The President’s Painted Corner
A prudent power will always seek to keep open as many options as possible in its foreign-policy making. An increasingly rigid system of alliances, coupled with mobilization blueprints and railway timetables, reduced the European powers’ scope for maneuver in the summer of 1914 and contributed to the ensuing catastrophe. The United States, by contrast, entered the war in 1917 because Woodrow Wilson wanted to do so (rightly or wrongly), not because he had to do so.
A mature power will never allow its promises to foreigners to entail risks of conflict that exceed the benefits of discretion. Bismarck would have been appalled at the manner in which his inept successors had committed Wilhelmine Germany to upholding and defending the moribund Habsburg Empire, come what may. The end result was the death of both; but, without that carte blanche from Berlin, Austria could have behaved more responsibly in July 1914, possibly saving Europe from self-destruction.
A sensible power will not allow its weaker overseas protégés to call the shots. Algérie Française was not a colony but an integral part of metropolitan France inhabited by millions of non-Arab French citizens who believed that they were owed open-ended protection. De Gaulle told the pieds-noirs that he “understood” them; then, he promptly cut Algeria off when he decided that the cost of keeping her exceeded any possible benefits. This painful act enabled the Fifth Republic to embark on an economic and political recovery that halted half a century of decline.
A rational power will not create new hotbeds of instability while the old ones remain unresolved. Mussolini’s unprovoked attack on Greece in October 1940, while his forces in North Africa were at grave risk from the British, was a madness repeated on a grand scale in June 1941, when Hitler unleashed the Barbarossa even though England remained undefeated.
And finally, a responsible power will avoid foreign entanglements that violate its moral and cultural norms. The Crimean War was a crime; the Eastern Question, its punishment. Supporting jihadists against Christians in Bosnia in the 1990’s has yielded scores of Bosnian-trained or -connected jihad-terrorists.
Washington’s Kosovo policy violates all five principles.
It is not prudent for the United States to insist that Kosovo should and will become independent—as President George W. Bush did in Tirana last June, followed by similar sermons from Dr. Rice and her aides on an almost daily basis—even as it is obvious that Russia will veto any attempt to achieve that goal through the U.N. Security Council, and even as the European Union is increasingly reluctant to participate in any scheme to bypass the United Nations. Statements by U.S. officials that Kosovo’s independence is “inevitable” are a classic case of irresponsible policymakers painting themselves into a corner on a peripheral issue, and then claiming that the issue had morphed into a test of American resolve.
A mature, self-confident and globally hegemonistic “hyperpower” would never allow Kosovo to become such a test for three reasons.
Quite apart from its historic, cultural, moral, and legal aspects, the issue of who controls the southern Serbian province is perfectly irrelevant to American interests. It is a small, land-locked piece of real estate, of dubious “objective” value, away from all major Balkan transit corridors, and not nearly as rich in natural resources as both Serbs and Albanians like to imagine. If Kosovo were to disappear tomorrow, no ordinary American would be able to tell the difference.
The change of Kosovo’s status against the will of Belgrade, in addition to being a clear violation of international law, would set a precedent potentially detrimental to U.S. interests. To enable an ethnic minority to secede from an internationally recognized state on the grounds of that minority’s numerical preponderance in a given locale would open a Pandora’s box of claims all over the world, not least among Russian speakers in the Crimea, parts of Estonia and Latvia, northern Kazakhstan, and eastern Ukraine. It could also affect the future of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and perhaps even California, when Mexicans achieve a simple majority in those states. (The question is indeed “when,” not “if.”) State Department officials Nicholas Burns and Daniel Fried still insist that no precedent would be set by creating an independent Kosovo, but they cannot control reality, and their assurances are nonsensical.
The Muslim world will not be appeased by Kosovo today any more than it was appeased by Bosnia a decade ago. America will not earn any brownie points among the world’s “Jihadists of all color and hue” (to borrow a phrase from Rep. Tom Lantos) for creating a new Muslim state in the heart of Europe. Albanian “gratitude” would prove as valuable to America today as it has, over the years, to Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China. On the other hand, the failure to create an independent, internationally recognized Kosovo would be yet another sign that Emperor Bush has no clothes and that America has no sureness of touch. Furthermore, favoring the imposition of a “solution” from the outside against the will of one of the parties could set a dangerous long-term precedent for Israel.
Our policy is not sensible. It panders to the aspirations of a small and primitive, yet shrewdly opportunistic, polity with territorial pretensions against all of her neighbors. President George W. Bush declared in Tirana last June that America is committed to Kosovo’s independence, and he was greeted almost as enthusiastically as Benito Mussolini, Nikita Khrushchev, and Chou En-Lai had been greeted by the Albanians over the decades. As Nicholas Stavrou noted in the National Herald, Mr. Bush reflects the Albanians’ talent for choosing patrons who fulfill three criteria: They must be big enough, far enough, and willing to offend the interests of Albania’s neighbors:
President Bush’s venture into the Balkan tinderbox is nothing short of a blatant provocation aimed at two nations that stood side by side with the United States in two wars, Serbia and Greece. It is part and parcel of a neo-conservative agenda, formulated by the same gang that produced the Iraq war . . . and threatens to engulf the Middle East into a regional conflagration. The ultimate goal, of course, is the conversion of Russia into a first class enemy. The new Cold War warriors view the Balkans as a “logical extension of the Middle East” that ought to be part of a new arrangement that would facilitate integration of Islamic and non-Islamic cultures. Russia, in their view, cannot be trusted with any role in their nefarious schemes to “modernize” Islam and redefine the Middle East as a “region that starts in the Persian Gulf and ends in Sarajevo.”
It is plainly irrational to insist on Kosovo’s independence, with all the risks such a policy entails, while the United States faces so much other “unfinished business” around the globe. The list is well known and depressing. Iraq is a disaster, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Afghanistan is a lesser calamity only when compared with Iraq. Any solution to the challenge presented by Iran will depend on Washington’s ability to have Russia on its side as a partner, which is impossible if Moscow’s concerns over Kosovo are treated as illegitimate. Russia is also an essential partner in helping control Kim Jong Il and devising a sustainable long-term energy policy for the Western world.
Far from being deterred by Washington’s apparent commitment to Kosovo’s independence, Russian President Vladimir Putin sees it as a golden opportunity to embarrass Mr. Bush and show the world that Russia can no longer be treated with the disdainful arrogance she endured under Boris Yeltsin. With the Bush administration’s options diminishing, Putin’s are increasing.
On the diplomatic front, Russia can and will veto any resolution presented to the Security Council that is based on Ahtisaari’s moribund plan and that assumes independence as the final outcome. Resolution 1244 cannot be legally bypassed, and it is unequivocal concerning Serbia’s sovereignty. If the European Union (under American pressure) tries to bypass the United Nations, however, Putin can retaliate by playing his energy card. According to Russian and global-affairs analyst George Friedman of Stratfor,
The Russians would cut supplies if provoked. Kosovo really is that big of an issue to them. If they gave in on this, all of Putin’s efforts to re-establish Russia as a great power would be undermined. Putin wants to remind Germany in particular—but also other former Soviet satellites—that thwarting Russia carries a price. If the European Union were to unilaterally [sic] act against Russian wishes, Putin would have to choose between appearing as if he is all talk and no action, and acting. Putin would choose the latter.
According to the same source, Putin also has a military option. Contrary to popular belief, the Russian military retains an excellent core, particularly in its airborne regiments. Moscow could fly a regiment of troops to Belgrade, use Serbian trucks to move to the administrative line dividing Kosovo from the rest of Serbia, and threaten to move into Kosovo to take their place in KFOR:
To do this, they would have to fly through Romanian or Hungarian airspace. They might be denied over-flight privileges, but the Russians might not ask permission and [the Rumanians and Hungarians] have no appetite for that kind of confrontation. Assume, then, that the troops reached the Kosovo border and crossed over. Would KFOR troops open fire on them?
Of course not. Western Europe is heavily dependent on Russian natural gas, and it cannot afford to follow Washington into an open-ended confrontation over a peripheral issue. Signals from Moscow indicate that challenging Kosovo’s independence militarily would prompt Russia to call NATO defense capabilities into question, which could leave the Europeans even more fractured. “Do not assume that the Russians would not dare try such a move,” the Russian source insists:
The Russians are itching for an opportunity to confront the West—and win. In the case of Kosovo, should they choose to make an issue of it, they have the diplomatic, economic and military options to force the West to back down. Condoleezza Rice has said that Kosovo will never be returned to Serbian rule. Putin would love to demonstrate that it doesn’t matter what the U.S. secretary of state wants.
In short, Kosovo is an asymmetric issue. Mr. Bush cares about it only as it relates to U.S. “credibility.” The second greatest blunder of his presidency may result from his willingness to accept the assurances of inherited Clintonite bureaucrats of Mr. Burns’ ilk, who have insisted that the Serbs will cave in and that the Russians will budge.
If push comes to shove, Mr. Bush will face Moscow all alone. There is a great deal of dissent in Europe, from Madrid to Athens to Bucharest and Bratislava, but not even those Europeans who are nominally pro-independence—notably, the Germans—would sacrifice a single day’s supply of natural gas over Albanian claims. By contrast, this is, for Serbia, an existential issue and, for Russia, a litmus test of her ability to be a great power once again.
The most important reason the United States should not support Kosovo’s independence is and always has been cultural and civilizational; but trying to explain that to the chief executive who is fanatically supportive of a blanket amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens in the United States is as futile as trying to reform Islam.
George W. Bush has painted himself into a tight corner in the Balkans, and he will get a bloody nose if he does not relent. That is bad news for the church-burning Albanian Muslims of Kosovo, and bad news for their heroin-financed lobby in Washington, but it is very good news for America and the civilized world.
Srdja Trifkovic is Chronicles' foreign-affairs editor.
This article first appeared in the August 2007 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of Culture.
83 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Eunomia · No Independence For Kosovo
- News | Serbian Unity Congress » Drawing the Line - A Fight Empire Can’t Win, antiwar.com/Nebojsa Malic
- » The Badly Painted Corner The Third Site: Resources and discussion of the proposed U.S. Missile Defense Project in Eastern Europe
- Jessie
- the role of horses in the civil war
Entries(RSS)
Dr. Ttrifkovic is one of the best Chronicles’ writers. He has not only knowledge but also integrity. Excellent work Dr. Trifkovic! Bush administration should read your columns and act upon your suggestions in search for the Kosovo solution.
"The Kosovo Solution" may be elusive per se; the quest for one is in more ways than one the quest for an alternative to a foreign policy that is surreally postmodern and deeply detrimental to the American Interest and to the people of this country. I've been devoting so much attention to it lately not because I am a Serb by birth (which I am), and not because I take a dim view of the Albanians' capacity for civilized intercourse with their Slavic and Greek neighbors (which is all too well documented), but because I see our domestic, bipartisan automatic-pilot/juggernaut on independence as a long-term diplomatic, legal, moral and cultural disaster for the United States.
I'm a Dutchman and I also think people are making a huge mistake in the Balkans, by stating Albanian-Kosovars are some sort of victims of Serbian oppression.
Personally I think the NATO-attacks were a strategic blunder in the clash of civilizations by the West. We shot ourselves in the foot by antigonizing Russia and Serbia --- probably the leaders thought they could appease the Islamists.
I also think, that intellectuals made a mistake in their analysis. In Europe most intellectuals are Leftists and especially in the 90s, their heart was full of multicultural Utopian dreams. They sympathised with supposedly brave Kosovars rebels, who fought against the nationalistic fascist Serbs. Boy were they wrong! Most rebels were Jihadi's or Albanian nationalist thugs who were intolerant themselves.
Milosovic was scum, but the Serbs were and are brave people. The Serbs just wanted to hang on to their province --- like the US wants to hang on to California or France to Corsica.
Our Leftist intellectuals took the wrong side --- but hey, what else is new!
Mr. Trifkovic: Not to change the subject too much, but can you recommend a book that covers the history of the Balkans and puts the post-Clinton era, if you will, into perspective?
PS. I am a big fan of your Sword of the Prophet. If you have written a book on the above subject I have missed it.
There are about a dozen good titles amidst an ocean of rubbish, but for the recent jihadist-related work please check out:
"Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qa'ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad," by John R. Schindler
http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Terror-Bosnia-Al-Qaida-Global/dp/0760330034/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-0864734-5159909?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187799752&sr=1-1
Through the GWOT Leitmotif Prof. Schindler has composed a superbly comprehensive revision/demolition of the establishmentarian version of "Bosnia."
*********
"The Coming Balkan Caliphate: The Threat of Radical Islam to Europe and the West," by Christopher Deliso
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Balkan-Caliphate-Threat-Radical/dp/0275995259/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-0864734-5159909?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187799752&sr=1-2
If Europe ever gets to the point that it expels the Muslims in its territory, it might want to insist on the same policy for the Balkans. Reversing the Islamic invasion that occured almost a millenium ago (and is being repeated now) would go a long way toward winning the clash of civilizations.
"The change of Kosovo’s status against the will of Belgrade, in addition to being a clear violation of international law, would set a precedent potentially detrimental to U.S. interests. To enable an ethnic minority to secede from an internationally recognized state on the grounds of that minority’s numerical preponderance in a given locale would open a Pandora’s box of claims all over the world, not least among Russian speakers in the Crimea, parts of Estonia and Latvia, northern Kazakhstan, and eastern Ukraine."
I agree absolutely that we should mind our own business and stay out of this, but wasn't the change of status of the Confederacy against the will of Washington?
An ethnic minorities seceding is certainly against the interest of the modern nation state? I am puzzled why that is a problem.
Article from British Conservative MP on 'our duty to support our Serbian allies':
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2007/07/daniel-kawczy-1.html
Mr. Phillips,
It was the Republicans (Whigs and Federalists) who broke the constitutional order. The peaceful secession of the Confederacy was an attempt to restore the old order. Also, the secession of the Confederacy was not a result of aliens using the weapon of demographics to supplant the original society and its polity, nor was the Confederacy disposed to further destabilized its neighbors with criminal and terroristic activity.
If there is an American comparison to Kosovo, it is the relentless westward movement of the New England Puritan Unitarians (Albanians) into the once Southern allied West north of the Ohio. This is precisely the demographic shift which expanded the east-to-west migration of the cultural fault line that brought the South to secession and Lincoln to his aggression. Note, the aggressors in Kosovo are the Albanians and NATO (USA).
Mr. Peters: I don't disagree that the situation over there is complicated and doesn't lend itself to simplistic solutions, but I thought the way Mr. Trifkovic worded his concerns was problematic.
Couldn't the same argument against ethnic minorities be used to suppress Basque and Kurdish independence as well? And Scottish and Welsh?
Very lucid analysis. I would guess the EU will use the UN here as it has so successfully done over Iran, i.e. a pretext to stall and do nothing, leaving it to the European brethern in Moscow to veto if things start to get out of hand.
Just one small point: don't confuse the ethnic Russians of Crimea with the Russian-speaking ethnic Ukranians of the eastern Ukraine. Being Irish (English-speaking but not ethnic English), I'm concious of such things!
Also, may I remind Ronduck that we are speaking here of ethnic Europeans who happen to be Muslims, not immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. By definition, therefore, they could no more be "expelled" from their homeland than any other European people. Through those people, Islam has been an integral part of European civilisation for centuries and no amount of American "bullshitting" will change that reality. Moreover, Europe has made two unsuccessful attempts to get rid of the Jews, who make no claim to be ethnic Europeans, (the Holocaust and support for Israel), both with painful consequences for Europeans. As the saying goes, once bitten twice shy!
Also, may I remind Ronduck that we are speaking here of ethnic Europeans who happen to be Muslims, not immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. By definition, therefore, they could no more be “expelled” from their homeland than any other European people.
That all depends. If one took Islamic Jurisprudence on subjects such as Jihad and Shar'ia, and compared it with Communist Party ideals of revolution and subversion, one could come to the conclusion that Islam needed to be treated as a political organization rather than a religion. This would be justified since Islam teaches that it is inherently both, and then Muslims could be subjected to a basic loyalty test for the good of the state. In that context, the deportation of Muslims who refused to swear off violence explicitly, regardless of their citizenship, would be a possibility.
Although my views are with Dr. Trifkovic, I'm not necessarily advocating that per se, I'm just making the point that it could be done within the body of contemporary European legal structures. Whether that would be good or bad is another issue.
If Putin acts as Dr. Ttrifkovic suggests that he might, then Putin would not be bluffing; but he would be gambling. Providence might well have an ironic sense of humor and allow the 21st century to begin where He allowed the 20th century to begin. The double irony would be that Russia would be defending the tattered remnant of Christian Europe while the United States would be advancing the cause of Islam into the vacuum of post-Christian Europe.
One supposes that even that scenario is a distorted image of the beginning of the last century. Europe, its Christianity only a rotten facade in 1914, went to war with itself. Wilson came into the fray and made the conflict an ideological one - making the world safe for democracy. The advancing cause of that day which the Americans were supporting was secular social democracy. Again, it would appear the Americans might be the willing vectors of a new pathogen to infect an ailing Europe - Islam. As dangerous as social democracy was and is, I hold Islam to be far more dangerous.
A SENSIBLE POWER
2-- Weaker protégés to call the shots
The analogy of France with Algeria and Serbia with Kosovo has some value but not Kosovo and its habitants with the United States of America since the local population does not in any circumstances want think about a war against Unites States of America. In contrary Albanian population is the most pro American population in the entire world. No one can challenge that. Please do not misinterpret the facts. It can be qualified as a good precedent in favor of Kosovo’s independence.
France and De Gaulle allowed Algeria the independence with Evian Accords in March 1962 in because of the full scale war with Algerian people.
Dr. Trifkovic: Please respond to this work as published a the Christian Science Monitor website. It demands your stern rebuttal.
Islamic Spain: History's refrain
It's a model for interfaith ties, and a warning about religious division.
By Alexander Kronemer
Washington
The past sometimes provides examples of glory and success that serve as models. Other times, as the philosopher George Santayana said, it warns of impending calamity for those who do not learn from it.
For the past several years, I've been immersed in a history that does both. As one of the producers for an upcoming PBS documentary on the rise and fall of Islamic Spain, I've witnessed its amazing ascent and tragic fall countless times in the editing room, only to go home and watch some of the same themes playing out on the nightly news.
Islamic Spain lasted longer than the Roman Empire. It marked a period and a place where for hundreds of years a relative religious tolerance prevailed in medieval Europe.
A model for religious tolerance
At its peak, it lit the Dark Ages with science and philosophy, poetry, art, and architecture. It was the period remembered as a golden age for European Jews. Breakthroughs in medicine, the introduction of the number zero, the lost philosophy of Aristotle, even the prototype for the guitar all came to Europe through Islamic Spain.
Not until the Renaissance was so much culture produced in the West. And not until relatively recent times has there been the level of pluralism and religious tolerance that existed in Islamic Spain at its peak. Just as the vibrancy and creativity of America is rooted in the acceptance of diversity, so was it then.
Because Islam's prophet Muhammad founded his mission as a continuation of the Abrahamic tradition, Islamic theology gave special consideration to Jews and Christians. To be sure, there were limits to these accommodations, such as special taxes levied on religious minorities. But in the early Middle Ages, official tolerance of one religion by another was an amazingly liberal point of view. This acceptance became the basis for Islamic Spain's genius. Indeed, it was an important reason Islam took hold there in the first place.
When the first Muslims crossed the straits of Gibraltar into Spain, the large Jewish population there was enduring a period of oppression by the Roman Catholic Visigoths. The Jewish minorities rallied to aid the Arab Muslims as liberators, and the divided Visigoths fell.
The conquering Arab Muslims remained a minority for many years, but they were able to govern their Catholic and Jewish citizens by a policy of inclusiveness. Even as Islam slowly grew over the centuries to be the majority religion in Spain, this spirit was largely, if not always perfectly, maintained.
Pluralistic though it was, Islamic Spain was no democracy. After years of enlightened leadership, a succession of bad leaders caused the unified Muslim kingdom to fragment among many smaller petty kingdoms and fiefdoms.
Though they competed and fought, the spirit of pluralism continued. Indeed, it thrived as rival kings sought the best minds in the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish worlds for their courts. This was just as true in the Christian petty kingdoms, as the Muslim ones. Christian and Muslim armies even fought alongside each other against mutual rivals of both faiths.
It is at this point that the darker parallels to our time begin. Into the competition for land, resources, and power, some leaders on both sides began to appeal to religion to rally support for their cause. Wars became increasingly religious in nature. Into this tinderbox a match was thrown: the Crusades – the same term that many Arabs use today when referring to America's adventure in Iraq.
The Crusades deepened Spain's religious divide. Minorities in both Christian and Muslim kingdoms become increasingly suspect. Persecutions, expulsions, and further warfare ensued. Nothing could stop it, not even the black plague.
Ultimately, Christian kingdoms gained the upper hand as the Muslim kingdoms of Islamic Spain fell. Spain's Muslims and Jews were forced to either leave or convert. This led to the rise of the Inquisition, whose purpose was to verify the loyalty of suspect converts. The expulsions and inquisitions racked Spain economically, culturally, and morally. Its power was severely compromised. The fall of pluralism in Spain was the fall of Spain itself.
Dark parallels with today
This fall directly links to events today and raises many of the same stakes. Though few Americans note it, one of Osama bin Laden's justifications for the 9/11 attacks was to avenge the "tragedy" of Islamic Spain.
So far, the post-9/11 world and the policies it has spawned seem to be heading in the same dangerous direction as witnessed before. The religious intolerance that engulfed and overwhelmed medieval Spain threatens the increasingly beleaguered pluralism of our own time.
At its best, the history of Islamic Spain is a model for interfaith cooperation that inspires those who seek an easier relationship among the three Abrahamic faiths. At its worst, it's a warning of what can occur when political and religious leaders divide the world. It reminds us what really happens when civilizations clash.
• Alexander Kronemer is a writer, lecturer, and documentary producer focusing on religious diversity, Islam, and cross-cultural understanding. His film "Cities of Light: The Rise and Fall of Islamic Spain" premieres on PBS Aug. 22.
I don't agree with the so called religious tolerance in islamic societies. Just read the book 'Dhimmitude' by Bat Ye'Or or the book 'What the Koran really says' by Ibn Warraq.
Christians and Jews were/are tolerated under the 'Dhimma' and are as peoples of the book (including later also zoroastrians and hindus) not forced to convert. This in contrast with subverted polytheists or pagans who could choose conversion or death.
But they were/are 2nd-rate civilians (Dhimmis) and have to pay taxes (under preferably humiliating circumstances) to keep their end of the bargain to the islamic conquerors. That bargain being not being killed instantly but allowed to live secondrate lives under the superieur religion Islam.
It actually means that as long as the muslim authorities (or masters) keep on tolerating them, nothing changes, but it is of course one-sided. It is clear who has the power to decide what happens.
As long as the Dhimmis are and behave like Dhimmis nothing is wrong (except for the humiliations like not allowed to build new churches and frequent harassments etc.) but when Jews and Christians in particular reassert themselves as equals it becomes a big problem, because it is against the fundament of the Koran/Islam.
Liberal Muslims can only be moderate when they ignore the fundament of their teachings. Its like being a Christian without believing that Christ is the Son of God and risen from the dead.
In short: yes there was tolerance but it was granted by the conqueror. This tolerance could be revoked at any time by the conqueror. It's a one-sided deal forced by the Islamic conqueror on the conquered Jews and Christians. In my opinion that is no tolerance at all.
I have read somewhere that there was a considerable theological disparity between Islam that was practiced in Spain and the mainstream Islam.
For example, if I recall one detail correctly, the Spanish version did allow depicting images, as reflected in their art.
What were the more significant differences? Does anybody here know? Thank you in advance.
I couldn't disagree more with mr. Trifkovic, for several reasons including the following:
Mr Trifkovic is of Serbian origin and his analysis are exrtremely biased, for those who don't know he even refered to the Srebrenica masacre as 'Long debunked myth". He should therefore be taken with a astrong dose of reservation
He gives some 5 so-called principles and claims that Washington's Kosovol policy violates all 5 principles, whose principles? Trifkovic's?
He further says that it is irrelevant to American interests who controls Kosova. Well it is not. It's the principles that matter. And those principles tell US that that piece of land should be run and controlled by people who belong to it, and tha's Albanians.
Mr Trifkovic makes the most strange comparison between the ethnic conflict in Balkans with the ethnic diversity in US. That is not only ridiculos and incorrect, but puts into question his intellectual ability
Serbs have taken shelter to the so-called precedent. According to them and their few supporters, if Kosova becomes independent then volcanos of ethnic conflicts will erupt accross the world, in US, Russia, Europe, Africa, and maybe in the Moon if it were populated. This is as if all ethnic groups in the world have held their breath and are waiting to see what happens in Kosova to determine whether to take their arms and fight against establishments. Nothin of the sort. All that will happen is Kosova becomes independent, able to run their lives, and control their own destiny. Period. Kurds will live their lives, Basks too, Kashmiris as well.
Trifkovic quotes George Friedman of Stratfor : "The Russians would cut supplies if provoked. Kosovo(a) really is that big of an issue to them. if they gave in to this, all of Putin's efforts to re-establish Russia as a great power would be undermined. Putin wants to remind Germany in particular-but also other former Soviet satelites-that thwarting Russia carries a price. If the European Union were to unilaterally act against Russian wishes...".
So it's not about Kosovo, Serbia or the international law?? it's about Russia's revival. Everyone in Kosova and in the Balkans would have the right to say: Go to hell with Russia.
Further down, Trifkovic gives to other options of Russia's (re)action: a) playing her energy card and b) military action against Kosova (which is in fact against NATO troops stationed there). What peaceful options Trifkovic offers!!
According to Trifkovic, the world risks a Third World War (military intervention against NATO troops in Kosova) because Putin wants to reasert Russia's position in world affairs. its not then because of Albanians.
Thanks God Trifkovic is in no position to take decisions...the world would be a living hell
18 Ave wrote:
"..According to Trifkovic, the world risks a Third World War (military intervention against NATO troops in Kosova) because Putin wants to reasert Russia’s position in world affairs. its not then because of Albanians."
Eight years ago, on March 23, 1999, U.S.-led NATO forces bombed Serbia for no valid reason and against international law. Thousands of Serbs have perished in the aggressive war perpetrated on Serbia in the name of "America's values" and on behalf of the Kosovo Albanian minority that sought independence. Since NATO troops entered Kosovo in 1999, more than 230,000 Serbs and other non-Albanians have been driven out of Kosovo and Metohia by Albanians despite the presence of the international military and police force in the region.
Bombing Serbia, a sovereign nation, for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermined America's stature in the world.
TO SUPORT KOSOVO ALBANIANS IN THEIR CRIMINAL ENDEAVOR WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST MISTAKES OF THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION!
Spain was conquered in by Arab tribes, followed by massive Berber and Arab immigration, - the conquest has been coducted jointly with some Christian dissidents (this is why Moslems keep saying that Spain was “liberated”), but it continued as a classical jihad with conversion of most churches into mosques (the mosques, also the biggest and the most famous ones, were originally churches) , pillages, enslavement and killing.
Christians and Jews could not build new churches or synagogues or restore the old ones, they were segregated and had to wear discriminatory clothing. No wonder , the humiliating status imposed on the dhimmis and the confiscation of their land provoked many revolts, punished by massacres (mutilations, crucifixions), as in Toledo, Saragossa, Cordova, Merida etc.
The scientific achievements were mostly on the side of recently converted Christians and Jews, seldom on the side of the Arabs and Berbers.
Maimonides who is frequently referred to as an example of Jewish achievement said himself that Arabs molested, degraded , debased and hated Jews more than anyone else.
The myth of the “golden age” is not at all supported by historical fact. In fact , it is very dangerous, because it enables the Arabs and Muslims to push forward their imperialistic agenda.
Re "Golden Age" in Al Andalus, check out:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={5BB95390-5AA5-4F74-ACD5-BCCE6E77931C}
or
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/789392/posts
or
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=125035
It was as golden as a Californian salted mine cca 1851...
Ave wrote
"He further says that it is irrelevant to American interests who controls Kosova. Well it is not. It’s the principles that matter. And those principles tell US that that piece of land should be run and controlled by people who belong to it, and tha’s Albanians."
Well it is Serbia and the Serbian nation to whom Kosovo belongs. The Albanians are intruders - most of them very recent intruders, as a matter of fact. Roughly half of the Albanians living in Kosovo are illegal emigrants.
Because Albanians responded to Serbian generosity with violence and crimes agains Serbs and expulsions (my own family has been terrorized to the point where we simply had to leave Kosovo in 1970, - as a six years old I´ve been threatened with a knife by an Albanian, my mother was nearly beaten on the street because she wanted to save a state flag that was thrown to the mud by Albanians, ), the Albanias have lost the right to live in Kosovo at all and will have to leave this Serbian land, especially those illegal imigrants, asap they have lost the USA support and asap EU realizes it cannot afford to support this black hole of lawlessness and violence. This might take some time, indeed, possibly decades, but we have time. We´ll be back Ave.
Mr.Trifkovic:
I am shocked by the fact that a person like you who claims to be an "expert" in history tells lies simply to satisfy Serbian lobbyists in Washington. But I have to admit that your article made me better understand the ubiquitous saying: "money talks, b… s… walks." When I first read your article, I somehow got the impression that the first 6 paragraphs were written by you, and then the rest was done by a first grader: you were contradicting yourself!
Before I continue, let me make a summary of the five principles that you mention on your letter:
1. A prudent power will always seek to keep open as many options as possible in its foreign-policy making
2. Mature power will never allow its promises to foreigners to entail risks of conflict that exceed the benefits of discretion.
3. Sensible power will not allow its weak¬er overseas protégés to call the shots.
4. A rational power will not create new hotbeds of instability while the old ones remain unresolved.
5. Responsible power will avoid foreign entanglements that violate its moral and cultural norms.
I wish you had talked about these principles when Mr.Milosevic was alive during the 1990s. Or maybe you had sent a letter to him explaining these principles, but then maybe he thought these principles where senseless and he didn't listen to you, and then he went ahead and killed thousands of innocent people all over ex-Yugoslavia. So what makes you think that your five principles will make any sense to any person of the civilized world? But I forget the fact that the Serbian lobbyists paid you to say so.
1. If "a prudent power will always seek to keep open as many options as possible in its foreign-policy making" then you should contact Mr.Kostunica and Mr.Tadic immediately before it's too late. They are the ones that keep saying that they would rather give up EU and NATO membership than Kosovo. It was the "prudent" President of your nation who thought that it was better to isolate Serbia from the rest of the world, and get bombed, rather than listen to the world and stop the massive killings of Albanians in Kosova. But again, maybe they haven't read about your five principles.
2&3. If a "mature power will never allow its promises to foreigners to entail risks of conflict that exceed the benefits of discretion" and if a "sensible power will not allow its weak¬er overseas protégés to call the shots" then how come the current Serbian government is begging Russia to support Serbia on Kosova issue, and in return Serbia will do whatever for Russia, even if it means to isolate Serbia from the rest of the world? Are you telling me that the current Serbian government is not yet mature!
4&5. "A rational power will not create new hotbeds of instability while the old ones remain unresolved" and a "Responsible power will avoid foreign entanglements that violate its moral and cultural norms." Tell this to the leaders and member of the "Car Lazar guard", and maybe explain this to the Chief of the Serbian military. They are the ones who want to send troops to Kosova, to" help maintain peace in Kosova!"
You say that: " If Kosovo were to disappear tomorrow, no ordinary American would be able to tell the difference." That is senseless? And if it makes any sense, then how come Serbs and Russians are so obsessed with Kosova. Is it that Serbs and Russians are not ordinary people?
In your letter you say that " America will not earn any brownie points among the world’s … for creating a new Muslim state in the heart of Europe." If you are really an expert in history, than you should know that the true religion of Albanians is Albanians. Before the Ottoman Empire defeated Illyrians, all Albanians were Christians. And to this day, even though a good percentage of Albanians are "nominally" muslims, a lot Albanians are converting to Christianity. We are one of the most tolerant nation in the world when it comes to religion. Regarding the Serbian orthodox churches that were burned in Kosova, they were burned because they represented the terror of the Serbs directed toward Albanians in the 1990s. Orthodox churches were the places where most of the plans to kill Albanians were cooked. Probably you should know the fact that there hasn't been any single non-orthodox Church burned or destroyed in Kosova. In fact, more churches are being built in Kosova now than ever. So Albanians are not muslim fundamentalists. You should know the fact that while Serbs were serving as slaves of Russians hundreds of years ago, Albanians were fighting the Ottoman Empire along with Vatican and other Christian states!
Do you really believe that Russia, just for Serbia, will sacrifice a market of 300 million customers that consumes more gas and oil in one week than what Serbia consumes maybe in one decade? If you do, then probably you should stop studying history, and start studying Economics. Russia was rich in oil and gas even in 1998, but that didn't stop NATO from bombing Serbian paramilitary troops in Kosova. I am sure that in this case Russia will go by one of your five principles: "a prudent power will always seek to keep open as many options as possible in its foreign-policy making." After all, it's Russia, right?
In the beginning of you letter you say that: "The United States … entered the war … because Woodrow Wilson wanted to do so … not because he had to do so." If it weren't for the U.S.A, probably people in the Balkans would speak German now, including Serbs. And if it weren't for the Clinton and Bush Administration, the world by now would have had a new union of states, called the UNION OF DICTATORS, which would include states like: the Germany of Hitler, the Iraq of Sadam, and the Serbia of Milosevic. Probably that's what you Serbs would call, a prudent, mature, sensible, and rational union of powers!
Thank You,
Arben
Ah, we well-paid Serbian lobbyists... the champagne, the caviar!
@Ave
Please read into the Kosovo case closer. Just check the facts. You're going to be so surprised by the amount of propaganda and lies.
For example, about 7000 people died in the Kosovo-crisis. But during the bombing estimates were ten times higher. And these 7000 dead people were from different stock, Croats, Serbs, Muslims and Roma.
The Serbs really were demonized in the media and by politics. Most unfairly. Their only friend was an impoverished, powerless Russia.
Mr. Trifkovic is a brave man to lift his voice against this nonsense propaganda. If you don't believe his word for it. Just read some stuff by Bill Lind, Justin Raimondo or Pat Buchanan, they were pretty much right on the Kosovo-conflict from the beginning. They were against NATO-intervention and for good reasons. The Serbs just wanted to hang on to their province and they have every right to do so. If they would release it, the Albanians would move into the next piece of Serbia and annex that too.
The West made the Serbs the boogeymen of the Yugoslav atrocities. Yet, they were just as much victims in a civil war as Bosniaks, Croats and all the minorities.
Don't believe me, check the facts. The truth will set you free.
Yes, those Serbians who get their cut from all the prostution, drugs and persons' trafficking and other illicit activities in Kosovo. There are those, but sooner rather than later they grow silent (DiGuardi). How does being of Serbian birth precludes a person's brain from telling the truth or just reasoning? I fail to see that magical influence, but I'd love to know.
I wish it was only Pandora’s box, but it’s more likely to be Pandora’s chest + trunk. There has been an online discussion at Politika (a Belgrade daily) regarding comments posted by the British Ambassador who politely suggested the Serbians should willingly abandon Kosovo. For the most part the unanimous answers were a sold NO. However, even during this (most benign international exchange) there was a Muslim voice (a Punjabi Sikh who converted to Islam, and resides in Germany) – that’s how fast this conflict can ignite contrary to Dr. Rice’s assurances given to her Russian counterpart stating that this will not constitute a precedent. Yeah right. For those of us who speak even the most modest German the Punjabi participant’s homepage states: “Unser religiöse Glaube ist Islam. Wir glauben an Allah. Wir zeugen: Allah ist der Einzige Gott (es gibt keinen Gott außer Allah) und Mohammed ist Allahs Gesandter). - Imam Mahdi als Jesus (Isa) Messias ist gekommen. – and my comment: Ja woll Herr Oberst.
That's in case anybody doubted the Russian's fears that Kosovo issue may affect the balance of powers and ignite a new war. In this one single vignette there is Serbian, Albanian, Indian (Punjabi) and German presence. In my view that's more than enough for a good size world war.
Just as the British (Alfred Lord Tennyson) has (with no monopoly on truth) suggested that "half a truth is ever the blackest of lies", we have some of us who are born closer to the origins of Truth and Serbians (who are born divorced from all Truth).
Good news? It could be. But it doesn't have to be. The Albanian loby still commands considerable power. For the time being, there is a slight leaning towards the more damaged side (the champagne and caviar) Serbians. But that too may change real fast. Russian influence is vital but not necesserely unavoidable. Russians think of Russians, first and foremost. American decission making process has been reasonably good so far. Bush did inisist (at one time) at abolishing the International Tribunal at the Hague. With the American refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol and the Russian unilateral withdrawal by Russia from the limited military advancements. I don't foresee Putin keeping his present day strong grip while showing weakness in Serbian issues. The Russian logistics have been summarized by Mr. Judah who claims that a possible deployment of Russian troops to Kosovo COULD be swift as much as unilateral. In spite of the many mistakes our today's administration has made, I have some modicum of hope that the good reasoning will prevail. After all Dr. Rice is no dummy.
I do not understand American policy in the Balkans. Why are we empowering Muslims and bombing Christians? What good will has this brought us in the Muslim world? Isn't Europe turning Muslim quickly enogh that we have to create a Muslim nation on the continent? I am sure than the late Mr. Bin Laden is glad for all the blue-eyed Muslims found in Bosnia. Our Transportation Security Administration, in my experience going through "security" in airports, is complete flummoxed by the idea that Muslims may come through security without being swarthy like Arabs. We are suffering from madness. If we had had this political elite in World War II, we would have lost the war, giving us something else to feel guilty about. We owe Serbian civilians an apology.
Racism does not have any bigger horns than this
Who gave Srdja the right to label people how he wants or is because per bad word maximum dollars articles. If the second is the case, I rest my argument. No more, question your Honor
Our policy = I thought you Serdja are a Serb how come is United States policy yours. I am a little bit confused here. You write exalter remarks when it comes to Rice- Putin-ing and mother Russia. You yet live in USA and spoil the benefits of this country. Here it comes the RACISM
It panders --- to the aspirations of a small and primitive yet shrewdly opportunistic, polity with territorial pretension against all of her neighbors.
As for small, there are around 7-8 million Albanians in Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Turkey, Germany etcetera. Compare to almost equal number so Serbs so your argument of small is out . I am sorry Serdja but find another fallacious statement able to back it up with facts.
As primitive goes. I have to take my hat to you madam this cracks me up I have been in Kamenica area and the Serbs I met there are as primitive as I can ever think. A bunch of drunks living with pigs.
I think you have to get some geographical lessons of the Balkan ALBANIA IS THE ONLY STATE IN THE BALKAN SURROUNDED BY ITS POPULATION WHICH THEY SHARE THE SAME LANGUAGE, THE SAME CULTURE AND NATIONAL IDENTITY. Why they you re saying we have territorial pretension
It is Serbia who does have territorial pretension in Croatia Bosnia even Slovenia and forget Kosovo and even Albania proper. Your nationalistic dream has been to have Shkodra and a route to the Adriatic Sea so dream on buddy.
If you meant Skadar - I have been there. There are some 12 Serbian families (from the estimated 4000 at the beginning of the 20th Century). Not a bad way of exterminating a minority, which used to be a majority. I wonder how many times have you been to Skadar? Or even the other side of the Skadarsko jezero (lake)? Never? That's more like it. Albania is composed of Albanians. Today's Interpol is dominated by Albanians in some 8 European countries - what does that tell you? Propensity towards crime? Serbian forgeries? Innocent Albanians being charged with crimes in a world-wide conspiracy?
Gosh,
What an analysis... and the principles...Mr. Trifkovic is Serb and he frankly discloses it. I'm Albanian. The names in fact disclose that for both of us. Mr. Trifkovic does not need to be paid to write such articles, as some might have suggested. It is his birth-bound duty. Even if he wanted he cannot escape the "Call". Now he cannot pick up a gun and go finish Milosevic's "Final solution" for Albanians...which the late Mr. Milosevic started long ago but culminated in 1998 to expel all Albanians from Kosova, which is known nowadays as "ethnic cleansing". No, there are enough para-militaries that would love do that. Mr. Trifkovic is needed to argue the necessity of such a thing with words.
The reactions lost a bit sight of the issue, but that's understandable when you have people who are thinking about deportation of Muslims within the contemporary European legal structures...Jesus Christ!!! Mr. Candido, your so candid and at the same time so horrible thought could compete only with the "Final Solution" a person who shall not be named applied to the Jews of Europe. European legal structures for your information are there in place to prohibit such horrors.
Let me say a few words about the the five principles:
1. A prudent power will always seek to keep open as many options as possible in its foreign-policy making.
Arben's reaction above was right on the point from that particular aspect. I think, however, that in foreign policy making not many options are left open, even from a prudent power. The solution to a problem is usually a competition between two largely well-defined options. Now, you support one or the other (or remain neutral), but keeping open as many options as possible is non-sense. Superpowers usually have a steady course in their foreign policy. As such they leave many options to other powers to jump on board. That's how it has been and that's how it is.
2. Mature power will never allow its promises to foreigners to entail risks of conflict that exceed the benefits of discretion.
There are no risks or benefits for US in Kosova, besides for showing to the world that those who kill, rape and maim on a large scale will not be tolerated. Serbian oppression was brought to a stop only by NATO's intervention. Do not think for a moment that Russia and US would not battle over Kosova outside the SC.
3. Sensible power will not allow its weak¬er overseas protégés to call the shots.
That's true. Neither US nor Russia will allow their proteges call the shots. But one can never be sure of what happens when proteges decide to take the matter on their own hands. And that's when sensible powers have been dragged into conflicts by other powers.
4. A rational power will not create new hotbeds of instability while the old ones remain unresolved.
Cannot agree more with Mr. Trifkovic. This is a golden principle. That's why the US and the EU are trying to close this chapter on Kosova. Ahtisaari's plan offered a very good solution to Serbs, even better than for Albanians. But US is encountering resistance from the same part that initiated all wars in the Balkans supported now by a big ally, Russia. It is clear who is beating the drums of war again...with the 'democrat', Mr. Kostunica, trying to steal the flag of nationalism from Seselj's radicals. Why not? It seems to sell quite well in Serbia and a politician's mission there is to remain in power.
5. Responsible power will avoid foreign entanglements that violate its moral and cultural norms.
There is nothing amoral and anti-cultural in liberating and supporting a people that has been oppressed over a century. The Kosovar Albanians drama was being unfolded and was covered by all media on those difficult days of 1998-1999. Those who have forgotten please go back and watch those horrible views which prove the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Serb military, police and para-military in Kosova against ethnic Albanians. It is on charges of those crimes that a large part of Serb leaders are facing trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia.
What a nice surprise, Mr. (I think it's a male name) Gentian Zyberi, does acknowledge that there are substantial diffrences between Serbain and Albanian views - Great start. Best I've seen in recent years. There is one nasty little bit where I beg to differ "Albanians drama was being unfolded and was covered by all media on those difficult days of 1998-1999." is not a well chosen starting date of the difficulties we had with the loss of Serbians, their lands, their chruches, and there might have been some "ever so slight" media manipulation, were the lobby (sans caviar and champagne) of one ethnic group was stronger and cleverly displayed its wounded, dead in front anybody's camera lense. I had two school friends In Kosovo at that time. One was a documentary film-maker who was filming both sides (not only one as it seems to presented from your angle), the other was a certain Mr. Dimitrijevic who was dealing with the Serbian refugees - I wonder why would the Serbians be abandoning Kosovo if they were so crafty (and in a position of power - as you have stated). Somehow it doesn't add up. Perhaps you wish to include some other activities like church burnings? How about rapes? Death threats? Shooting of children? Pantelija Dakic and Ivan Jovovic, who were murdered by Albanian terrorists on August 14 in Gorazdevac? I don't know of a single entity that is in a position of "power" to have to abandon their homes or shoot their own children. Could it be that there were some Albanian crimes there?
For accuracy's sake I called my friend who filmed both sides of the Kosovo tragedy and she gave me a link where the more objective newsreels can be viewed, feel free to help yourself, both sides suffered, but there is only one Oscar for best acting.
These are her eyewitness comments "Once in an Albanian village, there would be hundreds of kids on all sides coming out of woodwork, the moment one of them noticed a tally light blinking the first few would start crying on cue, no director, no script, no editing - perfect execution of a refugee film, on the other hand, once I would enter a Serbian village I was cursed at and told to go to my "Western paymasters", resulting in nobody wanting to even be interviewed let alone be filmed, my footage is a testament to the root canal I had in Kosovo (mobbed on one side, cursed at the other). It was my impression that the Milosevic regime has given strict orders "no contacts with foreign media" - as I was shooting footage for the Swiss Red Cross, Japanese NHK, Swiss National TV, etc. etc.
This brave lady's footage can be seen at http://www.sandrastojanovic.com/sandra/ENG/ENG_04_Kosovo_Refugees.htm
I have read about half the article. I stopped reading it because I had something more important to do.
The writer of the article should have better command of history.
Benito Mussolini never visited Albania. Victor Emanuel did. Once he set foot on Albanian soil in 1940, a brave young Albanian made an attempt on his life. Although the empror of Italy and Abissinia did not die [he was wounded], the Albanian youth showed the world that the Albanians can distinguish between friends and foes. No high ranking Nazi official came to Albania during World War II.
As regards Soviet Russia, and Communist China, I would say that Albania's relations with these two countries was part of the global strategy of communism. Everything was imposed from above and the people had no say. While Bush was accorded a hero's welcome on his June visit to Albania by a people who freely and spontaneously expressed his pro-American sentiments. Nobody told them to turn out in the streets, as was the case under communism, and cheer for a foreign leader.
Can you post your opinion on the following? (Strongly recommended)
After watching the footage on "Serbian refugees" posted by I.P.,
please watch what follows:
http://www.alb-net.com/warcrimes-img/warcrimes.htm
P.S. I forgot to include it in the above post.
There is a big difference between live camera shots where the film-maker is alive, easly found and a bone-fide eyewitness who never had any derogatory comments on either side except for the Milosevic policy of restraining people from talking to the media.
Second set of still photos could have been produced at any location by use of any of a vast number of techniques and the person having submitted thiese stills to us has already discredited himself by deciding a priori that Serbians left with bloody hands - I failed to see any blood on anybody's hands, which disqualifies all Albanian participants except Gentian Zyberi, others were visibly biased, untrue, hostile.
35Alban Ziguri
How many times do I have to remind our friends, Albanians, that their history books are no good?
Mussolini did visit Albania on several occasions. Here is a link to a photo of Mussolini in Albania with his military commanders directing the attack against Greece in 1940:
After Italy conquered Albania in 1939, Mussolini did make visits to Albania. Mussolini and his foreign minister Ciano sponsored a Greater Albania that included Kosovo from 1941 to 1943, when Germany took over Greatre Albania. Carl Savich talks about this material in his piece KOSOVO’S NAZI PAST. Mussolini and Ciano sponsored Greater Albania, then Hitler and Himmler became the main sponsors in 1943 when Italy surrendered.
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/054.shtml
Photo : Mussolini in Albania** http://www2.fhw.gr/projects/cooperations/f_policy36_45/en/photo/410.html
The article, and the opinions stated therein, are just that - opinions, with no real policy prescription whatsoever.
The starting point to any argument when discussing the relationship between Albanians and Slavs in the Balkans is this: What is my perception of the two groups, especially that of Albanians? If you can't seem to get them on the same playing field in your head, study them as equals, with equal opportunities, equal status, equal progression, and also equal as human beings, then you must stop and not continue with your analysis. Only when we view them from this lens can we finally realize what has happened to the Albanians and why they deserve their own independent state.
I lived in Kosova and in Belgrade for nearly a decade. I'll make this short -- Albanians and Serbs cannot live with one another, and what is happening in Vienna today (to seperate them forever) is the only solution. Whatever it takes, forced independence, partition of the north, or war, these two groups have been damaged by history and there is no possible remedy, especially when you have western states and their multiculturalism imposed, there is no such thing as that in the former Yugoslavia and there never will be, especially in Serbia.
The only solution is what President Bush preached that sunny day in Tirana. You all know it as I know it.
Cao
Please be linguistically consistent: you either lived in Kosovo and in Belgrade, or else in Kosova and in Belgradi.
In reply to I.P.'s 38: The Serb press itself reveals Serbs' atrocities:
Read the following. It's an eye-opener:
http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=1545
To Alex Dibran: Would you have the same advice if Albanians in Presevo Valley or Muslims in Raska demand to separate from Serbia ?
The US and their NATO allies made a mass in Kosovo [and not only in Kosovo!!!]. They not only supported the worst Albanian leaders in Kosovo-Metohija but also covered up for KLA atrocities and crimes against the Serbs, lied about mass expulsion of Albanians from Kosovo-Metohija, maintained the hate mongering against the Serbs and kept silent about Albanian genocide committed against the Serbs in Kosovo-Metohija.
The US/NATO has to reprogram their Albanian allies by telling them to face the reality. Kosovo is Serbian land. It is on Albanians in Kosovo-Metohija to either have a normal life in Serbia or to live as they have for the last eight years in a lawless part of the country headed by war criminals and drug dealers. Or, to move out to Albania – an option is also to move out to the USA!
Srdja Trifkovic says to Alex Dibran: "Please be linguistically consistent: you either lived in Kosovo and in Belgrade, or else in Kosova and in Belgradi."
Why do you claim that you know Albanian?
In Albanian 'Belgrade' is 'Beograd' and not 'Belgradi'. I think it is the time, though a little late for you age, you learned some Albanian. Only by so doing can you understand the Albanians of Kosova better.
P.S. - If not another Srdja Trifkovic, I am glad to see that the author of this article has to come down in person to the battlefield on this webside and draw the sword against those who disagree with him. I do not think this is democratic. Let others agree or disagree with you.
If I.P. and Boba Borojevic or somebody else could not do everything on their own, then coming to their rescue would be an excuse.
This is a real achievement by those who are opposed to Srdja's erroneous analyses.
- By the way, what does 'Srdja" mean in Serbian? It seems to be similar to the Russian word for 'heart'.
- Somebody has told me that Serbian is a dialect of the Russian language. It is not a language by itself. Is this true? If yes, Serbs, too should not be a separate nation. They must be just a minority in the Russian wilderness, who emigrated to the Balkans in the 7th century AD.
Can I.P. or someone else on this website help me by answering these simple questions? Thank you.
In 1912 Serbia conquered Kosovo. In 1999 Serbia has lost its colony, through the intervention of the NATO bombing campaign. In 2007 Serbia tries again to gain domination to his colony, through the process of the "status resolution".
Let's return much more in time, to see why Serbia is the Balkan's principal war instigator. In 1844, Serbia's Foreign Minister Ilija Garasnin created the plan "Nacertanije", by which it seen the "necessity" to gain all the Albanian territory, from Nis to Durres, in order to achieve at the Adriatic Sea. This Greater Serbia plan has been part of a larger Panslavic plan, started by Russia. All this game is opposed to democratic principles, starting with the principle of self-determination, that is above all other principles in UN hierarchy.
Kosovo question is part of the larger Albanian question that needs to find resolution through the liberation and reunification of all the Albanian territories in a single national Albanian state.
Mr. Borojevic,
Your statements are false.
Since the years of war it was said that Albania and the Kosova Province were given to Germany and Italy. This claim in to fully true. Hitler, the real author of the new Balkan Map, did not give to Albania the ethnic Albanian territories of Yugoslavia, but to Italy, which one handed them over to Tirana only in administrative point of view. Except this, from the six prefectures with Albanian population that included the heroic Kosova, only four of them joined administratively with Albania: the prefectures of Prishtina, Peja, Prizren and Tetova. The prefecture of Mitrovica (with it’s sub-prefectures of Vuciternë, Gjilan and Podujeva), Hitler left to Serbia, which remained under the German occupation with purpose that Berlin uses the rich mines of Trepça instead of Rome. On the other hand, the Albanian provinces of Shkup, Kaçanik, Presheva and Prespa were given to Bulgaria. The provinces of Dibra, Kërçova and Struga were given to the Government of Tirana. From the Montenegro sector, the territories of Ulqin, Tuz (Hot and Grude) along with Gucia and Plava were also given to the Tirana Government for administration. From the ethnic Albanian territories of former Yugoslavia, approximately half of it, 11.780 km2 joined the Tirana administration. As a result, the ethnic Albanian territories of Former Yugoslavia remained, although in different scale, again fragmented, this time between Italy, Germany and Bulgaria.
- The fact that the Albanian territories joined administratively with Tirana, cannot be denied, although they were under Italian rule they profited in the field of the national rights. First of all they were liberated from the genocide Serbian rule and the total denial of their national rights that the government of Belgrade had done. The creation of the Albanian State Administration, the free development of the Albanian education, the un-obstacle use of the Albanian literature, the removal of the political boundaries with Albania in the year 1913, all the above-mentioned were profits for the population that was tired from the Serbian and Montenegrin oppression. But, the estimation of the Tirana collaborationist, which ones compared these profits with a liberation of Kosova, was certainly wrong. The transition from one oppression to another, regardless of one being easier then the other can never be compared with a national liberation. Onward, if in case the war would have been won by the axis Berlin-Rome, Albania together with the part of Kosova which joined it, would remain under the oppression of Fascist Italy and the ethnic Albanian territories would again remain fragmented.
- The opponents of the fascist Anglo-Soviet-American block didn’t recognize the border changes, which Hitler and Mussolini did. So, the antifascist coalition neither recognized the fascist occupation of Albania, nor the disintegration of Yugoslavia, or the union of Kosova with the occupied Albanian. In case the fascist block would have lost the war, the cooperation of Tirana with Rome and Berlin for creation of ethnic Albania under the conditions of the Italian fascist occupation, was compromising the national cause itself. The Albanians would be treated as allies of the Nazi-fascist block. This would give a reason to Yugoslavia, one of the biggest allies of the great anti-fascist coalition, to use a wilder violence on Albanians than the one the Yugoslav monarchs before the war used. The big allies of the anti-fascist coalition had declared through the Atlantic Card (August 1942) that the aspirations of the people for freedom and democracy would be taken into consideration at the end of the war, and it would be understood according to the contribute they would give on the conflict with the Nazi-fascist aggressors. Under these circumstances, the issue required that the Albanians should engage in a war without compromise against the Italian occupant, with the conviction that this war would serve as a capital to raise the voice at the end of it when the time comes for delimitation.
- During the Second World War the Albanians of Albania and Kosova gave an important contribute in the defeat of the Italian-German fascist block. At the end of the war, the anti-fascist forces counted in Albania around 70 thousand partisans and around 50 thousand in Kosova. According to the important contribute they gave (comparing the number of the population) in the victory of the war against the fascist aggressors, the Albanians inside and outside the borders were expecting that the great allies will respect the principle of their self-determination and to keep the engagement of respecting the national rights of the nations.
Mina, it seems that your motto is” "The end justifies the means"!
You have stated your "end" very clearly - ..."liberation and reunification of all the Albanian territories in a single national Albanian state."
To achieve this "end" Albanians have falsified history relentlessly. Your way of “liberation” [Kosovo] consists of: dynamiting, burning and looting Serbian houses and churches; expelling hundreds of thousand of Serbs, killing Serbs, erasing traces of Serbian presence in Kosovo-Metohija, banning Serbian language, changing names of Serbian villages and territories – three words GENOCIDE AGAINST SERBS!
Hardly something that you and your American friends [Bill Clinton and the gang] should glorify!
Mr. Borojevic,
Kosova is not the heart of Serbia, because you are conquerors and colonizers of a compact ethnic Albanian territory. And yes, the mean is the reunification of all the Albanian territories in a single Albanian state. And this means not a ethnic cleansed state, how Serbia attempted in a 90 years of Serbian domination of Kosova. If there is a falsified history, there is that of Serbian mythology on Kosova. The Serbian population in Kosova is suffering, yes, because of Belgrade's politics that have used it as a weapon directed against the freedom of Kosova, by creating enclaves. Serbian Secret Service orchestrated the attacks on Serbs, including the attacks on monasteries and churches, in order to create chaos and disorder in Kosova. So, Belgrade's strategy for riconquest of Kosova is the impediement to peace and stability in Kosova and in the entire region.
To post better and realistic comments and learn more about Kosova and the Balkans, read: Madeleine Albright "MADAM SECRETARY" , Miramax Books
Mona,
In 1912 Serbia didn't conquer Kosovo. In 1912 Serbian and Montenegrin army defeated otoman ocupators and expeled them from that part of Balcanian Peninsula. Both of my grandfathers took part in that war as high ranked officers in Montenegrin Army. Your albanian people were then arnauts (that means stable boys) and that was status that they earned for treason, rejecting Christianity and accepting Islam.
I wonder how was it that so many Serbians would have chosen Albanian lands to settle and call it home. It's even more puzzling that so many Serbian Eastern Orthodox Christian Churches are built on lands - according you the present sources "traditionaly Albanian Muslim". Very confusing to me. I still think there must have been some error in the above views (perhaps even overt lies) - why else would this happen. I can't remember white residents of Manhattan clamoring to get housing North of 96th Street (that's where Harlem begins). It seems to violate some fundametal sociological principles or at best - it is completely unsustainable.