In the meantime, EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn has urged Belgrade to play “a constructive role†in the resolution of the Kosovo’s status.

In an attempt to assuage Belgrade’s fears that Serbia’s conduct during the Kosovo status talks could determine the outcome of the country’s EU membership bid, EU officials said the two issues were not directly related.

EU Foreign and Security Policy High Representative Javier Solana told Belgrade media in October he did not believe that the Kosovo status talks would have any effect on Serbia’s Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) talks with Brussels - the first steps towards EU membership for Western Balkan nations.

“I do not think the negotiations on Kosovo’s future status should be a problem. Those are two separate processes. One refers to relations between Serbia and Montenegro and the EU, and the other is linked to processes whose direction is set not by the EU, but by the UN, even though it is important for us,†Solana said.

According to opinion polls conducted by Media Gallup in late September, 35 per cent of Serbian citizens believe that the best solution for Kosovo is autonomy within the existing borders.

Seven per cent of those polled said the best solution would be to create a Kosovo Republic modeled along the lines of the union of Serbia and Montenegro, while 12 per cent favored full Serbian control over Kosovo - the pre-1999 set up. Only 2 per cent advocated the preservation of the current state as a UN-administered province.

Kosovo, Montenegro slipping away
As the debate over Kosovo’s status intensifies, Montenegro is also threatening to leave the state union with Serbia and declare independence.

Serbia’s ruling parties are largely united over the need to preserve the union with Montenegro. Only G17 Plus advocates an independent Serbia without Montenegro, but it has reached a consensus with its coalition partners to create a strategy for maintaining the common state.

But Montenegro is slipping away. Montenegrin President Filip Vujanovic said in early October that a referendum on the independence of Montenegro, the smaller of the union’s two republics, would not be postponed and would be held between February and April 2006.

Serbian Democratic Party spokesman Andreja Mladenovic told ISN Security Watch that his party advocated the preservation of the state union, primarily because the EU had clearly said “this is the quickest way to obtain EU membershipâ€Â.

“But if the people of Montenegro choose independence and if the referendum is held according to international standards, the Serbian government will respect the referendum’s results,†Mladenovic said.

Branko Radujko, advisor to the Serbian president, told ISN Security Watch that Tadic also advocated the preservation of the common state as the fastest track to EU membership.

Serbia and Montenegro Foreign Minister Draskovic, who is also the leader of one of the ruling Serbian parties, the Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO), said he would do everything in his power to save the state union.

However, G17 Plus’ Cedomir Antic says Serbia is “a hostage†in the union with the much smaller Montenegro, which - even though it contributes only 5 per cent of the joint budget - has the right to veto all decisions in the common state.

Earlier this month, the European Commission cautioned Montenegro against making any unilateral moves as it prepares for its independence referendum.

The EU has warned Montenegro against embarking on any moves towards an independence referendum until a broad consensus was reached on how it should be conducted. Otherwise, it said, the international community would not accept the outcome.

“The issue should be dealt with in a way that preserves internal and regional stability and is compatible with the continuing progress of Serbia and Montenegro towards membership,†the EU said in a statement.

Brussels in 2003 acknowledged that Montenegro had the right to organize a referendum on independence. However, the EU wants the strongly pro-independence government of Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic to hash out an agreement with Montenegrin parties that oppose the move, with Serbia, and with the international community.

According to a September survey conducted by the Podgorica-based nongovernmental Center for Democracy, independence is still the favored solution in Montenegro, with 41.6 per cent of respondents in favor of independence and 34.5 per cent opposed.

However, despite the disagreements, Antic believes that the possible separation of Montenegro “will go down absolutely peacefully†as far as the Serbian side is concerned.

Belgrade political analyst Slobodan Antonic said the Serbian government would easily survive a possible split with Montenegro, but added that no Serbian government could survive Kosovo’s independence.

“That would probably lead to early elections. If the elections are held soon after the declaration of Kosovo’s independence, the parties with nationalist rhetoric, such as the Serbian Radical Party, are very likely to come to power,†Antonic told ISN Security Watch.

The Radicals - whose leader, Vojislav Seselj, is on trial at the UN’s Hague-based war crimes tribunal for atrocities committed in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina - is the single strongest party in the Serbian parliament, holding 81 out of the total 250 legislative seats.

According to the latest public opinion polls, the Radicals now enjoy the support of around 32 per cent of voters in Serbia, while the second-ranked pro-European Democratic Party, led by President Tadic, has 11 per cent less.

Antonic said that if the Radicals won power it would most likely complicate the country’s EU membership bid, even though the party does not officially oppose association with the EU, but does oppose the extradition of Serbian war criminals to the UN court, which is a major precondition for EU membership talks to begin.


Igor Jovanovic is ISN Security Watch’s senior correspondent in Serbia. He has worked with Serbia’s Beta News Agency since 1998 and is the former News Editor for Belgrade’s Radio Index. He also contributes to Transitions Online magazine and the Southeast European Times.
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=13641

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Monday, November 28, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post

The New York Times

November 26, 2005


In Meeting With Rival Factions, U.N. Envoy Paves Way for Kosovo Talks

By NICHOLAS WOOD

BELGRADE, Serbia and Montenegro, Nov. 23 - The United Nations took a step closer to starting talks on the future of Kosovo, perhaps the most intractable issue remaining from the Balkan wars of the 1990's, with a visit by its chief negotiator to the region this week.

The envoy, Martti Ahtissari, a former president of Finland and recently appointed as the United Nations' negotiator, met Tuesday and Wednesday with the leaders of Kosovo's two factions, ethnic Albanians and Serbs, in Pristina, Kosovo's capital, to prepare for possible face-to-face negotiations between the sides early next year.

His tour paves the way for negotiations that are expected to end six years of legal limbo for Kosovo, during which uncertainty over that Serbian province's future has frustrated both its populations and the threatened the chances for long-term stability in the region.

Kosovo has been under the control of a United Nations interim administration since it was wrested from Serbia's control in June 1999 after a 78-day NATO-led bombing campaign. The air campaign came after Serbia sent troops into the province against an ethnic Albanian rebel movement, and evidence emerged of widespread atrocities by the troops against the Albanian majority.

Since then the United Nations has established a regional government with substantial local control. But the mission's role in the province is seen by international officials as increasingly untenable because of the failure to resolve its future status.

Officially Kosovo remains a part of Serbia, contrary to the wishes of the Albanians, who make up 90 percent of the estimated two million people and who want independence. Last year 50,000 ethnic Albanians rioted in the region, forcing 4,000 Serbs and others to flee their homes and killing 19 people.

The difficulty of Mr. Ahtissari's task was underlined just before his visit as Serbian and Albanian political leaders reiterated their diametrically opposing views. On Monday, Serbia's Parliament passed a resolution agreeing to the negotiation process, but rejecting any solution that would remove Kosovo from Serbia. On Tuesday, Kosovo's Albanian leaders told Mr. Ahtissari that they would not accept anything less than independence.

"I insist on the direct recognition of Kosovo's independence that will calm down the region," Kosovo's president, Ibrahim Rugova, said after meeting in his home in Pristina with Mr. Ahtissari. "The time has come to wrap up this business."

Much of the negotiations are expected to focus on how Kosovo's Serbian population, which numbers up to 130,000, can best be protected and have a degree of autonomy from Albanian-dominated institutions.

While the United Nations officials say the final agreement will be the result of negotiation, senior Western diplomats across the region concede it will be difficult to defy Kosovo Albanian demands for independence, despite their failure to prevent attacks on minorities. Forcing Kosovo to remain within Serbia would run the risk of provoking an Albanian insurgency and destabilizing the region, they said.

But some politicians warn that insufficient consideration is being given to what impact Kosovo's independence would have on Serbia.

"Everyone seems to be concerned about the future status of Kosovo; that it will be more or less independent, conditional independence or independence with international supervision," Dimitrij Rupel, Slovenia's foreign minister and current chairman in the office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, said in a recent interview. "But they haven't thought thoroughly about what might happen in Serbia."

The negotiations come at difficult time for Serbia. Next year Montenegro is expected to hold a referendum that could also lead to it breaking away from Serbia and becoming an independent state.

Serbia's democratic parties also remain weak, despite five years of democratic government since the fall of the former Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, Mr. Rupel said.

Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica's coalition government has introduced difficult economic and political changes that have yet to bear fruit. Public enterprises are being restructured with job losses, social security payments have been scaled back, and public expenditures have been cut to ensure economic stability.

This environment, especially if Kosovo and Montenegro were to become independent, could be exploited by the ultranationalist Serbian Radical Party, which holds the largest number of seats in Parliament, said Vuk Jeremic, the foreign affairs adviser to the reformist president, Boris Tadic.

"We may experience a nationalist wave," Mr. Jeremic said in a telephone interview. "The Radicals will say, what have five years of democracy brought us? The improvements may not be very obvious at this stage." If Kosovo were lost, he said, "I think there will be little we can use to contain them."

Mr. Rupel said he had urged other European foreign ministers at a recent meeting in Brussels to consider how Serbia might be compensated for any possible losses in Kosovo. "I think part of the solution will be finding something attractive for the Serbs," he said. Asked what the response of his counterparts had been to his proposal he said, "They didn't have an answer."

Membership in the European Union some time in the future "isn't really a carrot," he said. Aid or compensation, financial or political would have to be sufficient to strengthen democratic forces enough to make people overlook the loss of Kosovo.

Mr. Jeremic said the whole region needed an additional aid package, to ensure stability after a decision on Kosovo. "There has to be a new initiative for the Balkans within the European Union," he said.

But he emphasized that Serbia could not be bought off on Kosovo. "No matter how high a price you pay for Kosovo, it would still be a sellout," he said.
"The compensation has to be found within Kosovo. The compensation will have to be at the expense of Albanians' maximalist platform."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/26/international/europe/26kosovo.html

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Sunday, November 27, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051119/w5_broken_promises_051119/20051121?hub=WFive

CTV.ca


Broken Promises

By Marleen Trotter, W-FIVE
 
Updated: Mon. Nov. 21 2005 5:37 PM ET

Canada, like many other wealthy countries, wants to attract the best and brightest from developing nations.
The promise? Bring your education and skills and the jobs are waiting. In particular, the Canadian government has been encouraging highly skilled and highly educated immigrants.
In a major speech in September, Prime Minister Paul Martin put heavy emphasis on the need to increase immigration levels to combat an aging population, low birth rate and a shortage of skills.
"We need immigrants," said Martin. "Quite frankly we need more and we need them to succeed."
But can we really accommodate more? What about the tens of thousands already here?
Many who came with dreams of a better life find it impossible to work in their chosen profession and complain of a system that offers little help to allow them to practice their skills.
Federal government documents obtained by W-FIVE show that skilled immigrants are shunning Canada. In 2000, Canadian embassies and consulates abroad received more than 300,000 immigrant skilled worker visa applications. But in 2004 that number declined to only 177,000.
Even more dramatic is the fall in skilled worker applications from China (including Hong Kong), which dropped from 60,000 in 2000 to only 8,000 in 2004

The Maple Leaf

For Eva Zhai, who grew up in China, the Canadian maple leaf represented a symbol of opportunity and independence in a far-off land.
Zhai immigrated to Canada because she dreamed of a better life for herself and her daughter Nicole.
She didn't leave China because she was poor or desperate. At home in Shanghai, she was a successful marketing executive for a large multinational company. Hers was just the kind of expertise she was told would land her a good job in Canada.
But Zhai hasn't been able to find any job that matches her qualifications. Her dream is starting to die.
"Like now I feel a bit lost. Like a failure for the career improvement," says Zhai. "I thought I have a very solid multinational background you know. It should be I can fit in."

Prescription for dissatisfaction

Hamid Zarrinkalam was also led to believe he would have no trouble fitting in once he immigrated to Canada.
An experienced pharmacist back in Iran, Zarrinkalam was told he would have to be re-certified in Canada. But he was never told it would take almost three years, that he would literally have to start over, go back to school, write five exams and do another internship to re-qualify.
Zarrinkalam feels fortunate to have a job as a pharmacy technician to support himself while he studies for his licensing examinations. But his work as an assistant is a long way from managing a pharmacy, which is what he did back in Iran.
"I passed my university (in Iran). I got my degrees over there," he says. "So I'm ready to (work as a pharmacist). But here -- no."

Giving up

By the time W-FIVE met Raj Kumar, he was already packing up his dreams for a better life in Canada, along with his wife Shivani and their two children. After five years in this country, the engineer with a PhD from New Delhi has been unable to find any work in his profession.
"I never thought that I would not find a job here," Kumar told W-FIVE.
Disappointed and desperate, he's giving up on Canada and moving to the United States. There, he found a job with a high-tech company based in Princeton, New Jersey.
"Within ten days I got two offers (in the U.S.)," he said.
Before emigrating, Kumar was educated and taught at one of the most prestigious technical schools in the world -- The Indian Institute of Technology.
But once in Canada, he couldn't even land an entry-level position and ended up doing tutoring and courier jobs. He never thought he would be unable to find work once here.

Point system

Immigrants come from different countries, with different backgrounds. But they all have one thing in common. They qualified to immigrate to Canada under its point system for skilled workers. It is a point system that rewards higher education and experience. Everyone must pass an international language test.
A government presentation shown to prospective immigrants, obtained by W-FIVE, shows what's needed: 10 points for being in the right age bracket; 25 points for education; 10 points for arranged employment; 16 points for speaking one of Canada's official languages (French or English); 8 additional points for the second official language. A prospective immigrant needs 67 out of 100 points to qualify.
The huge number of points given for education means that it's very easy for prospective immigrants with university degrees and good jobs.
Skilled immigrants are invited into Canada based on their impressive education, experience and language abilities only to find out that once they get here those credentials aren't recognized, their foreign experience doesn't count and their English isn't good enough.
They find themselves locked out by employers who want Canadian degrees and Canadian experience, by regulated professions that make it almost impossible to re-qualify.
Skilled surgeon can't work while Canada needs doctors
Joshua Raj, an experienced orthopedic surgeon has performed more than 1,000 joint replacements in Malaysia and the United Kingdom.
Canada needs orthopedic surgeons, but once he arrived in Canada, Dr. Raj he was told he would have to go back to medical school for a year, then wait in line and do another four-year residency, if he could even find one. Dr. Raj has come to the conclusion that he will never be able to practice medicine in Canada.
"When I make an incision in patient in England, Ireland or Wales under the skin they look exactly the same as a Canadian," says Dr. Raj. "The bones are the same, the arteries are the same, the nerves are the same. I don't see why I cannot work here."

Suing Ottawa

One couple in Alberta is determined to take on Canada's failing immigration system. Prem and Nessa Premakumaran are suing the federal government, accusing Canada of wooing professionals like themselves under false pretences.
Now living in Edmonton, Prem and Nessa were educated in the United Kingdom and worked for 20 years in London, England, in accounting and office administration before emigrating to Canada.
They claim that during their interview at the Canadian High Commission they were told they would have no trouble finding work in their fields given their experience and qualifications. Today, they complain, that they were sold a bill of goods.
"If they are looking for slaves to do the jobs, menial jobs, they should advertise they are looking, Canada is looking for slaves to do the menial jobs," complains Prem.
Since coming to Canada, it's been a constant struggle for Prem and Nessa to support their young family. In spite of their global experience and a booming Alberta economy, no one would hire them.
Instead of working in finance and office administration, the Premakumarans have been forced to take whatever jobs they could get to survive, cleaning hotel rooms and offices.
At one point Prem was even forced to shovel snow in front of Canada Place to make ends meet.

Ontario condemns federal immigration

So what's wrong? Ontario's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Michael Colle blames a federal visa system that is out of touch with the reality of the job market. Colle says the federal point system gives priority to people with academic credentials regardless of whether there is work for them.
"The immigration system in Canada is broken," Colle told W-FIVE in an interview. "It's like inviting someone for dinner to your home and you basically feed them crumbs.
"The problem is that we in Ontario may need welders, we need construction workers, we need truck drivers. So the point system doesn't do you any good if you're a truck driver who wants to come to Canada from Romania. Yet if you're a PhD from Bucharest you'll probably get in but you may not get work but if you're a truck driver you get to work immediately. Well, then the point system isn't working? That's an understatement."

Bad news spreading fast

Our reputation as a nation that welcomes the world is at stake. And the bad news about how tough things can be for skilled newcomers in Canada is spreading fast -- via the Internet, messages posted by disappointed, highly technical immigrants who are plugged into the global marketplace.
A recent online article out of New Delhi warns "Far from being the El Dorado of repute, for many immigrants Canada has emerged as a land of unmitigated disaster. From rampant discrimination to hidden booby traps, Indians have been forced into an economic quagmire, having to settle for a dead end job."
And then there's a website, NOTCANADA.COM, that blasts Canada as a "land of shattered dreams" where "careers, finances and lives are destroyed". The website lists the top eight reasons not to immigrate to Canada. Number one is "No Jobs."
The negative warnings from disillusioned immigrants posted on the website's forum are shockingly blunt:
"My Canadian dream turned into a nightmare."
"Canadians must be proud of having highly skilled immigrants sweeping floors and washing dishes"
"All of you wanting to migrate: DO NOT DO IT."

Federal minister responds

W-FIVE went to Canada's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Joe Volpe, to talk about the disconnect between immigrants and the labour market.
In particular we asked him about the many immigrants the program interviewed, who told us they passed the point system and were led to believe they would get jobs in our field, but once in Canada, just hit a brick wall and ended up in dead end jobs.
"I'm one of those that doesn't believe that any job leads to a dead end," responded Volpe. "I think that work actually ennobles the human spirit."
Volpe appeared taken aback when shown the NOTCANADA.com website.
"Does something like this trouble anybody? It troubles me," he told reporter Victor Malarek. "I want the most positive remarks regarding Canada and my job is to be able to fix the system so that people we invite into our country can hit the ground running."
"The system needs to change. How long is that going to take? Years? I'd do it tomorrow if I could because every day thousands of immigrants are coming only to find jobs aren't available."
However the immigration minister believes immigrants will eventually find success in Canada.
"The characteristics of immigrant is when one door opens another closes. I don't mean to be cavalier but I would say to those immigrants they shouldn't be discouraged while we're building a system to realize everyone's talent."

End of the road

But the immigrants W-FIVE met during its investigation are discouraged. If things don't turn around for Eva Zhai soon, she and her family will go back to China where the economy is booming, even if it means losing face.
Pharmacist Hamid Zarrinkalam is determined to finish what he started and get his licence in Canada. Zarrinkalam insists he will not go back to Iran a failure. But he admits that if he had known the barriers he would face and the time it would take, he would never have chosen to immigrate to Canada. And his decision to come here has cost him his future wife. Zarrinkalam's fiancée, a doctor back in Tehran, has decided not to pack up her career and move to Canada after watching him struggle for so long.
As for Prem and Nessa Premakumaran, of Edmonton, their fight to hold Ottawa accountable suffered a setback, when a Federal Court judge recently dismissed their claim ruling: "It is not the role of the courts to order that agencies be set up to assist immigrant workers. These issues . have to be settled at the ballot box."
The couple is not giving up. They've taken their case to the Federal Court of Appeal.
But Raj Kumar has given up; leaving the country he chose to move to in favour of a guaranteed job in the United States.
"It's really tough," he said, while packing boxes for his move.
But it's a move he has to make. The job in the U.S. offers a chance to get back into the engineering profession, to regain his confidence and reclaim his future. Kumar says he owes it to his family, who sacrificed so much for him back in India.
And maybe with American job experience under his belt, Raj might one day return to Canada and get a job that fits his skills here.



© Copyright 2002-2006 Bell Globemedia Inc.

 

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Saturday, November 26, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post

• In Meeting With Rival Factions, U.N. Envoy Paves Way for Kosovo Talks
• Surroi: We see borders as symbols not as walls (Koha Ditore)
• UNMIK chief assures Kosovo citizens there will be no division on ethnic lines
• Serbia hands over remains of 41 Kosovo Albanians found in mass graves
• 1st Kosovo Albanian-Serbian leaders dialogue set for early 2006

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Saturday, November 26, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post

["If Kosovo walks off, why will the Serb Republic stay put?" ]

 

http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/nov05/hed7246.shtml

 

Washington Post, November 22, 2005

In Kosovo, Two Peoples Look Across Bitter Divide

By Daniel Williams, Washington Post Foreign Service

PRISTINA, Serbia and Montenegro -- Six years after the end of warfare here, fear and suspicion still enforce a strict separation of Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo, but for the first time both sides are beginning to picture a future in which they might -- just might -- live together.

Talks began Monday in Pristina on the future legal status of an area that has been under the administration of the United Nations since U.S.-led bombing forced out Serbian forces in 1999. Anti-Serb riots in March 2004 stoked fear here and in foreign capitals of new violence between the two populations, and possibly even between Serbia and Kosovo, prompting the U.S. and European governments to endorse the talks.

"This is about ending a dispute of more than a century," said Avni Arifi, an adviser to Kosovo Prime Minister Bajram Kosumi. "The only way to move forward is to talk. Otherwise anything can happen, mostly bad."

"It's time to show some political maturity and do something about this conflict," said Sanda Raskovic, an official in Belgrade who will be part of the Serbian negotiating team.

Martti Ahtisaari, a former Finnish president who was appointed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to mediate the talks, arrived by air Monday in Pristina, Kosovo's capital, to open a round of shuttle diplomacy aimed at finding common ground. Officials in Pristina and Belgrade, the Serbian capital, say they will eventually sit down and speak directly.

NATO began its bombing campaign in 1999 in response to the killing of Albanian civilians during a Serb crackdown on Albanian separatist guerrillas. Despite six years of U.N. administration, Kosovo remains officially a province of Serbia.

The Albanian majority demands full independence. Serbia wants to keep Kosovo within its territorial bounds, albeit with substantial autonomy. "Kosovo is part of Serbia, and not only part of its history but also part of its present and future," Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica told parliament in Belgrade on Monday.

The United States and European governments will wield strong influence in the negotiations. Many analysts predict they will eventually pressure and cajole the two sides into accepting a status being called "conditional independence."

Under such a framework, Kosovo would formally separate from Serbia, but would remain for an extended period under some type of international supervision, with foreign peacekeeping troops continuing their patrols, as in nearby Bosnia, where a U.S.-brokered peace deal initialed 10 years ago ended another of the Balkans' ethnic wars.

The talks represent a dramatic shift in course for the outside powers. After 1999, they told the Albanians that talks on final status would begin only if they improved the rule of law and the protection of Serbs in Kosovo. But after the riots of 2004, in which Albanian mobs torched close to a thousand Serb houses, foreign officials concluded that the current framework was untenable. They authorized talks while continuing to pressure the Albanians to rein in lawlessness.

A visit to Kosovo shows how stagnant and yet volatile the situation is. The majority population of 2 million Albanians and the minority Serbs, now numbering about 100,000, live in separate, mutually hostile worlds. A bridge over a river that separates Serb and Albanian parts of the northern city of Kosovska Mitrovica carries little traffic. Sharp-eyed men on both sides warily look over anyone who crosses.

The Serb population of Pristina is down to 120 from about 40,000 in 1999. Serbs' homes have been occupied by Albanians. The few Serbs who dare come into town complain of harassment.

In the countryside, a few Serb enclaves remain, surrounded by Albanian villages and subject to the whims of illegal Albanian militias. Few refugees have returned. Recently, a shadowy armed group called the Army for the Independence of Kosovo ordered Kosovo politicians to declare independence or face a "difficult situation," which people here took to mean death. Another group opposes talks altogether and has spray-painted the slogan "No negotiations. Self-determination" all across Pristina.

Still, the decision to talk has forced contemplation among Serbs and Albanians about what a new Kosovo would be like.

Nikola Bejovic, an artist and one of the few Serbs who still lives in Pristina, said, "They will talk and talk, but anyone who thinks this will be over in a year is dreaming."

Bejovic lives in a suburb and has not been downtown for a year. The last time he visited, he recalled, he spoke Serbian and someone clubbed him on the head. He ended up in a hospital.

People at the talks "will try to come up with something that will satisfy everyone," he predicted. "It will be like a magic trick. When the Albanians look at the solution, it will look like independence. When Serbia looks at it, it will seem like something else."

Bejovic, 56, moved to Pristina 33 years ago after meeting his future wife, Armi, now 51, an Albanian who was born in Pristina. She said Serbs and Albanians both consider her a freak: "When I am in Serbia, they call me names. When I am here, they call me names. This is a stupid place."

In downtown Pristina, Ehup Ahmeti, an 18-year-old Albanian, sells cigarettes out of a crate. He says independence is on the way and wonders where that will leave him. "These cigarettes are going to be the same whether we're free or not," he said. "The real reason we need independence is because we cannot live with the Serbs."

Ahmeti's family came to Pristina from central Kosovo after the war "because our house was burned down and there were plenty of Serb apartments here."

He had expected Kosovo to be independent long ago. "I thought that's what the war was about," he said. "There's no way there can be any other solution. Really, the Serbs ought to go back to Serbia. . . . A few can stay, but really, there was a lot of killing. They should not come back."

Independence is one topic that is not supposed to come up when Serbs and Albanians address each other directly during the talks, both sides say, though for entirely opposing reasons.

"This we only discuss with the international community," said Arifi, the adviser to Kosovo's prime minister. "We have trust that the solution is obvious."

The Kosovo negotiating team intends to talk about practical issues: war reparations, pensions to Albanians dating to before the war, land records held in Belgrade, border controls, rights to fly commercial planes through Serbian airspace and the treatment of the Serb minority within Kosovo. "We recognize they have an interest in Serbs living here, as we do for Albanians living there," Arifi said.

Arifi said Kosovo was prepared to offer compromises to smooth the way to independence. It would agree to international peacekeeping troops remaining within its borders and to foreign monitoring of human rights. It would pledge never to unify with either Albania or the Albanian communities in Macedonia to the south. "This is not something we wanted to do anyway," Arifi said.

Independence for Kosovo is also not on Serbia's agenda because in Belgrade's view, it would violate international law and roil the Balkans. At the war's end, the Serbs point out, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1422 said that Kosovo was legally part of the former Yugoslavia.

The Serbian government is willing to agree to "substantial autonomy" for Kosovo to run its own affairs and for Serbs there to have autonomy within the province. "The schools must be local, the sheriff must be local," said Sanda Raskovic, a member of the Serbian negotiating team.

Foreign governments that help oversee Kosovo have good reason to reject independence, she conjectures. Declaring Kosovo a sovereign state would set an example for other conflictive places, notably Bosnia, where the central government insists that the country's semi-autonomous Serb Republic eventually integrate fully into the Bosnian state.

"If Kosovo walks off, why will the Serb Republic stay put?" said Raskovic. Serbian officials raise the specter of a domino effect worldwide: Chechnya, parts of Macedonia, Taiwan, all breaking their moorings.

There's yet another party to the talks, self-declared, the Serbs of Kosovo, who officially form part of the Belgrade delegation.

"It is our future they're talking about, yet somehow we are not quite at the center of things," said Oliver Ivanovic, a Serb leader in Mitrovica. "In any case, we do not just want to be puppets of Belgrade. . . . We don't really trust Belgrade. We think the Albanians want to get rid of us and the internationals don't care.

"We're the orphans here," he said. "But we have to participate."

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Tuesday, November 22, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post

Together at last: Serbian government and business leaders join with Serbian Diaspora for 15th Annual Convention and 1st Business Conference

[ printer-friendly version <http://news.serbianunity.net/press/files/suc320.pdf>  ]



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 18, 2005

CONTACT: Andy Verich
202-463-8643


LAS VEGAS - The Serbian Unity Congress (SUC) is pleased to announce the completion of its 15th Annual Convention, and its First Annual Business Conference, held in Las Vegas, Nevada November 11-13, 2005.  The Serbian Business Conference was the first of its kind held in the United States of America since 1929. 

Guests and attendees at the conference were able to browse exhibitions, listen to panels, and attend gala dinners honoring Serbian dignitaries.  The guests included many Serbian officials and businessmen, including NBA basketball star and humanitarian, Vlade Divac.  The SUC would especially like to thank all members of the Las Vegas Serbian Community and parish of St. Simeon Serbian Orthodox Church for their help in organizing the convention. 

Over thirty Serbian companies had exhibitions, showcasing their programs and products.  Officials from the Serbian Government included: Minister of Diaspora Dr. Vojislav Vukcevic, and Predrag Bubalo, Minister of Economics and Privatization, Milan Parivodic, Minister for Foreign Economic Relations, and Dr. Sanda Raskovic-Ivic, Director of the Coordination Center for Kosovo and Metohija.  There were also representatives on hand from USAID and its implementation partner at International Relief & Development (IRD).

Prime Minister Kostunica sent a warm welcome that was read by Professor Ljusic and President Tadic sent his best wishes via his special representative Damjan de Krnjevic-Miskovic.

Congresswoman Shelley Berkley sent special regards for the SUC, (read by Professor Michael Pravica), and Congressman John Porter, whose representative awarded the SUC a Commendation for its work.  In addition, a video message was shown from Congresswoman Melissa Bean (Illinois, 8th District), who sent her best wishes to the SUC and convention guests.

Other special guests at the convention were the Ambassador of Serbia and Montenegro, Ivan Vujacic, Desko Nikitovic, the Consul General of Serbia and Montenegro in Chicago, former US Ambassador to the Vatican, Thomas Patrick Melady, Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Frederick Peterson III, Chief of OSCA in Kosmet, Tom Gambill, and dr. Sanda Raskovic-Ivic (special guest of Dr. Vojin Joksimovic from San Diego). 

Some of our Serbian-American businessmen present included Alex Machaskee, publisher of “Plain Dealerâ€, the largest newspaper in Ohio, with over 1.5 million subscribers, Miroslav Djordjevic, Slobodan and  Mira Pavlovic, Martin Selak, Dr. Bogdan Maglic, Dr Sveta Djurica and others.

In addition, there were panel discussions on the topic of Kosovo and Metohjia, moderated by Dr. Vojin Joksimovic, and about Serbian young people, moderated by Nevena Vujic.  The panel on Kosovo and Metohija included Ambassador Melady, Lt. Col. Peterson, OSCA Chief Tom Gambill, Wanda Schindley and Dr. Raskovic-Ivic.  The panel on Serbian youth included Victor Peneda, a handicapped student whose mother is Serbian and father is from Venezuela, who spoke about his work with handicapped students from USA, Cuba, and Serbia and Montenegro.  Jelena Jovanovic, who is candidate for a Doctorate of Linguistics, who spoke about the importance of teaching native language, scientific studies about when is the best time to teach children a second language, and helping preserve the language of our ancestors. In addition Uros Adamovic spoke about problems of young people from Vienna, and compared it with the same problems of the youth in Serbia.  And, Nada Miljkovic from California showed a documentary called “Two Villages, One Heart†presenting parallel stories about her “village†in California, and about a village in Serbia. This film has been submitted for consideration to the Sundance Film Festival.

The 15th Annual SUC Convention began November 11th, with presentations by the by Olga Danilovic (Vienna Office), Slavka Draskovic (Belgrade Office), Mirjana Samardzija and Andy Verich (Washington DC Office), Boba Stefanovic (Vancouver Chapter), and Risto Krstanovic (Detroit Chapter). All spoke about the importance of opening their local chapters of the SUC, and the impact it made on the local Serbian community. 

A special part of this meeting was about the Diaspora taking a part in lobbying for their native country.  The SUC had a very important experience in its role working with Serbian grassroots to expand the Congressional Serbian Caucus to 29 members of from the U.S. Congress who are very active in addressing issues that Serbs in Serb lands are facing today. Mirjana Samardzija and Andy Verich from Washington DC office spoke about the “Serbian Voice in Congress†and the important role all Serbs can take to make a difference.

For his humanitarian efforts, Vlade Divac was given the highest honor given by the SUC:  The Serbian Medal Of Honor.  To honor U.S. veterans, Ilija Lubalo recognized Serb American contributions as veterans and made special note of George Vujnovic, a former U.S. Army officer with a distinguished career during the Second World War and his role in coordinating operations that contributed to saving the lives of U.S. Airmen who were rescued by Serb Chetniks.

Many members of the Serbian media attended this event and published articles in Politika, Vecernje Novosti, Ogledalo from Chicago, Srbobran, Frankfurt’s News, RTS, TV Station 4S from Chicago, and had live reports by Chicago’s Serbian Radio and Radio Belgrade.  Entertainment at the Gala Dinner was headlined by a stunning performance by folk dance group Avala.  The dinner was very well attended with over 400 guests.

More information will be available at www.serbianunity.net.

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Saturday, November 19, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post

Serbianna

 

http://www.serbianna.com/columns/borojevic/027.shtml

 

 

Colonized Kosovo: Muslim demands and Western servitude

By Boba Borojevic

Ottawa, November 14, 2005 - The violence that started Oct. 27 among Muslim youths in the dreary industrial suburbs northeast of Paris soon grew into a nationwide insurrection in the banlieus, of arson and clashes with police. Prime Minister de Villepin said the nation faced a "moment of truth" over its failure to integrate Arab and African immigrants and their children into its mainstream.

A thousand miles away and 16 months ago, on March 17, 2004, Albanian mobs burned down hundreds of Serbian houses and some thirty Serbian Orthodox churches. They also expelled over 2000 non-Albanians from Kosovo. Some voices in the “international community” tried to explain this violence as the result of Albanian frustration for not getting independence from Serbia. Is there any significant similarity between demands and actions of Albanian Muslims in Kosovo and Muslim "youths" in France?

Dr Srdja Trifkovic, director of the Institute for International Affairs at The Rockford Institute in Illinois says that the difference is two-folded.

The riots in Kosovo in 1981, 1989, in the 1990s and than on several occasions following the NATO occupation but most notably on March 17, 2004, are based in a combination of nationalist and Islamic motives. It would be inappropriate to ascribe them completely to the influence of religious teaching, just as it would be wrong to exclude Islam from the mix of emotions that drive the Albanian political mainstream. Significant segments of the Albanian Kosovo youths active in the KLA and associated groups are primarily driven by the desire to declare independence from Serbia, to expel the remaining Serbs and other non-Albanians, and to have a mono-ethnic Kosovo. Their murderous antagonism is not fully explicable, however, without some reference to the gap that Islam breeds between Muslims and non-Muslims, in the Balkans and elsewhere.

In France by contrast, many of the North African youths of Arabic origin, most of them of an Algerian, Moroccan or Tunisian parentage, want their self-rule within France, rather than independence from France. For at least some of them the ultimate objective is to take over France and the rest of Europe altogether, but for now they have one key political demand that is not sufficiently publicized in the Western media: the acceptance of no-go areas for the police in certain “difficult” areas with a Muslim majority, and de facto autonomy for those areas. Young Muslims want their turf to be governed by themselves, within the boundaries of the French state but definitely outside the French society. Their community leaders, imams and sheikhs, hope that eventually the application of the Sharia law within their communities will be only a matter of time.

The exclusion for the French state, its police forces, judicial and administrative authorities from the areas in which the Muslims comprise a majority would be only the first step. What they are asking for is reminiscent of the Turkish millet system of local authority exercised by different religious and ethnic units within the Ottoman Empire. “It presupposes the right of the Muslims in Europe to be treated as a separate community, guided by its own rules and not subject to the prevailing laws and mores of the secular host society,” explains Trifkovic.

Although many rioters in France have rather vague notions of what they reallt want, Trifkovic cautions that we need to look at the statements by their community leaders, by people who are demanding “negotiations” with the French government. “What we are witnessing is the first step of the intifada that will seek to gradually establish pockets of Muslim-ruled areas that will be inhabited solely by Muslims. We have seen the same progression in North Africa and the Middle East in the early stages of Muslim expansion in the 7th and 8th centuries.”

The reason why western governments and the mainstream media have failed to address the issue of intifada in Europe, Trifkovic says, is that it would imply the recognition that integration and assimilation have failed miserably.

“What we have witnessed in the past 40 years is a massive influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe. We are talking about 20-plus million people – the greatest migration of people ever recorded in history! It far exceeds the European emigration into North America. Even in the late 19th century, in no single year had more than half a million Europeans migrated to the rest of the world, including North and South America, Australia, South Africa etc. This massive migratory onslaught has been accompanied by the demand of the European elite class for the newcomers’ “inclusion,” for the host-nations’ “tolerance” of alien practices and cultural assumptions, for multiculturalism, for an irreversible welcoming mat for the newcomers who have never intended to be integrated. They have compact communities, which can function on their own terms and in their own right without ever learning the language of the host society and without ever accepting any of its cultural assumptions and values,” concludes Trifkovic.

Colonial Attitudes

According to Finish newspapers the appointment of Martti Ahtisaari as an UN Special Envoy authorized by the United Nations and the great powers to lead the talks on the future status of Kosovo is another impressive demonstration of the authority and confidence the former President enjoys among the international community in such matters. Trifkovic sees Martti Ahtisaari as the one of ever-present faceless bureaucrats picked up by the so-called international community when they want a process with the preordained outcome to get underway.

“He was already involved in 1999 in negotiating the agreement in Kumanovo that persuaded the withdrawal of Serbian police and military units from Kosovo before NATO came in. The interregnum assured that most of the Serbian and other non-Albanian population would be expelled by Albanians. His subsequent association with the so-called International Crisis Group (ICG), an organization implacably committed to the concept of the Albanian independence, is not promising at all. The Serbian authorities would have been well advised to declare that his services are not welcome for that reason. The Serbs should have demanded someone more evenhanded, less compromised by bias and by prior political activities. There is no doubt that, had the international community appointed someone who has said that Kosovo should stay within Serbia, the Albanians and their cohorts would have cried murder and demanded that person’s replacement.”

Brelgrade’s negotiating team consisting of the prime minister of Serbia Vojislav Kostunica, president of Serbia Boris Tadic and president of the state union Serbia and Montenegro, Svetozar Marovic, includes vastly different and mutually incompatible personalities and views on how to conduct the negotiations and how the future status of Kosovo should look like, says Trifkovic.

“It is enough to look at the well exploited phrase ‘more than autonomy and less than independence’. Professor Kosta Cavoski, one of the leading Serbian jurists, has explained that there is nothing in between those two terms. You either have autonomy, which means self-rule that falls short of independence, or you have more than that, which means full sovereignty without even a resemblance or pretence of institutional link between Belgrade and Pristina.

“The phrase more than autonomy and less than independence is very damaging for the Serbian side. It implicitly recognizes that whatever Kosovo gets it will be de facto independence, under whatever name. For as long as Belgrade does not have a specific plan, the one that will be based upon already existing models elsewhere in the world, such as the autonomy for Swedes in Finland, the models of coexistence or, to be more precise, the methods of separation of Greeks and Turks of Cypress, the models of territorial autonomy that the Vatican’s institutions enjoy in the Italian republic, for as long as we are always inventing some new models – of which the world remains unaware to this day – we are following one-way street to de facto independence of Kosovo under whatever name,” says Trifkovic.

Constant Pressure on Serbs by Foreign Powers

Belgrade newspaper “Politika’ reported that the American senator Joesph Biden had said at the meeting of the Foreign policy committee of American Senate on November 9, that: “If we do the right thing in Kosovo, it’ll remind Muslims round the world the US helped Kosovo Muslim population to build a strong, independent, multi ethnic democracy."

Biden's opinion does not surprise Trifkovic who said that we had witnessed that attitude in the past decade. "Joe Biden was consistently wrong on every Balkan issue and remains wrong to this day. The senator from Delaware does not understand the Balkans or Islam. Giving Muslims a few morsels in the Balkans in the hope that the US will justify itself for the policy in Iraq and the policy of supporting Israel has been proven false under the Clinton administration. People who still maintain the same cause today are either politically very naïve, or deliberately mendacious, or just plain stupid.

"As for the issue of substance the declaration of either the House of Representatives or the Senate that has no legal binding value, that has no character of policy declaration that the administration has to follow is symbolic and should not be treated by the Serbs as a tool of heavy pressure," says Trifkovic.

When push comes to shove, without Serbia’s agreement an independent Kosovo cannot function. If the Serbs declare that they will not accept Kosovo’s travel documents, customs forms, passports, license plates, etc. it would be impossible for an independent Kosovo to function. The only functional link between Kosovo and the heartland of Europe goes through Serbia to the north and west. And if the Serbs are determined in the defense of their concept of sovereignty, no “independent” Kosovo would be able to function.”

According to Trifkovic, the Serbian side strategy at the moment should be defensive. “The Serbs have no need to accept the deadline of 2006, or any other year. There are crisie in the world such as Middle East crisis that has been subjected to many deadlines in the past. We’ve had Madrid, we’ve had Camp David I, Camp David II, and Oslo and yet it remains unresolved. Why should the Kosovo crisis be subject to any cut-off date? And why should the Serbs negotiate today if the UNSC Resolution 1244 from 1999 remains unfulfilled? Those two issues have not been answered in satisfactory manner,” Trifkovic says. The Serbs can insist on 1244 as the preconditions for negotiations. Belgrade has strong arguments, and that is why the implicit intention of those who want an independent Kosovo is to make Belgrade give up on UNSC 1244,” concluded Trifkovic his interview for “Monday’s Encounter” on CKCU 93.1 FM in Ottawa.

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Thursday, November 17, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post

Please find enclosed the "EU Observer" version of the article "Many
Options but Independence for Kosovo" by Jan Oberg and Aleksandar
Mitic.

Link to article: http://euobserver.com/7/20228

Best regards,
Aleksandar Mitic

Many options but independence for Kosovo

16.11.2005 - 17:44 CET | By Jan Oberg and Aleksandar Mitic EUOBSERVER
/ COMMENT - 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.

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Thursday, November 17, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post

http://www.istina.at/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=697&Itemid=62     
 
Istina, broj 38

13.novembar, 2005.


ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI:

THE MEPHISTO OF AMERICA


            In the largest American newspaper printed outside of America, The International Herald Tribune of October 14, 2005, Zbigniew Brzezinski published a very critical article on President George W. Bush, showing him to have by his policy, especially his war against Iraq, raised a universal hatred of the Islamic world in particular against themselves. As a conceited person, Bush did nothing but apply the ideas, preached during decades by Brzezinski himself, for the American domination of the world.
            ISTINA reproduces from Balkans-info review, www.b-I-infos.com , this article by Komnen Becirovic written shortly after the events in Ukraine at the end of 2004 inspired precisely by Zbigniew Brzezinski simply by the fact that it is the outcome of his strategy for the downfall of Russia. It is to be reminded that this American Pole was the lecturer of such human monsters as Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke, as far as we the Serbs are concerned, and it was he who praised the United States for testing successfully new weapons at the time of the war of NATO against Serbia.

The editor      



KOMNEN BECIROVIC

            What could not be seen or heard on television, radio or in the press about the thirst for freedom and justice of the Ukrainian people, its burning desire to free itself from the Russian slave supervision and join the European Union and NATO, the spontaneous and democratic character of the demonstrations in Kiev, the Russian interference in the Ukrainian concerns, the complete innocence and honesty of the Westerners, the fraudulent poll and the victory stolen to the opposition at the time of the presidential elections that took place in the country in November-December 2004. It was said that the fate of the world depended on the arrival at the head of Ukraine of Victor Iouchtchenko whose face was mysteriously devastated by acne and who was suddenly promoted knight if not martyr of democracy.
            However the gigantic orange Kiev joke, relayed by the media throughout the world, had been conceived, staged and financed by the United Sates of America which continues without slackening to weave its vast conspiracy against Russia while launching libellous media campaigns against it, by encircling it with military bases by means of widening NATO, by moving the ex Soviet people against it while insidiously organizing economic or any other type of subversion from within. The obvious goal is to destabilize and weaken Russia before being in a position to seize its riches, dismember it and erase it from the map of the world.

            Let it suffice, for those who still doubt of it, to reopen the book written eight years ago by the geopolitical expert, the apostle of the New American world order, Zbigniew Brzezinski, The great Chessboard where he develops the ideas of the geostrategic collapse of Russia in the Soviet ex-republics and throughout Eurasia. It is this Polish citizen now naturalized American, who, as an adviser to the President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, designed the Afghan Islamic trap for the Russians without suspecting that the Islamic trap which was to hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union would not be long before boomeranging back against America. So it was worthwhile and Brzezinski did not fail to boast of it particularly in a famous interview with Le Nouvel Observateur on January 15, 1998.

            He thus became the main inspirer of the hegemonic policy of the United States with the spectacular result of the war against the Serbs waged by his enthusiastic disciple Madeleine Korbel Albright and the contribution she made in favour of the expansion of NATO to the East in view of the conquest of Eurasia. However the influence of the Talibans over Afghanistan which had to be reversed at the price of a terrible war, the emergence of the Al-Qaida hydra from within the Islamic world with its apocalyptic attack on Manhattan, on September 11, 2001, as well as other terrorist attacks, the American power stuck in Iraq, the spectre of future wars looming on the horizon against Iran, Syria, North Korea and even Russia, finally the universal anti-Americanism are as many grapes of wrath of the guilty Brzezinski doctrines to the point that this great guru of the American domination of the world may end up by being the author of its downfall, its evil spirit, its Méphisto.  
            His cold, rational and atavistic hatred of Russia, only equal to that of the Nazi ideologists, has appeared in particular about Ukraine which according to him should be detached and estranged from Russia in order to put a final stop to Moscow imperial ambitions: "The independence of Ukraine modifies the very nature of the Russian State. For that reason, this new important slot on the Eurasian chessboard becomes a geopolitical mainspring. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire in Eurasia. And even if it tried to regain such a status, the centre of gravity would then be moved and that mainly Asian empire would then be doomed to weakness and be involved in permanent conflicts with its agitated vassals of central Asia." He also writes: "Without Ukraine and its fifty two million Slav brothers, any attempt made by Moscow to restore the empire is doomed to run against the prolonged resistance of populations who have become finicky about their national and religious identity." Almost like a man obsessed, he continues in that vein throughout many pages when he denounces the divine right of Russia to Ukraine, he almost denies the organic tie binding the two countries, supports the artificial creation of Ukraine within its present boundaries by Bolsheviks determined to fight the famous Russian hegemony, he pleads for Ukraine sovereignty over Crimea given as a gift to the Republic by Khrushchev in 1954, he rejoices of the systematic refusal by the Ukrainian leaders of a natural union between Russia end Byelorussia. On the other hand, he insists on the creation of the Washington sponsored alliance between Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldavia in answer to the agreements reached between Russia and Byelorussia. He never ceases to repeat that Ukraine represents the vital stake in the rollback of Russia, the new strategy to replace that of containment developed by George Kennan in 1947 and applied for almost half a century of cold war.
            Having for main goal to weaken Russia, to cut it from its southern part and the Black Sea, ultimately to draw it back to the limits existing before Pierre the Great and Catherine II, Brzezinski's doctrine does not rest on any geographical, historical or ethnic basis. He deliberately ignores the Kiev Russian epic during the X and XI centuries with the Rurikide sovereigns such as Vladimir the Great who made Russia to be baptized in 988, Iaroslav the Wise who after Charlemagne promulgated the first code of laws in Europe, the famous Rousskaïa Pravda, Vladimir II Monomach, an untiring warrior who victoriously carried out eighty five expeditions and led the Kiev empire to its climax before its destruction by the Mongols. According to this expert of Russia's downfall working for the United States, the battle of Koulikovo in 1380 when Dimitri Donskoï defeated the Tartars and started the liberation process from the Mongolian yoke has never taken place. Neither has the Cossack insurrection led by Bogdan Khmelnitski in 1646 in order to release Ukraine from Polish oppression which led to the creation in 1654 of the Pereslav's parliament called Rada that obtained from the Tsar Alexis Mikhaïlovitch the protection for the part of the country east of the Dniepr river. No mention either in Brzezinski's list of arguments of the Poltava battle in 1709 when Pierre le Grand crushed the armies of Charles XII and his ally, the traitor Hetman Mazeppa in the very heart of Ukraine, thus putting an end after thirty years to the war in the North and to Swedish imperialism! The two liberation wars waged by Catherine II from 1769 to 1774 and from 1787 to 1791 which freed all Southern Russia as well as Bessarabia and Moldavia from Turkish slavery and made it possible to create Odessa and Sebastopol in Crimea has never taken place either! The Ukrainians would have been so oppressed by the Russians that the famous statesmen like Grégory Potemkine and Alexander Bezdorodko, Ukrainian citizens, would never have run the Russian empire! Finally Gogol, one of the giants of Russian and universal literature, born in Poltava, would just simply be a Ukrainian author! Actually, by being deprived of Ukraine, Russia is not only to be deprived of its territories and riches, but also of its history and civilisation!
            The only thing about Ukraine that matters in Brzezinski's mind and which overrides all other geographical, historical, ethnographic or etymological considerations is the Polish wild dream of a Ukrainian nation that was mainly invented by Pantéleïmon Koulich, a writer, and Mikaïl Grouchevski, an historian, then taken up by the Bolsheviks who made use of the latter. They gave reality to the fiction in the form of a Ukrainian republic by usurping vast territories of central Old Russia whereas the Russian word oukraïna or the Serb word kraïna only means borders and refers to the southern Russian lands which Poland long shared with the Tartars. For Brzezinski, this fierce anticommunist, the Bolsheviks and their followers miserably failed in every possible way except for the creation of many republics and that of Ukraine in particular from the ruins of imperial Russia in which they have been marvellously successful. In fact Brzezinski only sees Ukraine through his Polish anti-Russian phantasms putting up a logical appearance at the service of America's penetration into the heart of Russia.
            More than a decade after the elaboration of the program, it has never ceased to be applied and reached its climax last autumn in Kiev thanks to the commitment of such promoters of democracy as George Soros with his Open Society Institute, James Woolsey, the former chief executive of the CIA, with his Freedom House, the above mentioned Madeleine Albright, the ex Secretary of State, with her National Democratic Institute, along with the National Endowment for democracy, one of   CIA numerous offspring. Without being exhaustive, the USAID agency directly connected with the American government must be added to those organisations which proved to be efficient at the time of the so called velvet revolutions which took place in Serbia in 2000 and in Georgia in 2003.
            Obviously Brzezinski is far from limiting his strategy only to Ukraine since he goes as far as preaching the dislocation of the Russian federation itself by means of decentralisation to give the United States a clear field on the great Eurasian chessboard. He writes: " A more decentralized Russia would have less imperialist aims. A more open confederation which would include a European Russia, a Siberian and a far eastern republic would have more facilities." At the same time he praises the democratic merits of Turkey in spite of its repressive policy towards the Kurds and greets the return of its influence in the Caucasus. He continues to play the part of the protector of the Islamic fanatical Chechens and to gesticulate as a man of peace between them and the Russians. He winks at communist China about Siberia. He invites the European Union to join the United States in their campaign to let Russia decline. He admits that the famous responsible strategic partnership offered by Washington to Moscow to run the world together was a red herring meant to deceive the Russian leaders, nationalists and westerners alike starting with Elstine. "Never had the United States the least intention to share their worldwide pre-eminence and even if it had been the case their ego would never have been capable of putting up with it." He writes while rejoicing of the many Russian handicaps among which the inability of former leaders to adopt the policy required by the new situation. And the fearful strategist for the downfall of Russia adds not without cynicism: " As soon as the first disagreements appeared between "the responsible strategic partners", the disparities at every level - political power, financial weight, capacity for technological innovation, power of cultural attraction - proved the inanity of such a  notion. It was enough for many Russians to draw the conclusion that the slogan devised by the Americans was only meant to deceive them."
            While this tactic worked wonder with Eltsine, the United States in collusion with the European Union betting on two major assets to ensure Russia's descent into Hell, namely democracy and the dipsomania and ignorance of the character, things began to change with the arrival of Poutine. His attempts to stop the disaster and his measures aimed at putting the State on its feet again, restraining the power of the oligarchs, recovering the national riches usurped by them, limiting the power of the regional governors in favour of the central power to avoid Russia's balkanisation were qualified by the western Establishment of so many instances of Poutine's authoritarian tendency to drift.       
            The open letter sent to the Heads of State and Governments of the European Union and NATO written by 115 unconditional United States sympathisers shortly after the Beslan tragedy that took place in September 2004 urging the western leaders to stop "embracing" Poutine is only too revealing of the present Russophobia prevailing in the West, and more particularly of the dread to see the Russian giant being able to stand up again after having knelt too long. The exhaustive list of those who signed the letter including such coryphaeus of humanism and democracy as Vaclac Havel, Richard Holbooke, James Woolsey, José Maria Aznar, André Glucksman, Bernard Kouchner can be found on the Voltaire web site which rightly deserves its name on account of its intelligence, truthful spirit and non-conformist attitude.
            However the most extraordinary thing is that Brzezinski, the cold monster, the oracle of the new slavish domination of the world lost his nerve and became so angry as to call the President Poutine Mussolini and compare present Russia with fascist Italy in the Wall Street Journal edition of September 20, 2004 where he writes: "M. Poutine's regime looks in many ways like Mussolini's fascism. The Duce made the trains run on time. He centralized political power in the name of chauvinism. He imposed political control over the economy without nationalizing it.the fascist regime has evoked national greatness, discipline and has exalted the myth of an allegedly glorious past." And so on and so forth, the whole article is infused with the perverse logic according to which an Americanised Pole, with so unpronounceable a name that most of his fellow citizens shorten it in Zbig, can be a great United States patriot and set himself up as a master of patriotism whereas the Russian President could not be so in his own country. At the same time, in his last book The True Choice, he continues, as Faust the tempter, to flatter the imperial demons of America and dangerously set it up against Russia and the rest of the world.
            Obviously Russia must be conscious of it and disregarding the grotesque recriminations and slanders must continue to take the appropriate measures, whether political, economic, military or others, so as to be able, as at the time of Nevsky or Donskoï, to face the new crusaders and Tartars - those of democracy which beseige the country and threaten its very existence.    

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Monday, November 14, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post

'Poisonous Nationalism'


Friday, November 4, 2005; Page A22

In the five years since the downfall of Slobodan Milosevic, Serbia has made great strides in protecting human and minority rights, building democratic institutions and establishing a market economy. These accomplishments have been widely recognized, most recently by the commencement of talks with the European Union toward signing the Stabilization and Association Agreement. So much for what an Oct. 17 editorial described as "poisonous nationalism" in Serbia.

The real problem in Kosovo is Albanian nationalism that has led to the expulsion of more than 200,000 non-Albanians, the burning of 150 churches and the loss of human life despite international governance, monitoring and the presence of NATO-led troops.

Granting independence to Kosovo would dismember a sovereign state, which is against international law and could set a dangerous precedent in the region. Such a move also would be detrimental to the establishment of a multiethnic society. Advocating ethnic self-determination in the name of multiethnicity under circumstances in which the Serbs in Kosovo still fear for their lives is appeasing poisonous nationalism.

What is needed in Kosovo is more international presence, not less, so that the proclaimed standards of democratic civil society are met to a greater, rather than lesser, extent.

Recently, uniformed gangs have appeared in Albanian-dominated parts of Kosovo in defiance of the United Nations, the police force and the international troops.

This is ominous. Violence or threats of violence should not be rewarded by a promise of independence.

IVAN VUJACIC

Ambassador

Embassy of Serbia and Montenegro

Washington



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110301984.html?sub=AR

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Saturday, November 05, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post

Pros and cons of Kosovo dilemma

In a ten point critical and thorough commentary analyst Aleksandar Mitic reasons why Kosovo should not be independent

1)Why should one side get it all, the other side lose it all?

The independence of Kosovo is a maximalist solution in which one side – the Albanian community – gets it all, and the other side – the Kosovo Serbs and Serbia – loses it all. The Kosovo Serbs and Serbia will never accept this solution – it can only be imposed but can never be a result of a compromise. Such a solution also plants on the long run the seeds of injustice, frustration and instability in the region.

2)Why create a completely new state from the scratch?

An independent Kosovo would be a completely unprincipled solution for the borders in the Balkans, after that same independence was refused to some other nations during the 1990s. Let’s take the example of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is, under the Dayton accords, composed of two entities – the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Muslim and Croat entity) and the Republika Srpska (Serb entity). Just as Kosovo, Republika Srpska is a protectorate, with the troops from NATO countries on its soil. Just as in Kosovo, some 90 percent of its population is made of one ethnic community. Strategically, the Serbs as the majority community in Republika Srpska have the same aspirations as the Kosovo Albanians: to become independent. But in Republika Srpska, the international community is tearing down all existing symbols and structures of statehood, even those allowed by the Dayton peace accords. Republika Srpska is in fact, in the process of being absorbed in a centralized state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the proclaimed name of stability, multiethnicity and European integration – but against the will of the majority community. In Kosovo, only 100km south, that same international community is doing a completely opposite thing: it is building a new state from the scratch and treating Kosovo as an “independent state in the making”. Is there any logic in that?

3)Why break up the most multiethnic country in the region?

Just as it rushed with the breakup of the former multiethnic Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, with an independence of Kosovo, the international community could be rushing to break up Serbia, the most multiethnic country in the Balkans. If the majority Albanian community in Kosovo gets independence, what kind of example would that represent for the Muslim majority in the Sandzak region, the Albanian one in southern Serbia, the Serbian one in eastern Montenegro, the Albanian one in western Macedonia, the Serbian one in eastern Slavonia or the Hungarian one in northern Vojvodina?

4)Why endanger international law?

It is clear that Kosovo could get independence only outside the UN Security Council, where at least Russia and China would veto such an option (due to Taiwan, Tibet, Chechenya). A solution without the UN Security Council approval would be a new slap in the face of international law. The framework for the resolution of the future status of Kosovo can be found in the resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council. Under that resolution, “the people of Kosovo can enjoy substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia”, nowadays Serbia and Montenegro. In Resolution 1244 “self-governing” is mentioned three times, “self-government” four times, “self-administration” one time, “substantial autonomy” three times whereas neither “self-determination” nor “independence” is mentioned in the document. The “sovereignty” of Yugoslavia is mentioned three times.

5)Why would Kosovo be an exception in the world?

Kosovo cannot be an exception in the world. It would be necessary to carefully consider the future status of Kosovo since it would likely have an effect on secessionist movements elsewhere in the region, in Europe and in the world: Basque province, Corsica, Tibet, Taiwan, Kurdistan, Scotland, Quebec, Tamil Eeam, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Kashmir, Southern Thailand, etc. All the secessionist movements in the world will follow with great attention the situation in Kosovo as a possible precedent.

6)Why did NATO intervene in 1999?

Given the developments in Kosovo since 1999, the independence of Kosovo would, sooner or later, most probably lead to a monoethnic Albanian Kosovo. As such, it would completely undermine the arguments of those who supported the NATO bombings in 1999 in the name of the “multiethnicity” of Kosovo. The bombing of 1999 would historically be seen as a campaign for the independence of Kosovo, which is light years away from the proclaimed goals of a “humanitarian intervention”.

7)Why punish the democratic Serbia?

The democratic authorities in Belgrade are firmly on the pro-European road. They have opened negotiations on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with the EU – a first step towards full membership —, they are adopting European laws and reforms proposed by the international financial institutions. They have established an efficient cooperation with the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague (all those indicted for the 1999 war crimes in Kosovo are in The Hague).

Serbia has fulfilled all security demands required in the process of reforms: it has respected from A to Z the articles of the 1999 Kumanovo accords with NATO on the retreat of security structures from Kosovo; it has shown restraint and close cooperation with NATO in the management of the Albanian uprising in 2000-01 in southern Serbia; it has succeeded in preventing the spillover of violence from Kosovo to the rest of Serbia during the March 2004 massive anti-Serb violence in Kosovo; it has been praised by Western diplomats for its management of ethnic tensions in southern Serbia and in the Vojvodina province; it has reformed its military and police structures along the lines of the standards of the OSCE and the Partnership for Peace. It is proposing a compromising solution for the future status of Kosovo.

Why punish it with the loss of a part of its territory, a birthplace of the Serbian state, which is still today home to some 1,300 Serbian monasteries, churches and other Orthodox objects – many of them jewels of medieval architecture. What kind of consequence would an independence of Kosovo have on democracy in Serbia? If the Albanian side gets a maximum of its demands just so that it does not provoke new tensions and conflicts, who can guarantee that Serbs would peacefully watch and accept the loss of Kosovo? Does that mean that the threat of barbarism and violence is winning over interethnic cooperation and tolerance?

8)Why create a second Albanian state?

The independence of Kosovo and its likely monoethnic character would mean the creation of a second Albanian national state in the world: the nation of “Kosovars” in fact does not exist in the European meaning of the word. There are Albanians, Serbs and other communities who live in Kosovo. On the other side, according to the UNDP, there are some 5,000 different ethnic groups living in some 200 countries of the world. Under the figures of the study “Minorities at Risk”, some 509 ethnic groups in the world consider themselves as politically discriminated. A huge number of them are dreaming of autonomy. Why would one nation – the Albanian one – get two independent STATES?

9)Why impose independence as “The only solution for Kosovo”?

The key objective should be to give the Kosovo Albanians a maximum of opportunities and real means to manage their future without feeling threatened, but also without threatening the interests of other groups, the security and the shaky stability of the region. Within the principles of the international community (no return to the situation from before 1999, no joining to neighbouring states, no partition), there is a series of options that look much more like a compromise that an imposed solution of independence.

A sustainable and just solution is one that lies between the standard autonomy for Kosovo - unacceptable for the Albanian aspirations - and the full, “conditional” or “immediate” independence - unacceptable for the Serbs and the Serbian state. Between these two, there is a myriad of thinkable options - for Kosovo in the region and internally inside Kosovo: substantial autonomy, confederation, Kosovo as a Euro region, the Hong Kong model (one state – two systems), South Tirol, Bavaria, etc.

10)Why create new states in a “Borderless Europe”?

If the entire southeastern Europe is going towards European integration and membership in the European Union – where borders are no longer “important”, if this process is underway and will be finished in the decade to come, why create a new state in the heart of Europe? Why create new borders at such high cost if those same borders will be brought down in the matter of several years? Where is the logic of European integration in the independence of Kosovo?

(Aleksandar Mitic is Chief Analyst at the Institute of Serbia and Montenegro in Brussels and Lecturer at the University of Belgrade)

# posted by ANTIC.org-SNN : Wednesday, November 02, 2005  0 Comments Links to this post