Skip navigation.

Labris

Banka hrane

 
Srbija 2020

Contemplating Ahtisaari's Visit

Martti came and went today, his motorcade causing the usually congested Belgrade traffic to become even worse. He met Tadić and his serious-looking group of advisors, presented his proposal, and then flew off to Priština, where he repeated the process with the Albanians. So what did it all mean? I have a copy of the entire proposal and all 12 annexes. I will not discuss it in detail here, as I am still reading it and trying to digest its 59 pages. Rather, let me share a few first impressions.

But first, I need your help resolving a seeming contradiction. On February 1st Koštunica was able to meet a high-level foreign diplomat, Belgium’s Foreign Minister De Gucht. The next day, February 2nd, he somehow lacked sufficient authorization to meet with another high-level foreign diplomat, the Special Envoy of the Secretary General of the United Nations, Martti Ahtisaari. Both De Gucht and Ahtisaari hold approximately similar diplomatic ranks. Neither asked Serbia to make any commitments to any treaty, deal or agreement. Both came largely for informational purposes. If he really is a legalist, shouldn’t Koštunica also have refused to meet De Gucht? Does this mean that he no longer adheres to legalist principles? Did he in fact violate his legal mandate by meeting De Gucht?

The Ahtisaari Proposal, whether one likes it or dislikes it, is unique in one significant way: in the nearly eight years since NATO intervened to stop Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing, this is the first time anyone has presented a plan to resolve Kosovo’s status. To date the government of Serbia hasn’t created or presented a plan to either the Albanians or the international community. Official and unofficial Belgrade have spoken of plans to divide territory and used slogans such as “more than autonomy, less than independence”. But to date no one in official Belgrade has created a plan: not the government’s official negotiating team; not the Coordination Centre for Kosovo; not the parliament; not the government. The only reasoned proposal to emerge from Belgrade was made by Dobrica Cosic, who proposed partition. Why is it, that after nearly eight years, the government of Serbia has not put forward a plan to keep Kosovo a part of Serbia?

But the government of Serbia actually does have a plan for Kosovo, which it has never wished to present publicly. This is a plan for partition, and Belgrade has worked steadily to finish all the preparations for this. As of this moment, the entire infrastructure is in place to partition Kosovo along the Ibar River. Belgrade need only flip a switch, as the Serbian north now has its own separate infrastructure, including courts, schools, hospitals, police, civil administration, self-defence force, telecommunications, water supply, and electrical systems. This is the real plan that Belgrade has worked on since 1999. And it has never been made public for fear of sending signals to that the government had given up on the rest of Kosovo.

The Ahtisaari proposal – which at this stage is still only a proposal that will probably be subject to further negotiations – does not mention two important words: the “S” word (sovereignty) or the “I” word (independence). The reasoning is simple: the Albanians get angry when they hear the “S” word, and the Serbs get angry when they hear the “I” word. Objectively, it appears that the proposal is indeed a blueprint for establishing a Kosovo that is independent of Serbia and under strong international supervision.

The proposal is very long and technical and goes into significant detail regarding how Kosovo should be organized, what role the international community should play, what rights and competencies the Kosovo government and minorities and churches should have. It also discusses territorial organization, decentralization, rights of municipalities, etc. The document is at least as detailed as the Dayton Peace Accords, which included an entire constitution in Annex 4.

One other note. As nearly as I can tell, Belgrade’s case for denying independence to Kosovo is dominated by legalistic arguments. An example of these arguments may be seen in Koštunica’s 24 October 2005 speech to the UN Security Council when he said that “to dismember a democratic state…against its will…would…be an unprecedented case in international law and in the practice of the United Nations”, and that it would be damaging to an international order resting upon the territorial inviolability of sovereign and equal states. Serbia continues to use this argument and insist on the Security Council’s duty to guarantee its territorial integrity. Official Belgrade has taken no account, however, of the implications of the emerging contractual element to sovereignty, as reflected in “the responsibility to protect” theme articulated by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, endorsed by the UN General Assembly in September 2005 (http://www.iciss.ca/ report-en.asp). For a situation like Kosovo, where the bonds between citizens and state have so obviously and violently been broken by the state, this doctrine overrides earlier more traditional arguments of sovereignty. In other words, international law continues to evolve.


nice cartoons

even though i'm a bit torn about this whole kosovo issue, i must say that i'm inclined to agree with mr lion. however, if serbia continues to reject the plan it may expect another surge of refugees and it very unlikely that it will have the capacity to deal with it. i just hope that the plan will lead to a fast solution and that the serbian people will see that it is beneficiary for them to solve the kosovo status, even by giving it independence. best of luck to all people in serbia and kosovo.


Dear Sir

Let's for a moment ponder on only one thing you say:

Quote:
For a situation like Kosovo, where the bonds between citizens and state have so obviously and violently been broken by the state
and even if we agree on this, shouldn't there be the same criteria when it comes to the behaviour of the Albanian community? Their attacks against the places of the existance of Serbs during the past 8 years (without even going further back in history) have been relentless and they have certainly persevered in trying to eradicate the only substantial minority in their own "house" so to speak. Why do you seem to exclude this fact from the equasion?
If you prick us, do we not bleed?


? kick against the pricks

i wonder who might have been removing (erased) my comment here; and , of course, why ?

i just wanted to know would there be any tenks rolling their ways down to the bottom of misery? (if kosovo authorities declare themselves independent).
or does serbian technicaly absent goverment is bluffing in a no-win game?

and, yes, i wanted to know who is pricking Serbia.
maybe there is no blood because of living deads that are presenting and taking care about "serbian Thing" and its interests- technicaly absent Goverment.


I did

I am guilty for removing your comment. If you are going to write on my blog, please try to keep the discussion civilised and dignified. I don't care what people say as long as they refrain from using profanity, pornography, and personal attacks on each other. If I see something that I feel violates this, I will delete it.


razumem -(ai, ai, sir ) - jawohl...

it´s an honnor to be removed by someone like you. i am serious. (because you are accurate, man of honnor and polished behaviour- i am just a s(up)erb.
but i still dont get how did i .... (oh yes, now i remember, and feeling sorry).

i approve your deed, and take this as over.

maybe You have heard about an already finished compendium "how to make Kosovo independent"- namely, members of Contact-Group for K. decided to prevent possible eruptions of violence by a very cunning plan- Kosovo should declare itself independent (out of blue), while the International Community is preparing conditions for that.
The only danger this plan not becoming true comes from Russian side (and Serbian, of course).
What do you think about this scenario, Mr. Lyon?
Do you find this practical, or you conceive this as a wrong method, that might appear as manipulation in eyes of a serbian side ?


One step at a time

I am unfamiliar with the compendium you are referring to.

However, from what I can see right now, the Contact Group is focusing on how to get the Ahtisaari proposal through the UN Security Council, which could be a big problem given the Russian stance. This diplomatic dance could continue for some time and will most certainly bring about more rounds of negotiations. Although I suspect that Kosovo will end up with some form of independence, the manner in which this happens is still uncertain and fraught.

Should the Ahtisaari proposal fail to make it to either to or through the Security Council, then there is speculation that the US and UK and perhaps a few other EU countries could push for an independence declaration and bilateral recognition. This option, however, is still a long away and is undesirable, as it would leave an entire series of unsettled problems.

If there is a UN Security Council resolution, it will make partition very difficult. If there is not a resolution, then partition is certain. And then there is the question of who will recognise Kosovo as independent, which could also cause additional problems. And then there are the internal Kosovo problems, such as: how will Albanians responds to excessive delays? how will Serbs respond to independence? How will extremists on both sides respond?

In any event, things are far from settled and certain.


of course the 1244

of course the 1244 resolution must be suspended in order to make this plan possible in a first place. that is second step. the first step was ahtisaasris visiting Belgrade and Prishtina.
if K-Albanians promiss that they are going to protect Serbian minority, if they accept EU-supervisors (something like in Bosnia, where mr.Scwarz-Schilling can dismiss a goverment if there is any reason for that)-the plan will be proposed. Albanians won´t think twice about it.
Parallel to this IC want to settle up things with Serbia, offering political and financial compensation for a lost province.
Russians will accept this scenario only if serbian side does not reject this categoricaly.
that is what I´ve heard from a very serious sources.


Good Source

I would say your source is very good.


that is true

it is all said and done, James.

if the Serbian side around Koshtunica and Tadic knows this as well, i realy don`t understand what are they trying to do.
they are true outsiders - in this world and in Serbia as well.
they only are complicating already complicated situation and ruin so the maybe last chance to turn Serbia into a decent country.
that is what I ment when i said:"they are bluffing". and that is what i ment when i said "they are creating unheard case of a masopatriotismus".

so shall it be.


Your name

I suppose that you are a Kurt Weil fan?


i would say "eher"

i would say "eher" Brechts.
unfortunately i failed to tip right letters (tip-feler). originaly it is surabAya johnny.
but, it makes sense, although.

ps. you say it´s a long away untill something like "declaration out of blue" happens, but they want it (Contakt - Group) to make it real before this summer ends. is this a long time ?


Lepo ste se slozili

samo niste odgovorili kakvog smisla imaju izrazi "ako Albanci obecaju...", "ako prihvate EU supervizore" itd. Kao, dovoljno je da obecaju, a posto im mi verujemo na rec, kroz celu istoriju su vodili pooostenu politiku, sve je u redu. Ha ha ha. Pa 7 godina imaju vlast dole, silni EU/NATO/UN i ostali supervizori, i sta se desava? Srbi nemaju elementarne uslove za zivot, 17. mart 2004., ne zna se jos uvek gde su silni srpski nestali (a dobro se zna za grobnice Albanaca, uvek se poneka otkrije kad zatreba) itd. Mislim, o cemu vi pricate?! Dok u dokumentu nema nijedne stavke koja na bilo koji nacin upucuje na prisustvo nasih organa dole, nema govora o svemu ovome sto pricate, zaplicemo se u lazne dileme koje odgovaraju ovima sto na najbestijalniji nacin uteruju nezavisno Kosovo. Nista u Ahtiserijevom dokumentu ne valja jer je ceo pristup, ceo nacin razmisljanja krajnje neprihvatljiv za nasu stranu, i ne moze se taj komad papira nikako popravljati, moze se samo u celini odbaciti. Dok se ne promeni cela ta logika, takav otvoreno pristrasan pristup ovom problemu, to bukvalno udaranje djonom, uprkos svemu onome sto je nas narod vise puta demonstrirao (Ustav, Rezolucije u Skupstini, stavovi najvisih zvanicnika), nema govora ni o kakvom prihvatljivom, "kompromisnom", "fer", resenju. O pravednosti bolje nista da ne pricamo!


Understanding future!

Obviously nobody want to say that this is last chance for any further negotiations and if anything can be change from presented plan agreement it can be changed now.

After this short period for negotiations final plan is going to New York and after decision there would be just implementation.

While some our "Leaders" reject possibility to negotiate agreement time is going really fast. In one month or two Kosovo will be gone and we will stay where we are with question: Who from actual political figures sold Kosovo?

Fact is that you cannot sell anything you do not have. We definitely lost Kosovo in 1999. If anybody want to be helpful, now is time to standup and say: Kosovo is gone but lets try not to make our situation worse than it is. Lets participate in process and behave as serious person not adult. You cannot fight everybody else. Or maybe you can?


Who is going to sign this?

History neither starts nor ends with any of us. It is ridiculous to call this so-called proposal "the last chance for Serbia", "the best deal for Serbs", and similar. I wanted to puke today reading all of the clueless bought-and-paid-for "expert" opinions talking about EU membership carrots and other crap like that. I guess it's time to make some money in Balkans, so move over Serbia - you're costing us. All this clinging on to Kosovo is bad for business.

Hate to break it to you, but the EU dream has long been dreamt. We see how our "equal" EU members from the east are received by their European brothers, and we say thank you but no thank you. We're doing just fine.

There is no one in their right mind in Serbia who would put their name on this kind of a document. No one wants to end up in history books this way. C'mon, don't tell me Ahtisaari & Co. didn't know this? WTF!

The only answer is resounding no. UN, EU, USofA, and everybody else can go their merry way. Countries have lost and regained their territory before. There will be Serbs and Serbia and Kosovo long after all of us here die. I'm sure we'll get a better deal sooner or later. We can hardly get a worse one. It may take 10 years, 100 years, or 1000 years, there may be 200% of Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija. It doesn't really matter. We've waited out Ottoman empire and every other empire that has come and gone. We'll wait out these occupators too.


There is no one in their

There is no one in their right mind in Serbia who would put their name on this kind of a document. No one wants to end up in history books this way. C'mon, don't tell me Ahtisaari & Co. didn't know this? WTF!

What's more important, even if someone in their wrong mind would sign it, it would be completely irrelevant - unconstitutional on at least two grounds. It couldn't be ratified by the parliament. Constitution would have to be changed first, and with Radicals at stable 30% - tough chance. Stalemate, for better or worse.

It is interesting how this evolution of international law mr. Lyon writes about seem to always goes in direction which is opposite to Serbian interests. International law didn't seem to evolve when the bonds between citizens and state have so obviously and violently been broken by the state in Croatia or Bosnia. But when they were broken in Serbia - well we're gonna change entire legal framework which binds the world together to rectify that!

Your game is very obvious. You are fooling no one.


Hmmmmm

The bonds between citizens and state were not broken by the state in Bosnia by any stretch of even the most fertile imagination. If one looks at Tudjman's acquiscence to full Serb full cultural autonomy prior to the outbreak of the war, then the grounds for such an argument don't apply to Croatia either.


Government of Bosnia broke

Government of Bosnia broke the bonds when it made the unconstitutional referendum of independence against clear wishes of Bosnian Serbs; similarly, government of Croatia broke them when it took away from Croatian Serbs their status as a constitutive nation of Croatia.

On the other hand, even if what you wrote would be true, 1990 constitution of Serbia granted high level of cultural autonomy to Kosovo and Metohija.

As I said, you are fooling no one.


you are missing.....

....one key point: violence. Neither in Croatia nor in Bosnia did the republic governments begin a program of ethnic cleansing against the Serb populations prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Kosovo was a situation where the state sponsored large scale terror against its inhabitants. The difference is significant. It is this difference that is in part at the root of today's Kosovo status proposal.


It strikes me as fascinating

that you don't grant the slightest possibility of there having been done any wrongs to the Serb minority in Croatia or anywhere else prior to the outbreak of war. Mr. Lyon, unlike the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia, Albanian extremists have conducted hundreds of terrorist attacks against the minorities and the authorities (civil, police and military) in Kosovo throughout the 1980s and the 90s.


Selective Amnesia?

You stated:

"unlike the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia, Albanian extremists have conducted hundreds of terrorist attacks"

Hmmmm. Did you forget a Serb armed uprising in Croatia prior to the outbreak of hostilities (Balvan Revolucija?) as well as an attack on police forces of the Republic of Croatia (Borovo)? Or Serb seizure of control of large swaths of territory from Bosnia's legally elected government during 1991? Hmmmm. Selective amnesia?


you are misleading...

JL:

Quote:
Kosovo was a situation where the state sponsored large scale terror against its inhabitants.

Please be kind enough to support your claim by giving evidence of such occurrences BEFORE the UCK started with its terror activities, few years (can't be bothered to look for precise date) before NATO aggression. If we are to start counting from when Milosevic came to power, we have quite a few years - I'm sure giving us tens, if not hundreds examples will not be a problem for you. Thanks.

--
PS

Of course, you would also than have to explain why, if your arguments are valid, the secession was not imposed on Milosevic but is imposed on democratic Serbia long after the alleged atrocities happened and when there is no future treat they might happen again. But that might be a tall order for you, I guess.


People are angry and

People are angry and frustrated because nothing has been done so far. Milosevic came out of nowhere, became yet another dictator with whom the West dealt. His signature was requested for everything and anything. He was nobody who became somebody so important and Serbs are still paying for it. Nothing is wrong with the text above, it all is true, except that Mr. Lyon failed to call the Croatian wrongdoings by its name, which doesn’t, in any way, excuse the Serbs. And, by the way, I feel uneasy when calling the guilty parties by their nationalities. It is the governments around the influential world, as well as the one “grown” locally, that are to blame. I don’t think that the separation is a bed solution, but the question remains: Who will accept it? Somehow the bombs were falling over Serbian heads. Will they fall again if Mr.Kostunica doesn’t budge? I see that Mr. Tadic thinks along the same lines. Yes, the Serbs were selling their homesteads in Kosovo, and the Albanians were buying with the money earned working abroad, and slowly but surely became the majority of the population. Historically, Serbs were always divided successfully, lived in different locations from each others, and therefor became different and disunited. “Samo sloga Srbina spasava” was never implemented by the Serbs but the others who, for various reasons, profited from it. But, again, as a lay person, I don’t believe that any intervention from the outside world was performed for the sake of the oppressed Albanians and for the humanitarian reasons.


A cije su jedinice

bile pod vodjstvom Orica, Delalica, Dudakovica i drugih, Republike Srpske ili BiH? Zasto tada nije reagovala medjunarodna zajednica, nego su bombardovani ISKLJUCIVO Srbi, i zavedene sankcije ISKLJUCIVO Srbima. Zna se ko je ispalio prve hice u Sarajevu, ko je organizovao referendum koji je direktno gurnuo zemlju u rat, ko je povukao potpis sa sporazuma u Lisabonu pod pritiskom Madlen Olbrajt, ko je odlezao vise godina u zatvoru zbog islamskog fundamentalizma (protiv koga nemate nista kad vam odgovara)? U Hrvatskoj je situacija jos ociglednija. Protivustavno pretvaranje Srba u manjinu, otvorena rehabilitacija ustaskog fasizma od strane drzave, zveckanje oruzjem i neprestane pretnje, do sistematskog progona i ubijanja Srba prvo u hrvatskim gradovima, a onda i dalje. Sve je to, gospodine Lyon, bilo PRE "balvan revolucije", PRE Borova, sve te akcije Srba su bile reakcije na ovakvu politiku i odbrana od totalnog pogroma. Uostalom, videli smo kako su Srbi prosli za vreme Bljeska i Oluje, zasto tu MZ nije reagovala, jer mislite da tu nisu ucinjeni strahoviti zlocini? U stvari, reagovala je, tako sto je iz vazduha pomagala hrvatsku pesadiju i artiljeriju, i preko americkih obavestajaca i oficira pomagala ovu zlikovacku akciju. Procitajte sta kaze Stipe Suvar, hrvatski levicar, pustite ta podmetanja RTS-a, Tudjman je javno izjavljivao da ce "srpsko pitanje" biti reseno kada u Hrvatskoj bude manje od 3% Srba. Jel' to ta "kulturna autonomija" koju je Tudjman nudio, autonomija za par hiljada pripadnika ugrozene i izumiruce vrste, kao npr. za bele medvede, sure orlove i slicno? Ili Tudjmanova izjava da "ovoga rata ne bi bilo da ga Hrvatska nije ZELJELA"? Kako vas nije sramota da precutkujete ili, jos gore, branite ovakve monstruozne fasisticke ideologije i poretke?!


Quote:There is no one in

Quote:
There is no one in their right mind in Serbia who would put their name on this kind of a document.

Just one word is missing (in the beginning or at the end of the sentence) - "Now".


dream on

Dream on Mr Kusovac, dream on...


I do remember very well

I do remember very well argues on computer networks some 15 years ago whether Serbia should or should not recognize "the fascist state of Croatia" etc.

It seams that you are the one who should stop dreaming.


Mr Kusovac

Comparing Kosovo and Croatia is, of course, like (in the words of our venerable foreign minister) like comparing “frogs and grandmothers”. Unlike Kosovo, Croatia had statehood, certain form of it (although contested) under 1974 constitution and full independence just few decades back, during the WWII. Just before that there was also Croatian Banovina, during the dying years of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which also gave Croatia certain recognition of sovereignty. And so on. The Serbs, you are right, didn’t accept Croatian secession with much joy as it meant, to many, loosing common homeland and hated the new state which resurrected the fascist symbols and ideology and stripped the Croatian Serbs of their rightful position as a constituent nation. However, I don’t remember statements across the political and intellectual board of Serbia to the effect that Croatia should never be recognised. Same goes for the majority of population. I’m yet to find a Serbian (Vojislav Seselj included) who will deny that Zagreb is and should be the capital of independent Croatia.

Further, while there were some who thought that Baranja and Eastern Slavonia should be part of Serbia, this was never officially proclaimed policy. Equally, there was no territory of Croatia which, under previous treaties or within internationally recognised borders, was part of Serbia and as such contested (there might be a small disputed territory in Eastern Slavonia, but nothing on the scale of Kosovo). Finally, unlike with Croatia, officially recognising Kosovo would require a referendum and the change of the Constitution. So some fantasy scenario where Miss Micic (great singing, awful morality) becomes a duty President for a day and signs the sovereignty away (something like when Kofi Annan was used to approve the NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs, which secured his career advance) will stay just a dream.

As to Serbia eventually officially accepting possible reality of independent Kosovo recognised by the EU, we don’t know. You can never say never. I think, for now, it is only a dream for people who hate Serbia and find pleasure in her defeat and humiliation. Cyprus has managed not to do like for some 40 years, but things do change. Yet, unless you count Cheda (who may well say “I do recognise independent Kosovo, I’ll sign anything” – those election campaign dollars have to be paid for somehow after all – and which would have same weight and value as your one-liners here) there is no (relevant) political force in Serbia which can do what you whish for and all the evidence shows it will remain so for a while.

So let’s examine: first you offer inappropriate example and than you claim that the factual reality is a dream, while the situation which can maybe happen in a distant future is the reality? Well, unless you can persuade me that I somehow misunderstood your one-liners, I will have to offer you the same advice Mr Lyon graciously offered me.

Kindest regards


Independent Kosovo

I do not see necessity to fill the post with boring well known historical facts unless you want to blur and to skip the right answer.

The conversation began with your claim that there's no anybody in Serbia who will sign independent Kosovo etc.

Then I said that there were similar official propaganda about "Ustaschi state", "historical Serbian domains", "Croatian right to have a state not bigger than one could be seen from the Zagreb cathedral" etc. Plenty of morons, either officials or hobbyists, claimed that "we will be in the Jelačića plac by the Christmas" (Arkan), that "Caligula appointed his horse as senator, therefore Tuđman can push for independence, but he does not control the whole territory" (Milošević) etc. But less than five years later Croatian flag waved in Kneza Miloša, what’s more, protected by the Serbian police. I am right now writing a blog where I am going to remind that Tunjavi refused to accept term Bosniak for years claiming that there’s no such a nation. But in autumn 2000, when he needed Bosniaks’ votes, he changed his mind overnight.

Today Lumens claim (and those simple-minded believe them) that they (or even whoever) will never sign independence of Kosovo or whatsoever.

They will sign that in less than 3 years. And Bastilja will broadcast the signing ceremony live.

Vrijeme je majstorsko rešeto, Njegoš.


yes, the good old Arkan

Yes, the good old Arkan to the rescue! Remind us, please, he was a prime-minister or something like that, wasn’t he?

You “do not see necessity to fill the post with boring well known historical facts”? You much rather prefer filling your posts with hear-say, gossip and lies? Your dislike for facts has been evident on Blog B92, so I’m not in the least surprised.

OK. Your theory is that the Serbian government etc. refused to accept certain realities immediately after they become evident. My theory is that this possible reality, the one of an internationally recognised independent Kosovo, differs from examples you have given and that there is also another reality which has to be taken into account: Regardless of relentless NATO paid for propaganda, majority of Serbs are not going to accept the blatant theft and rape for which they even have to provide the song and dance routine and pretend they enjoy it. It would be like having to buy a brick and than being forced to pay to have it taken away while being hit with it over the head and whistling a happy tune all along.

Unlike in other circumstances, where there have been conflicts and misunderstandings with our former brethren and neighbours, this time it's between Serbia and NATO which simply occupied 15% of our territory and now tries to legalise the product of aggression. This is not between Serbs and Albanians; about who gets a chunk of some God forsaken territory. It has much wider implication and that is why, this time around, there is much uneasiness and apprehension in the international community. Kosovo taken by Albanians is a one thing. But Kosovo taken by NATO with the UN stamp of approval?

Please, don’t conveniently forget that the statement to which you replied was “There is no one in their right mind in Serbia who would put their name on this kind of a document.” So we are clearly talking about the currently proposed solution. And it is a heavy package indeed. Why do you think Tadic so resolutely refused it?

There might be another document(s); soon or not so soon. There might be different reality in the future. So, as I said, never say never. But as to the current proposal, the topic of this discussion, there is no Serbian leader who will sign it now, tomorrow, in three months or in three years (as you bravely predicted). That is why I maintain that my position is an actual reality, while yours is just a dream. And we shall see who is right.

By the way, just for the record, If the NATO and EU policy on Kosovo had been different this past 8 years, instead the resolute failure it is, I would be able to imagine a situation where Serbia recognises independent Republic of Kosovo and Metohija by now, or in a not very distant future, and than proceeds to build good and fruitful relations. Also, had the prerequisites for such a solution been met, than the extensive autonomy (accepted by Albanians) would have been a possibility also.

But the occupiers did what they did, created what they created and this time they don’t have Slobo to bail them out with the last minute "capitulation" of "acceptance of peace" (depending who is reporting).He is safely stowed away. This time professor Frankenstein will have to nurse his baby himself.


A zasto reprezentacija nebi

A zasto reprezentacija nebi igrala pod zastavom nove drzave Mini Me? By the way, zalazem se za izdvajanje opstina Beograda i njihovog daljeg rasparcavanja na manje delove: Cubura, Zvezdara, Vozdovac...How about it?


Try and discuss it with the government.

They tend to have strange ideas about who can and who cannot play.


R2P

I believe that the lessons learnt from Kosovo have contributed to rendering 'R2P' in 2005 with such great detail that they have in fact created more difficult legal and political prerequisites for intervention. Even with R2P, we still can not explain Darfur, in the same way we could not explain Rwanda. Traditionally good analysis and well aimed, but your closing lines are oversimplifying the matter. If Kostunica would use more constructive approach instead of lamenting, he could ask a legitimate question - which one of these R2P threshold criteria was not satisfied in 1999? IMHO, at least four.

· Just cause. Military R2P interventions must be in response to massive, "conscience-shocking" crimes against humanity, such as genocide or violent "ethnic cleansing" or persuasive evidence that such crimes are imminent.

· Right intention. The primary purpose of the intervention must be to protect innocent life, not to pursue the selfish interests of the interveners.

· Last resort. All reasonable, non-violent means of intervention must have been exhausted or not be up to the task of ending the violence.

· Proportional means. The intervention must apply the least necessary force and the least encroachment upon national sovereignty to achieve its humanitarian goal and prevent a recurrence of atrocities. This last goal is served by the third component of the responsibility to protect: the responsibility to rebuild.

· Reasonable prospects. The intervention must be reasonably likely to work and unlikely to do more harm than good.

· Right authority. This is the most challenging hurdle. Ideally, nations seeking authorization for a military R2P intervention should obtain it from the Security Council, with the five permanent members agreeing to waive their vetoes. But if a majority Security Council resolution is vetoed, authority can be sought from the General Assembly under its "Uniting for Peace" provision. Failing that, a "coalition of the willing" can intervene on its own authority, but only if – as in every case – the other threshold criteria are met (ICISS).


The wrong solution

The likely plan gives too little to Albanians and takes too much from Serbs. But there's an alternative, if only the international community would consider it: PARTITION

Flexibility on borders could make a fully independent Kosovo easier to govern, provide more protection for minorities and make a negotiated deal attainable. Partition is possible, and possibly the right thing to do.

Kosovo's Albanians deserve real independence, and while Serbia must pay that price, individual Serbs should not suffer unnecessarily.

"Imagine the passions that would ignite if we opposed Kosovo's separation from Serbia."

Changing the border — reducing the partition we are undertaking — could make full, fair independence possible.

Partition isn't perfect; it's painful and carries risks. But the current plan will neither resolve Kosovo's uncertain status nor prevent an entire Balkan people from once again taking to the road. Surely it would be better to move the border than the people trapped within it. That sounds like a moral argument for putting partition back on the table.

by

Timothy William Waters, a professor at Indiana University School of Law at Bloomington, helped prepare the indictment of Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes in Kosovo.


PARTITION???!!!

Partition does have a certain logic to it. However, in order for it to occur certain logical/legal dilemmas would first need to be resolved.

1) What would be the legal basis for partition.
2) Would this legal basis apply to municipalities in other parts of the territory over which Serbia claims sovereignty, i.e., Presevo Valley, Sandzak, the six Hungarian-majority municipalities in Vojvodina
3) Would this principle apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina?

These are the main dilemmas facing the international community when it comes to Kosovo partition. In principle no one in either Washington or Brussels objects to partition, provided Belgrade and Pristina are able to make a peaceful agreement.

But the legal basis for partition is the real issue. The EU has long had criteria regarding independence for the republics of the former Yugoslavia. An arbitration body, known as the Badinter Commission, was created on 27 August 1991 and issued a number of opinions that served as the legal basis for reaction to the break-up of socialist Yugoslavia. Its Opinion no. 1 of 29 November 1991 stated that the situation involved the dissolution of the Federal Republic and the consequent emergence of its constituent republics as independent states and noted that the process was not yet complete. The rationale was that Yugoslavia lacked a reconstituted federal government that represented the population as a whole, and there was, therefore, no government with the authority to prevent the constituent republics from breaking away. This would in and of itself lead to the disappearance of the Socialist Federal Republic. Opinion no. 8 of 4 July 1992 affirmed that “the dissolution of a State means that it no longer has legal personality”.

European foreign ministers met in Brussels on 16 December 1991 and issued a “Declaration on the Guidelines on the Recognition of the New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union”, which was accompanied by a “Declaration on Yugoslavia” that introduced a process for republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) to apply for recognition.

These criteria applied only to republics. Therefore, Kosovo was not considered able to apply for independence. However, in the case of Kosovo, the R2P doctrine was applied.

North Kosovo above the Ibar fits neither the R2P nor the Badinter criteria. Therefore, if a partition is to take place through non-violent means other than a mutual agreement between Belgrade and Pristina, then what should the criteria be? This is a very tricky question.

There are many people in the international community who favour partition. However, they fear that if self-determination is used as a criteria, that the same criteria will have to be applied to Sandzak, Presevo Valley, the north of Vojvodina, and perhaps Republika Srpska.

So give me some answers to this dilemma? Is there a way out that is non-violent and can be negotiated? And how do we regulate it so that it doesn't cause Serbia to lose further territory? And how do we regulate it to prevent renewed bloodshed in Bosnia? These are serious questions. Do any of you out there have some suggestions?


...

Quote:
So give me some answers to this dilemma? Is there a way out that is non-violent and can be negotiated? And how do we regulate it so that it doesn't cause Serbia to lose further territory? And how do we regulate it to prevent renewed bloodshed in Bosnia? These are serious questions. Do any of you out there have some suggestions?

non-violent, negotiations, regulate, lose, serious questions (without serious answers), are probably the most evaded words of the effectice dictionary, or is it, that, maybe, there is yet the entry to be invented for them.
As luck would have it, our diplomacy goes so far as to recognize and authenticate (deliberately or not) its own standards, and its own only, no matter how inarticulate they may sound to anyone. (l'art pour l'art applied in real life, on the spot situation)
Good suggestions...well, they are overrated, and as such, totally unnecessary, I'm afraid.


What do you mean

more precisely when you say:

Quote:
how do we regulate it so that it doesn't cause Serbia to lose further territory?

Do you perhaps know something we don't?


Yes.

Self Determination can be a two-edged sword.


Point taken.

Has the referendum been mentioned in Ahtisaari's proposal? If not, why?


PARTITION

James Lyon:

Quote:
1) What would be the legal basis for partition.

EXACTLY!!!!!

We are yet to hear from you.

Partition of Serbia that is, of course.


Terrorism pays

Quote:
So give me some answers to this dilemma? Is there a way out that is non-violent and can be negotiated? And how do we regulate it so that it doesn't cause Serbia to lose further territory? And how do we regulate it to prevent renewed bloodshed in Bosnia? These are serious questions. Do any of you out there have some suggestions?

No, there is nothing to be negotiated. What incentive do Albanians have for negotiation? They've pretty got everything they wanted. There is nothing constructive Serbia can do at this point because no one has asked Serbia about anything to start with.

If it's so clear to the world that this is the right or the only solution, why sweat Serbia's refusal to sign what amounts to its death sentence? Could the problem be in the fact that no amount of hand waving can justify this travesty? Without Serbia's blessing, there is no legal or any other justification for this. I'm sorry we can't be more accommodating.

And yes, there is a non-violent way out and that is just to simply ignore this and any similar "proposals". Without Serbia's signature, the deed to Kosovo stays in Serbia's hands. We may not be here to see it, but sooner or later, Serbia will get Kosovo back. On the great wheel of history, what's few hundred years.

Oh, now you'd like us to bend over and take it, but at the same time "regulate it", so that none of this applies to Serbs in Bosnia, or any other group anywhere else in the world. Sorry, but no deal. If anyone thinks this will bring stability to the region, so that money can be made in "business as usual" way, they've drank too much Kool-Aid.


Serbia's Death Sentence?

You said that the Ahtisaari proposal "amounts to a death sentence". Do you really think that losing Kosovo is a death sentence for Serbia. It seems to me that the real death sentence for Serbia is keeping Kosovo. Getting rid of Kosovo will help Serbia.

If Serbia were to keep Kosovo, then the international community would force Serbia to remove laws prejudicial against Albanians. This would mean that Albanians could purchase property wherever they wish in Serbia. What does that mean for Vranje and Niš? The Kosovo and Albanian question will dominate Serbian politics and prevent Serbia from concentrating fully on its real problems. The Serbian parliament would immediately be at least 20% Albanian...and that number will simply increase until 75 years from now, when it will be over 50% Albanian. So, one day Serbs will be a minority inside of Serbia. That is the true death of Serbia. Losing a piece of real estate, no matter how emotionally significant, is nothing compared to the death of an entire nation.

You say that no one asked Serbia about anything. During 2006 there were 15 rounds of direct talks between Belgrade and Pristina, and UN envoys made 26 visits to both Belgrade and Pristina. Serbia could have done quite a bit in terms of constructive diplomacy. But to date it hasn't tried.

Here is a recipe for constructive behaviour that would increase Serbia's bargaining position:
1) Admit that the Serbian government and security forces waged a war of terror against its own citizens in Kosovo.
2) Clear up war crimes against Albanians, which means arresting and sentencing war criminals, all the way up to the highest levels in the state.
3) Apologise to Albanians.
4) Present a realistic plan for integrating Kosovo into Serbia.
At this point the international community would be forced to admit that Serbia has truly changed, is acting responsibly, and that this is a counterbalance to Albanian claims. Then Serbia could constructively engage in the entire process.

But until and unless that happens, all other approaches are based on the rhetoric and (il)logic of the Milosevic era.


Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt

Quote:
Losing a piece of real estate, no matter how emotionally significant, is nothing compared to the death of an entire nation.

Spoken like a true American. I'm truly disappointed that you can't understand this one simple concept that Kosovo is not just some "piece of real estate".

All of the points in your recipe apply to Albanians too, but I don't remember them apologizing for any of this. Their war "of" terror and subsequent Serbian war "on" terror started long before 1999 and Milosevic. At some point it became hard to distinguish war "of" terror from war "on" terror, and it was all about who could lobby better, and unfortunately Serbs have traditionally sucked at this.

Quote:
The Serbian parliament would immediately be at least 20% Albanian...and that number will simply increase until 75 years from now, when it will be over 50% Albanian.

You my friend are a true FUD master, but sorry I'm not biting. Albanians could have had this long ago, but their position has always been independence or nothing. If Kosovo remained part of Serbia, Albanians still wouldn't integrate themselves into the political process. Plus, half of them are illegal immigrants anyways with no right to vote.

This idea of partitioning has been thrown around too. Personally, I'm against it, but objectively it could be sold to Serbs only if the partitioning is not done solely based on ethnic lines, and if Republika Srpska is allowed to exit BiH. In addition, the financial aspects of the split, foreign debt, and the question of ownership of different assets in Kosovo would have to be acceptable to Serbia.


Quote:Plus, half of them are

Quote:
Plus, half of them are illegal immigrants anyways with no right to vote.

Any proof or we should accept this as just usual stupid propaganda?


Show me yours and I'll show you mine

I knew someone was going to bite. Do you have proof they aren't? Exactly. We don't know, do we? That's where the uncertainty part comes from. However, common sense begs the question where have they come from. Even with their high natality rate, it wouldn't be a stretch to claim that a large portion of them doesn't have Yugoslav/Serbian citizenship.


800,000 ID documents

And given that Serbian MUP and VJ seized and destroyed the identification documents from 800,000 Albanians that were expelled from Kosovo in 1999, we will never know, will we.

But how do you plan on joining the RS to Serbia? The RS political elite do not wish to be part of Serbia, particularly with the extreme degree of centralisation that is now enshrined in the new constitution. The only criteria that can be used for this is self-determination. And then the international community will insist that those criteria be applied to Vojvodina, Sandzak, Presevo.....

Be careful, self-determination is a double-edged sword.

And please, show some dignity. Stop calling me and other people names and respond to the arguments.


Quote:But how do you plan on

Quote:
But how do you plan on joining the RS to Serbia?

I've never said that. I just think they should have a choice based on the same principle you're trying to apply to Kosovo. This principle is nothing else but self-determination no matter how much you insist on pushing this crap about protecting citizens from its own state.

Quote:
And then the international community will insist that those criteria be applied to Vojvodina, Sandzak, Presevo.....

And all of the other troubled regions in the world, right? After all the principle should apply to everyone no matter how big or influential these countries are?

Quote:
And please, show some dignity. Stop calling me and other people names and respond to the arguments.

If you refer to me calling you a "FUD Master", please don't take it as an insult because it wasn't meant to be. In your profession it should be taken as a compliment. After all, you're just doing your job the way you're supposed to. This fact doesn't make you right of course.


Quote: But how do you

Quote:
But how do you plan on joining the RS to Serbia?

I've never said that. I just think they should have a choice based on the same principle you're trying to apply to Kosovo. This principle is nothing else but self-determination no matter how much you insist on pushing this crap about protecting citizens from its own state.

Excellent. But why limit this wisely "rule" just to Šumska? There are also relat. strong Serbian communities in Chicago, Toronto, Australia, South Africa...


Mr. Goxy I have a question!

Please tell me what does FUD in the "FUD Master" mean.
Thank you in advance


Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt or

Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt or FUD is a marketing term. In my experience, it is most commonly used in Information Technology (IT) industry to describe certain tactics used by companies (notably Microsoft) to disseminate false informations about the competitor's product and discourage users from using the product.

In politics it is used to describe attempts to discredit the opponent and/or sway or alter the public opinion by spreading rumors or false and unsubstantiated claims designed to cause fear, uncertainty and doubt in people. FUD could be categorized as a kind of a logical fallacy called "appeal to fear".

For example, when Dr. Lyon says something to the effect that, if Serbia doesn't sign, in 75 years Albanians will make up 80% of population in Serbia, he gives us a horror scenario that he presents as very likely even though it's at the very least doubtful, so that that he gets us all scared and more willing to accept "lesser" evil.


To Mr. Goxy

Thank you for the explanation.


Give RS a choice

So, you want RS to have a choice? Okay, but first you have to answer two questions.

1) What would be the legal basis?
2) If this legal basis is applied to RS, then shouldn't it apply also to other parts of the territory in former SFRY, such as Presevo Valley, Sandzak, and the six Hungarian-majority municipalities in Vojvodina

But what is the legal basis? Self determination of peoples? Or political units. The international norm, up until now, has always been of political units. Check your world history books and see if you can disprove me on this. Whether it be Pakistan, Bangladesh, East Timor or Croatia, the standard has always been of existing political units.

The EU has long had criteria regarding independence for the republics of the former Yugoslavia. An arbitration body, known as the Badinter Commission, was created on 27 August 1991 and issued a number of opinions that served as the legal basis for reaction to the break-up of socialist Yugoslavia. Its Opinion no. 1 of 29 November 1991 stated that the situation involved the dissolution of the Federal Republic and the consequent emergence of its constituent republics as independent states and noted that the process was not yet complete. The rationale was that Yugoslavia lacked a reconstituted federal government that represented the population as a whole, and there was, therefore, no government with the authority to prevent the constituent republics from breaking away. This would in and of itself lead to the disappearance of the Socialist Federal Republic. Opinion no. 8 of 4 July 1992 affirmed that “the dissolution of a State means that it no longer has legal personality”.

European foreign ministers met in Brussels on 16 December 1991 and issued a “Declaration on the Guidelines on the Recognition of the New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union”, which was accompanied by a “Declaration on Yugoslavia” that introduced a process for republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) to apply for recognition.

These criteria applied only to republics. Therefore, Kosovo was not considered able to apply for independence. However, in the case of Kosovo, the R2P doctrine mentioned above in my main blog text was applied.

The RS fits neither the R2P nor the Badinter criteria. Therefore, if it is to have the right to self determination, you must find different criteria. What should this be? This is a very tricky question.

And then there is the further dilemma in Bosnia: RS was created through ethnic cleansing and genocide. This problem will hang over RS for the next 20 or so years, perhaps longer. And there are few people in the international community who are willing to reward genocide and ethnic cleansing, so there is that PR battle to fight. Then there is the problem of Brcko. At present it does not belong to RS. This means that the most heavily populated part of RS, with the greatest percentage of industry and economy, would be cut off. Then there is the question of provoking a Bosniak response. Keep in mind that the balance of military forces today in Bosnia is no longer what it used to be, thereby favouring the Bosniaks and their higher birth rate. Do you really wish to chance provoking a reaction from them that could result in more Serbs on red tractors?

Now, if you can come up with answers to those problems, we can have a serious discussion of linking the status of RS to Serbia.


Quote:These criteria applied

Quote:
These criteria applied only to republics. Therefore, Kosovo was not considered able to apply for independence. However, in the case of Kosovo, the R2P doctrine mentioned above in my main blog text was applied

You sure like legal arguments when they serve you. However, I argue that R2P doesn't apply to Kosovo. All of the precautionary principles were disregarded, and the intervention wasn't done by the right authority.

Quote:
And there are few people in the international community who are willing to reward genocide and ethnic cleansing, so there is that PR battle to fight.

You're assuming there was no ethnic cleansing in the rest of BiH. OK, fine, but what about Kosovo. What is being rewarded there if not ethnic cleansing albeit the slower one?

There are many calling for accepting the reality in Kosovo. How about the reality in Bosnia? That country will never function in its current state. How about accepting the reality there and let RS go their way.


RS, created on territory

RS, created on territory where Serbs live for more than a thousand years was created on ethnic cleansing and genocide, and this problem will hang over RS for the next 20 or so years. Yet, Kosovo, created on teritorry where Serbs were majority until late 19th/early 20th century and Albanians became the majority only through massive ethnic cleansing and genocide of Serbs was not created on ethnic cleansing and genocide, and that problem won't hang over it. Right. If there is a genocidal creation in Europe, it is Kosovo.

If events which you describe would happen, would these Serbs on red tractors you mention be of any relevance for the responsibility to protect them theme articulated by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty? Didn't thought so.

And Brcko belongs to both entities. You appear to be majorly underinformed for an ICG member.


Please study history

I see you are in the grip of extremist propaganda.

RS was created on territory where Serbs and Croats and Muslims had lived for very long periods of time. In fact, there are large areas of RS where Serbs were not a majority. And Brcko, as a separate District, belongs to neither entity. Please read the Final Arbitration Award of 5 March 1999. I know because I was involved in the policy process in Bosnia at the time.

Now, your charge that Albanians became the majority through "massive ethnic cleansing and genocide" would not stand up under even the lightest scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

If you read the Carnegie Commission from 1912 following the first Balkan War you will see that the Serbian forces committed terrible atrocities against the Albanian populations in Kosovo. Between the First and Second World Wars the government of royal Yugoslavia actively discriminated against Albanians and attempted to deport a substantial number of them to Turkey.

Let us discuss mass ethnic cleansing and genocide. In 1998 there were more than 200,000 internally displaced persons in Kosovo, having been driven out of there homes by MUP and VJ personnel. In 1999 800,000 were driven out of the country and many more internally displaced and murdered. Tens of thousands of homes and over a hundred villages were destroyed, and not by NATO bombing, but by Serbian MUP and VJ. In order to cover up the extent of the crime the Serbian state burned bodies in places such as Mackatica and Obilic and transported bodies all the way to Belgrade (Batajnica( and buried them in mass graves on MUP compounds. And then some ended up floating in rivers in refrigerator trucks. So Milosevic turned Serbia into a mini-Auschwitz and you have the nerve to accuse Albanians of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Please show me an Albanian action that comes even close and I will concede your point.

Yes, Kosovo is a genocidal creation, but is was created by Serbian genocide. The Albanians themselves were not angels and did some nasty things. But for shear scale the Serbian state was far, far worse. Please read about the history of the last part of the 20th century. And stop pretending that the Serbs are the greatest victims.


There well might been large

There well might been large areas of RS where Serbs were not a majority, but there are large areas where Serbs were a majority, but remained outside of RS. I don't know if by the Final Arbitration Award you refer to the Brcko Final Award of March 05 1999, which states that Upon the establishment of the new District, the entire territory, within its boundaries (i.e., the pre-war Brcko Opstina) will thereafter be held in "condominium" by both entities simultaneously: The territory of the RS will encompass the entire Opstina, and so also will the territory of the Federation.

If you would know anything about Kosovo, you would know that Albanians started ethnically cleansing Serbs before 1912 or that deporting Albanians and other Muslims to Turkey was a policy of Turkey itself.

You would also know that more than 200,000 internally displaced persons in Kosovo in 1998 would not have been displaced if KLA didn't start with its terrorist actions; nor would 800,000 (an exagerration) be driven out of the country had NATO not started its bombing campaign.

You would also know that in 2007 there are more than 200,000 refugees from Kosovo (an Albanian action that comes even close).


Thanks

Thanks for the clarification on Brcko. I haven't read it in years. You will notice that it doesn't belong to RS, other than in a joint condominium, which means that RS can't take Brcko with it if it tries to leave BiH.

Let's not forget the massive confiscation of land from Albanians by Serbs between 1912-1941. Let's not forget the more than 25,000 Albanian civilians killed by Serb forces in 1912-13. And the deportation you refer to was often involuntary and Serb discrimination against Albanians was official, just as it was under Rankovic and Milosevic. The Serbian track record in Kosovo during the approximately 82 years of the 20th century that it was under Serbian control has been one long record of abuse of Serbs by Albanians. Is this perhaps connected to the rise of the KLA?

You blame the 200,000 internally displaced persons in 1998 on KLA "terrorist" actions. A more objective view would state that the 200,000 internally displaced persons were the result of terrorist actions of Serbia's state security organs, who drove civilians out of their homes, destroyed the homes and killed innocent civilians, while hunting for the KLA. The KLA did not force those people from their homes. Serbian forces did.

How do you know that 800,000 (not an exaggeration) would not have been driven out of the country if NATO had not started bombing? Do you have access to the VJ and MUP war plans? The ethnic cleansing began before the NATO intervention started. The government simply used the bombing as cover to accelerate it.

You claim that the 200,000 Serbian refugees are the equivalent of the 800,000 Albanian refugees. Look at it objectively. The vast majority of the Albanians were driven out of their homes at gunpoint, some of them being murdered, and then were forcibly driven out as their homes were destroyed behind them. The vast majority of Serb refugees left before the Albanians returned and many were able to take their belongings with them. Yes, there are Serbs who were forced out by Albanians, but these are not the majority of the refugees. Any comparison of the two phenomena should be made very carefully.


I will also notice that the

I will also notice that the document is completely irrelevant, as the arbitrators had mandate to only arbitrate the disputed portion of IEBL, and not to create joint condominiums.

And let's not forget 400,000 Serbs cleansed out of the Kosovo Vilayet before 1912. You are misrepresenting historical events the same way you misrepresent recent events. You are representing Albanians Kacaks as civilians while they were KLA equivalent of the time. You are presenting confiscation of land from Kosovo begs as confiscation of land from general population. Next thing you will be saying is that Serbia should return land to descendants of Turkish begs who owned it! I could certainly agree with you however that rise of KLA is connected to one long record of abuse of Serbs by Albanians. Or was that a Freudian slip on your part?

When UCK, who preyed on Albanians who didn't support them as much as on Serbs, started its terrorist actions, Serbia had responsibility to protect its population from UCK. An objective view would certainly note that wherever there is large scale fighting, refugees flee from it: for example, recently it happened in Chechnya, in Israel's fight with Hezbollah and is happening in Iraq now. After the UCK was destroyed, refugees would be able to return to their homes, and we can conclude that from the fact that the number of refugees before NATO bombing was in fact decreasing, as the fighting subdued.

You seem to imply that 800,000 people would have been driven out of their homes by Serbian forces in 1999 even if NATO bombing didn't happen? Well it would certainly be very interesting to learn how do you divine that. Perhaps ICG should also employ this person who seems to be very successful with making similar predictions ;) While I have no access to VJ and MUP plans, I know some fine people who do and who would be very happy to dig up any evidence of what you say if it only it would exist.


Broken Record

Sorry sir, but you sound like a broken record. I don't have any sympathy for the actions of anyone in Bosnia including RS, nor do I have any toward anything that Milosevic did. However, comparing Serbia to Auschwitz takes that little credibility you may have had away from you. Your hatred for Serbs and everything Serbian is evident.

I just want to know what's the point of all this. You guys have done it. Good job, you win. Kosovo is on its way of independence. All is good. So, why can't you just let it go? Maybe I'm missing something? Is there some other additional punishment that you think is appropriate? Is it that not only you want Serbs to take it up their collective asses, but they also need to say thank you? Do you want them to call uncle? Are you then going to be satisfied?

I know what it is. It's not enough. You really think Serbs got a good deal. If it were up to you, you'd take over the entire country and do a little bit of denazification because Serbs deserve it after all of the atrocities they've done. That's why you're angry that they don't want to sign. Dude, get real. It ain't gonna happen the way you want it, and if it does it won't last forever.


I am sad to discover that my

I am sad to discover that my great-grandfather was actually a liar.

"Now, your charge that Albanians became the majority through "massive ethnic cleansing and genocide"would not stand up under even the lightest scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true." JL

I have to react to this statement. Albanians in Kosovo didn't perform genocide. They were doing it gradually. Slowly, step, by step. They were, as we all have to admit, much more united then us. Their mission was conducted from all around the world from where ever they lived. They were sending money, never payed taxes, didn't care that they had their language, their, schools, their sides of the streets in Pristina, for instance, when in the evening young Serbs would walk on one, and the Albanians, on the other side of the street. It was all very perfidiously executed, meandering within the loopholes of social code, politics and so fort, on its way to grater Albania. And yes, the Serbs, in general, were discriminating against the Albanians by undermining their strength and individually, by making fun of them. Milosevic was a cretin who was taken seriously by the grater part of the world and his intentions were nasty just like Tudjmans were. But if someone talks about genocide and ethnic cleansing done by the Serbs, I'd call that person on it. Serbs are incapable of organizing anything, let alone mass destruction of a nation. Simply not true!!!!Milosevic was brought into the game of power for which he was handsomely awarded and his family still enjoys the fruits of his labor without him, unfortunately for them. And it was Milosesevices thugs who performed the atrocities. And it was Milosevic who successfully divided the Serbs. I know that the Serbs have to accept independence of Kosovo because they are politically forced to. It is more convenient for the moment. And why are the war-criminals still unleashed? For gods sake, isn’t that up to the ones who are righteous and concerned about the humanitarian calamities around the world.


The story about seizing

The story about seizing documents is invented exactly because Albanians from Albania without documents could register as refugees, thus creating impression about a huge number of refugees, and that later anyone who wished so could enter Kosovo. While probably some police units destroyed some documents, there is absolutely no evidence that they have destroyed documents of 800,000 Albanians. And no, we will know, as birth and death records are still preserved, regardless of documents which individuals own.


Unpleasant facts

Are you in denial? The story was not made up. The story that it was made up was in fact manufactured by the Milosevic regime, so please stop repeating Slobo's propaganda. Numerous organisations have documented this.


The story had some basis in

The story had some basis in reality, but the extent of documents seized is made up.


Sources?

And how do you know this? On the basis of official Milosevic sources?


And how do you knwo the

And how do you know the opposite? On the basis of official CNN sources?


CNN? You must be kidding?

Prior to the NATO intervention ICG had several analysts inside Kosovo. In 1999 we have had a 30 person team on the ground inside Kosovo documenting war crimes and atrocities. I have also interviewed persons from international humanitarian organisations dealing with the refugee flows, and have examined some of their documentation.

What is your source? RTS1?


Is this getting out of hand Mr Lyon?

Can we have some credible evidence as to 800,000 sized and destroyed Kosovo Albanian documents please? Your word here is as good as anyone's. Let’s have the evidence. If you are right, that would mean that not a single Kosovo Albanian refugee set away without their documents and none managed to leave Serbia with them. Is that what you are saying?

JL

Quote:
Milosevic turned Serbia into a mini-Auschwitz

Would you be so kind to expand on this? It is a very serious accusation indeed; I wouldn't throw it around lightly. Are you saying that civilians in Serbia, and all over Serbia, that were of particular ethnicity, religion or social group we hurdled together, incarcerated on a large scale, than indiscriminately killed in tens, hundreds of thousands? The women, the children, the men, old, young? Please, can we have some evidence in support of your claim? Not your relentless rhetoric but some real evidence? Thank you.

JL

Quote:
Yes, Kosovo is a genocidal creation, but is was created by Serbian genocide.

Again, please give evidence! You can’t just express an opinion to this effect. This can not be matter of opinion. It is another serious accusation. You represent a distinguished international organisation here, you have certain credibility. Can you just say anything you like?

Also explain how the community against which genocide is perpetrated becomes a 90% majority and the community that committed the genocide is reduced to 10%?

JL

Quote:
And if you only knew how much time I have spent defending Serbs and trying to explain to outsiders that not all Serbs are genocidal maniacs

“not all Serbs are genocidal maniacs”????

Well how many are. Not all, but many? 80% 60% 30%? I never thought it was personal with you but you prove me wrong. Do you see how the comments I quoted, especially the last one, can be seen as racist?

I think we all deserve some explanation. I believe you have the right to say what you like, but I thought you wanted to establish a different kind of debate here. How would you feel if tomorrow’s papers carried the front page:

Dzejms Lajon:

“SRBIJA POD MILOSEVICEM BILA MALI AUSVIC, ALI NISU SVI SRBI GENOCIDNI MANIJACI!”

Would you mind at all?


Wow. Your mind fascinates me.

Can you present credible evidence, other than Milosevic era propaganda, that the broadly accepted number of approximately 800,000 is inaccurate? Can you find a reliable scholarly source that has conducted research to back up your claim? One day scholars may study the matter and make a determination that is different, but they will do so on the basis of solid evidence. In the meantime, we have to go with the numbers available that were compiled by reliable international aid organisations.

Mini-Auschwitz: Serbia had death squads and incinerators for the dead bodies, mass graves, etc. Think of the reports in the Serbian media of bodies being burned in Obilic and Mackatica.... doesn't it cause you concern on a personal level.

Kosovo as a genocidal creation: the history or the 20th century shows that for most of that time Serbia controlled Kosovo. It also shows clearly that for most of that time the Serbian government and security forces discriminated against Albanian residents of Kosovo. It also shows that Serbian government policies went beyond discrimination. This culminated in 1999 with an attempt (unsuccessful) to eradicate Albanians form Kosovo. Historians may one day write that Kosovo independence was achieved due to a failed Serb effort to eradicate the Albanians. How did the community that perpetrated the genocide effort become a 10% minority? Easily...look at how many Germans live today in what used to be called East Prussia...or Vojvodina...or other parts of eastern Europe? They mostly fled when they lost military superiority, fearing retribution from the local majority populations.

So, are your arguments so lacking in content, force and fact that you feel you have to threaten me with placing the blog content in the papers? Shame on you.


Can you present credible

Can you present credible evidence that the broadly accepted number of approximately 800,000 is accurate? You can't. This is where the story about destroyed documents sets in: because people supposedly had their documents destroyed, anyone could apply for refugee status; as a consequence, anyone did apply for refugee status, and the number of refugees is exagerrated. Note that this is true regardless of whether the story is true or not.

I however don't think that this is of much importance; whether true number of refugees is 800, 500 or 300,000, it is certainly a large number anyway.

The history or the 20th century shows that during most of the time when Serbia controlled Kosovo, Albanian population of Kosovo was steadily increasing. It is hard to see how is this result of discrimination of Serbian government against Albanian residents of Kosovo. Your comparison with ethnic Germans in Europe is not apt, because number of Serbs in Kosovo was decreasing gradually, they haven't fled overnight.


Please JL

Can you present credible evidence, other than ICG propaganda, that the broadly accepted number of approximately 800,000 seized and destroyed Albanian identification documents by Serbian MUP and VJ the is accurate?

If you don’t offer the evidence or retract your comment, there is no point going any further.

Being strong headed, biased and passionate is one thing, but peddling lies and propaganda under cover of a powerful international organisation and a distinguished Serbian media institution is something else.

I now suspect that your comments are actually racist. But that they are lies seems much easier to prove.

Looking forward to your reply.

Kindest regards

a.h


Opet lazna briga

Cinizam, nista drugo. Ovo je jedna zanimljiva logika, koja razotkriva one koje je plasiraju. Oni su borci protiv rasizma, nacionalizma i slicnih pojava, a parazitiraju na proizvodjenju takvih strahova! Pogledajmo sta se ovde kaze, a to iznose kao "argument" i neke ovdasnje, na srecu, minorne politicke partije: Resimo se problema Albanaca, tako sto cemo Kosovu dati nezavisnost? Negde sam procitao metaforu sa tumorom/gangrenom, odstranimo taj tumor/gangrenu, bilje bolje za Srbiju. Hmmmm. Znaci, po gospodinu Lyonu, borcu protiv rasizma i nacionalizma, Albanci su problem za Srbiju, on staje na nase mesto i kaze: "The Serbian parliament would immediately be at least 20% Albanian...and that number will simply increase until 75 years from now, when it will be over 50% Albanian. So, one day Serbs will be a minority inside of Serbia. That is the true death of Serbia. Losing a piece of real estate, no matter how emotionally significant, is nothing compared to the death of an entire nation." Ko ovde proizvodi i manipulise nacionalistickim strahovima ako ne upravo gospodin Lyon? Vidite, gospodine Lyon, Srbija nije imala takvih strahova koje vi zelite da proizvedete, Albanci su bili gradjani ove drzave kao i svi drugi, zamislite i za vreme Milosevica, ma koliko to vama zvucalo neprihvatljivo. Oni su imali BIRACKO PRAVO, mogli su da izadju na bilo koje izbore i da osvoje onoliko mandata koliko uspeju, recimo da ste u pravu, citavih 20%. Oni imaju veliki natalitet, i niko to nije sprecavao, jer mozete navesti ijednu meru za vreme Milosevica koja bi isla u tom pravcu? Medjutim, oni NISU HTELI da izlaze na izbore, nisu zeleli da se integrisu u drzavu ciji su gradjani, stvarali su paralelan sistem. Znaci, nije problem u nama, u nasoj drzavi, nego u njima, imali su sva prava koja poznaje medjunarodna praksa, i pre i za vreme Milosevica, ali nisu hteli da ih koriste (za vreme Milosevica). Nemamo mi nikakav problem sa mogucnoscu da za nekih 75 godina Albanci sacinjavaju 50% stanovnika Srbije, cak i da vam je tacna racunica. Nemamo mi problem da se oni integrisu u nasu zajednicu, vec oni imaju takav problem. Imaju li problem Amerikanci sa Hispancima koji prihvataju americki poredak i sistem vrednosti, imaju li problem Francuzi sa Muslimanima koji prihvataju francusku drzavu i kulturu, i pri tom i jedni i drugi neguju svoje posebne identitete, nista sporno. Albanci su imali sva prava u pogledu svog posebnog identiteta, i pre i za vreme Milosevica, ali nisu zeleli da prihvate identitet sire zajednice u kojoj zive. Oni imaju problem sa prihvatanjem razlicitosti, drugosti, ne mi, oni nisu otvoreni, emancipovani za mogucnost zajednickog zivota sa drugim narodom, vise puta su to pokazali tokom 20. veka.

Vi ne cinite nikakvu uslugu Albancima, kad se bolje pogleda. Vi parazitirate na toj nedovoljnoj emancipaciji, otvorenosti prema drugom, razlicitom, nerazvijenosti evropskog duha u toj zajednici, kako bi postigli svoje, navodno evropske ciljeve. Sve ono sto prebacujete Srbima tolerisete kod Albanaca, i koristite protiv Srba. Srbi su bili i ostace evropski narod, tu nema nikakve dileme, jedini problemi u tom smislu mogu doci od ovakvih antievropskih pokusaja, ma koliko oni koji ih sprovode bili "Evropljani". Nikada nijednu rec kritike nismo culi s vase strane u pogledu albanske zajednice, njenog mentaliteta, mnogih pojava koje nisu u skladu sa evropskim duhom i vrednostima. Jesu oni neki sveti, izabrani narod, a Srbi osudjeni na ponizavanje i obezvredjivanje?

Pominjete silne runde pregovora izmedju Beograda i Pristine, tokom 2006. godine. Ne morate nas podsecati, podseticu ja vas na vise od 20 sastanaka u Pristini tokom 1998. na koje su bili pozvani predstavnici Albanaca, i koji su imali za cilj mirno resenje krize. Ni na jedan od tih sastanaka nisu dosli. Pa ko onda tu nije "konstruktivan"?! Ko nije konstruktivan, onaj koji nudi sve sem nezavisnosti, ili onaj ko ne nudi nista sem nezavisnosti?! Sva prava koja postoje u pogledu manjina u svetu bila su ponudjena Albancima. Ali ne, vi i oni ne zelite to, vi hocete nezavisno Kosovo, privilegiju koju nema nijedna manjina na svetu!

Pogledajmo vase "recepte za konstruktivno ponasanje". Naravno, niste naveli sta ocekujete od druge strane, ima li ona ikakvih gresaka i krivice. Po vama, verovatno nema. U tom slucaju ovakvi "recepti" nisu nista drugo nego ultimatum, prinuda da se izjasnimo o nametnutoj krivici. Nema "konstruktivnosti", ni pomirenja medju narodima Balkana dok se samo jedna strana prinudjava na samopokajanje i samokaznjavanje, a druga amnestira od bilo kakve krivice i odgovornosti. Dok ne pocnete da budete objektivni, nepristrasni u tumacenju desavanja na ovim prostorima, nema govora da ovakvim "receptima" mozete proizvesti bilo sta osim otrovnih kolaca! Zato je odgovor na vase recepte sledeci, tek kada se ovi "recepti" ispune, mozemo poceti da razgovaramo i o nasem delu krivice i odgovornosti:

1) Admit that the Albanian terrorists (we don't say Albanian citizens) waged a war of terror against the Serbian government and security forces.
2) Clear up war crimes against Serbs, which means arresting and sentencing war criminals, all the way up to the highest levels among Kosovo Albanians.
3) Apologise to Serbs.
4) Present a realistic plan for integrating Kosovo into Serbia (that should be the matter of negotiations, no problem).
At this point the international community would be forced to admit that Albanians have truly changed, are acting responsibly, and that this is a counterbalance to Serbian claims. Then Albanians (and Sebs) could constructively engage in the entire process.

But until and unless that happens, all other approaches are based on the rhetoric and (il)logic of the UCK era.


Nezavisnost DA, podela NE?!

"1) What would be the legal basis for partition?"

Answer: What would be the legal basis for independence of Kosovo?

"Legal basis" bi, kako sama rec kaze, trebalo da predstavlja nekakav zakon, a zakon vazi na opsti nacin, inace nije zakon. Ovde vidimo da se, kao "legal basis" za nezavisnost Kosova, navodi nekakva famozna "R2P doktrina" koja izgleda vazi samo za potrebe nezavisnosti Kosova, to je izgleda onaj "presedan" o kome se sve vreme govori. Cim imate presedan, zakon je suspendovan, primenuje se nesto sto ne vazi u ostalim slucajevima. Ovaj "presedan" je u suprotnosti sa Poveljom UN kao najvisim aktom medjunarodnog prava, on negira princip nepovredivosti granica medjunarodno priznatih, suverenih drzava (u ovom slucaju Srbije). Zato ova "R2P" doktrina ima nelegalan status, bez obzira ko i na koji nacin je doneo, i otvara Pandorinu kutiju, o cemu se sve vreme govori kao o ozbiljnoj opasnosti proizvedenoj stvaranjem nezavisne drzave Kosovo. Vi mozete da pricate kako ova doktrina jeste presedan ne samo u odnosu na dosadanje medjunarodno pravo, vec i u odnosu na buducnost, da ona vazi ISKLJUCIVO za izolovan, pojedinacan slucaj Kosova, ali videcemo koliko cete uspeti da kontrolisete tu obmanu, da sprecite druge manjine sirom sveta da, sledecei ISTU logiku, traze nezavisne drzave.

Ali, recimo da se prihvati ovaj "presedan", mada se time ulazi u polje potpuno laznih dilema i proizvoljne price o legalnosti. Ispada da ne moze podela Kosova, "North Kosovo above the Ibar fits neither the R2P nor the Badinter criteria". Hmmmmm. Niste objasnili zasto severno Kosovo ne potpada pod "R2P doktrinu". Ne zameram vam, morali biste da priznate da se "doktrine" izmisljaju ISKLJUCIVO zarad jednog cilja, SLABLJENJA SNAGE JEDNE DRZAVE I NARODA (srpskog/jugoslovenskog). Pravicemo presedane, ali nema presedana za OCUVANJE srpske/jugoslovenske drzave! Kad je trebalo spreciti ocuvanje Jugoslavije, a zatim odvajanje srpskog naroda od nezavisnih drzava Hrvatske i BiH, izmisljena je Badinterova doktrina. Kada treba razbiti Srbiju, izmisljena je R2P doktrina. A kada treba da se severno Kosovo odvoji od nezavisnog Kosova, onda ne moze! Moze razbijanje Jugoslavije i Srbije, ali ne moze razbijanje Hrvatske i Kosova! Vi hocete isto ono sto je izjavio Ceku. Kao bivsi oficir Hrvatske vojske bavio se "problemom Srba" u Hrvatskoj, znamo na koji nacin, pa u tom stilu porucuje pretecim tonom: "Svaki pokušaj kosovskih Srba na severu pokrajine da podele teritoriju neće uspeti, kazao je Čeku u intervjuu Rojtersu. "Srbi moraju da shvate da ovo nije 1991. Oni ne mogu da rade ono što su radili Srbi u Hrvatskoj. To jednostavno neće moći", upozorio je kosovski premijer. Kao nekada Hrvatska, sada Kosovo (njegovi funkcioneri) zeli prisilno da zadrzi Srbe u okviru nezavisne drzave, stvorene brutalnim krsenjem medjunarodnog prava, i bez ikakve garancije za te ljude u buducnosti. Vidimo sta se sve desavalo u poslednjih 7 godina na Kosovu, za vreme njegove neformalne nezavisnosti i prisustva medjunarodnih snaga, Srbi apsolutno nemaju nikakvog razloga da veruju u ponudjena obecanja. Nigde se ne spominje bilo kakav trag suvereniteta Srbije nad tim podrucjem, nikakvo prisustvo nasih drzavnih organa na Kosovu, i kako onda ocekujete da Srbi veruju tome? Pa nisu oni glupave Crvenkape koje treba da veruju zlom Vuku koji je promenio dlaku, ali cud nije, i ne moze, na zalost!

"2) Would this legal basis apply to municipalities in other parts of the territory over which Serbia claims sovereignty, i.e., Presevo Valley, Sandzak, the six Hungarian-majority municipalities in Vojvodina?"

Lazno ste zabrinuti za mogucnost da podela Kosova izazove zahteve za izdvajanjem nekih drugih teritorija iz sastava Srbije. A niste zabrinuti za odvajanje Kosova od Srbije?! E pa, ako iskreno zelite mir na ovim i drugim prostorima, ako niste samo grupa za proizvodjenje kriza, vec i za njihovo sprecavanje ili resavanje, onda treba da odbacite opciju nezavisnog Kosova, nikakvih daljih dilema i opasnosti poput ovih nece biti!

Ali, opet, cak i da dodje do nezavisnog Kosova, a zatim njegove podele, vasa dilema ne stoji. Ako ima ikakvog prava, naravno, sto je izgleda vrlo sporno u svim ovim pitanjima. Srbi su konstitutivni narod na citavoj teritoriji Republike Srbije, sto nije slucaj sa Madjarima, Muslimanima i Albancima u Srbiji, oni su nacionalne manjine. Vi se zalazete za nezavisno Kosovo, za opciju stvaranje nezavisne drzave jedne manjine, videli smo kakve probleme to sa sobom nosi. Kao konstitutivan narod, Srbi imaju VISE prava da se odvoje od takvog Kosova, nego sto imaju nacionalne manjine koje navodite i za koje sugerisete mogucnost odvajanja po istom osnovu. Naravno, ako primenite princip "daj svakoj manjini pravo na drzavu ili odvajanje", onda je sve moguce! Pitam vas samo kako mislite da podvucete granice Sandzaka, Presevske doline i 6 madjarskih opstina, za Kosovo je bilo moguce, jer je vec kao pokrajina imalo administrativne granice? I za severno Kosovo je to mnogo lakse, jer su Srbi vec skoncentrisani u odredjenom podrucju. Zato, da bismo izbegli sve opasnosti koje nose sa sobom ovi procesi, molim vas, jednostavno odustanimo od nezavisnog Kosova!

"3) Would this principle apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina?"

Nego sta, kako mislite da sprecite podelu BiH, proglasenje nezavisnosti Republike Srpske ili njeno pripajanje Srbiji, ako prihvatite nezavisno Kosovo?! I ne samo BiH, vec svih ostalih multinacionalnih drzava, u slucaju da neka manjina ili konstitutivni narod trazi odvajanje od takve drzave? Naravno, opet, sve ovo mozete pokusati da sprecite bezgranicnim proizvodjenjem presedana koji ce imati za cilj da se ISTOVREMENO ostvare potpuno neusaglasene stvari, sa pravne tacke gledista, a usaglasene pod onim vodecim principom slabljenja srpske drzave i naroda: nezavisno Kosovo DA, odvajanje severnog Kosova NE, odvajanje Republike Srpske NE! Sve ovo mozete pokusati, pitanje je samo koliko cete uspeti da kontrolisete krizu. Ne sumnjam da imate neka iskustva u tom pogledu, ali sa krizama se nikad ne zna do kraja, potpaljivanje varnica moze vrlo lako da se pretvori u pozar koji vise ne mozemo kontrolisati. Pre ili kasnije!


This is not the way...

The answer to your question of whether a lasting peace can be achieved in the Balkans is definitely not contained in Ahtisaari's proposal. If the international community really wanted to have peace in the Balkans, it would have done things much differently during the 90's.

If you manage to pass this "compromise" of a resolution through the Security Council, it will create a really delicate situation in Serbia and the surrounding countries. In Serbia you will see a rise in the Radical Party's popularity and a possible fall of a democratic state. You will also fuel other minorities in the region to start their own terrorist groups (oops, I mean freedom fighting groups) like the KLA and look to replicate what happened in Kosovo, expecting the same outcome.

My family has deep roots in Kosovo and today they live in refugee ghettos all over Serbia. The west has failed miserably to make Kosovo a safe place for non-Albanians to live and you dare hand it over to the Albanians to try? My family is not alone. They are joined by some 200,000 of their neighbors and friends who have suffered the same faith and whom the west keep ignoring. Add this to few hundred thousand of the already forgotten that were ethnically cleansed (in your opinion can Serbs be cleansed in an ethnic manner?) from Croatia and Bosnia and there you might find your answer as to why Belgrade has traffic problems.

Back to Ahtisaari's proposal... I think that it is a quick and dirty attempt to solve a really complex problem. A peaceful solution in Kosovo will be achieved when the west pressures Serbs and Albanians to really negotiate face to face. Both sides have to concede and the EU should throw in some freebies to make the deal sweeter. The current proposal looks like a book report written by a student that only read the first chapter. Fifty six pages designed by a foreigner will not result in peace (at least not in the Balkans and it looks like it is not working too well in Iraq/Afghanistan either).

To address your questions regarding the separation of Kosovo. This would have worked in 1991., if you recognized that "Tito's borders" were not adequate and decided to have an all-inclusive redrawing of the borders of SFRY. Serbs would lose big parts of Kosovo, but "get" pieces of Bosnia and Croatia and I think that people would have accepted this to avoid a war that killed too many (Serbia would be in EU by now if this took place). Albanians would have accepted it, because getting the entire Kosovo was never on the table as it is now. Today, I doubt it would work.

In this process we can be ten times wiser than we were in the 90's and drop the fake deadlines and come up with a solution that is barely acceptable for everyone. But it is acceptable. Also, before real negotiations take place, the west should work on getting the people that were KLA members out of Kosovo's politics. You'll have a hard time selling peace when the place is run by war lords.

Now a question for you. Do you find it strange that the biggest complaint that the Albanians had yesterday was the font size?


It is there to stay forever

Only one word comes to mind, Bondsteel. Well furnished and orderly.


Protecting the terrorists

JL:

Quote:
Official Belgrade has taken no account, however, of the implications of the emerging contractual element to sovereignty, as reflected in “the responsibility to protect” theme articulated by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, endorsed by the UN General Assembly in September 2005

James Lyon is, of course, fooling no one - we all know what his job is and what purpose his comments serve. But one point he raises is nonetheless worth examining as it has been more prominent recently and it is mentiond elsewhere in relation to the Kosovo problem. The so called "responsibility to protect".

Since it is obvious that Serbia will not freely give up sovereignty over it's province, this has been used as the justification for taking the province from Serbia by force by the co called "international community" (read: NATO). Clearly, there is no legal basis for imposing the secession on Serbia, as there was no legal basis for NATO aggression 8 years ago. So we need (at least) a moral one.

Hence, 8 years ago we had a "humanitarian intervention" to "stop a state committing atrocities against its own population" and now we are about to have a "humanitarian secession" to "prevent a state from committing atrocities against its own population ever again". The fact that the state is not the some one is conveniently disregarded.

The only problem with this is that there is no legal framework to support this doctrine and what has been endorsed by the UN General Assembly in September 2005 has no effect James Lyon seems to propose. And even if we are to accept that states do have legal "responsibility to protect", what is the prescribed sanction if they fail? What is the law regulating this, where are the international treaties? They do not exist, unless we count documents produced by "NGO"s, like the one James Lyon works for.

So NATO relies on force (first military and now diplomatic and financial) and its significant propaganda machinery, to which James Lyon's article also serves, to fulfill its goal. They may well succeed, "jer sila Boga ne moli", but whoever thinks this will bring stability and prosperity to Kosovo, Serbia and the West Balkans region is a full. Well, they only have to look at Middle East, don't they?


Fooling?

Reading your response on this blog it appears you are very angry and aggressive. Have your considered therapy?

Now, why is it you think I am "fooling" someone? How? Why? What am I "fooling" people about? To "fool" someone implies that one is dealing in false information. Is there anything I wrote in this blog that is factually incorrect? If so, please tell me.


Yes there is. You wrote that

Yes there is. You wrote that Official Belgrade has taken no account, however, of the implications of the emerging contractual element to sovereignty, as reflected in “the responsibility to protect” theme [...] For a situation like Kosovo, where the bonds between citizens and state have so obviously and violently been broken by the state, this doctrine overrides earlier more traditional arguments of sovereignty. But as me and others have shown above, neither the bonds were so obviously and violently been broken, nor their breakage was the reason for any "responsibility to protect" theme.


Broken Bonds

When a state attacks its own population, murders them, burns their bodies to cover up the crimes, destroys hundreds of villages, and drives 800,000 people out of the country and makes tens of thousands more internally homeless, that is considered breaking the bonds I mentioned.

In 1998 there were more than 200,000 internally displaced persons in Kosovo, having been driven out of there homes by MUP and VJ personnel. In 1999 800,000 were driven out of the country and many more internally displaced and murdered. Tens of thousands of homes and over a hundred villages were destroyed, and not by NATO bombing, but by Serbian MUP and VJ. In order to cover up the extent of the crime the Serbian state burned bodies in places such as Mackatica and Obilic and transported bodies all the way to Belgrade (Batajnica( and buried them in mass graves on MUP compounds. And then some ended up floating in rivers in refrigerator trucks. So Milosevic turned Serbia into a mini-Auschwitz and you have the nerve to accuse Albanians of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Please show me an Albanian action that comes even close and I will concede your point.

Stop pretending that the Serbs are the greatest victims.


My apologies Mr Lyon

I apologise if you, or anyone else, deem my comments inappropriate. I actually think that they are fairly restrained by standards acceptable on world’s better known blogs and forums. However, I think insulting people on the basis of their ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs (very popular one on the Blog 92!), sexual preference or physical or mental ability is never acceptable. Your suggestion that I should seek medical help is borderline, but I take it as a compliment. If you could have, instead, answered any of my points/questions you would. So…

As to

JL:

Quote:
To "fool" someone implies that one is dealing in false information. Is there anything I wrote in this blog that is factually incorrect? If so, please tell me.

the answer is very simple: YES.

But that’s what you are paid for, right? And believe me, I have no problem with that. I just find it regrettable that you wouldn’t engage in an honest, non-biased, serious debate using facts, not propaganda, to support your arguments. For example, on the subject at hand, I’d really like to be persuaded as to how the imposed secession of Kosovo is legal (your “responsibility to protect” argument has not been proven on this pages) and why it is the best solution overall (not just for Kosovo and Serbia). If successful what would be (if any) the wider implications and so on. But we are a poor country and we take what we have. Beggars can't be choosers.

(You are evidently partial (like most Blog B92 VIP Bloggers) to a bit of editing so, since I would regret my time invested here going to waste(bin), I will also avoid using the “fooling no one” expression. It is probably factually incorrect – there just might be some people you do manage to, hmm, ‘persuade with arguments’.)


I am not trying to persuade

I am merely trying to explain the logic and rationale that will be used by the outside world. I am not trying to persuade you of anything.

Concepts such as sovereignty are, after all, artificial constructs. So if we are dealing with artificial constructs, what prevents us from changing them? Sovereignty is not a God-given right, as nearly as I can tell. Keep in mind that sovereignty is every bit as artificial as R2P.

For the sake of argument, let's turn the entire construct on its head. Why don't you lay out a good case as to why Serbia should be entitled to keep Kosovo, bearing in mind that the counter-argument will be that Serbia has demonstrated between 1912 and 1999 that it was unable to respect the rights of the majority of the province's population?


Dear Mr Lyon

Very clever. Very clever indeed. Let’s put the argument on its head! Put the burden of evidence on the other side! You are very good at this. Like the contention that in Kosovo the Serbian state engaged in terror activities, not the UCK.

I think not.

Let’s have a persuasive argument about the R2P first, please. That is if you can justify how the concepts of R2R and state sovereignty can be equal in international relations. Give us the legal framework, the case law, the treaties, the examples, the precedents. The works. Not a (broken) link to a website of a disbanded organisation. You are “trying to explain the logic and rationale that will be used by the outside world”? Please go ahead. Where are the quotes, references, statements by the world leaders and policy makers? The “Because of the doctrine of R2P Serbia has to lose the sovereignty over her province of Kosovo. This clearly transpires from such and such…” Just please no NGOs’ papers or newspaper leaders.

The statement that sovereignty is artificial construct is an interesting one. Unless you claim it is artificial in a sense that any form of human creation or association is artificial. Consequently the notion of statehood is also artificial as is law, morality, religion, even love? I can agree to that. But if there wasn’t something else regulating human interaction we would still be living in a hunter-gatherer society. So we are talking here about different concept of sovereignty, aren’t we? The one defined during the 300 odd years of European history.

I accept that the nature of sovereignty has changed – the notion of economic sovereignty has become redundant (more in developing world, less so in the developed; or is it the other way around?) and organisations such as EU and NATO have shown how, on certain foreign policy issues, member states have to adhere to the common agenda (good example being the Greek participation in the NATO aggression on Serbia where, if it was left to Greece, they would never condone or participate – a chilling example where a state is forced to take part in aggressive behaviour towards its neighbour; not seen on this scale in Europe since the WWII). So yes, the state sovereignty today differs from what it was 50 or 150 years ago. But that is artificial to the effect that does not apply? Looking forward to be informed otherwise (I hope you don’t object to the term ‘inform’.)


You didn't answer

Okay, you avoided answering my question. Let's try one more time: Why should Serbia keep Kosovo?

Sovereignty is indeed an artificial construct. If it isn't, then Serbia should return Kosovo to Turkey. Or Turkey should return it to Nemanja Serbia. Or Nemanja Serbia Should return it to Byzantium. Or Byzantium should return it to Bulgaria. Or Bulgaria should return it to Byzantium...... Get the point?

The contention that Serbia engaged in state terror? Give me a break. If one reviews the available evidence and counts the number of civilian homes and structures destroyed, as well as the number of civilians killed, it becomes apparent that during the 1990s the single most destructive and largest terrorist organisation in the Balkans was MUP Serbia. Numbers speak very loudly. MUP Serbia was active in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo and in Sandzak and Vojvodina...aiding, abetting and participating in crimes against humanity.

And why do you keep using the Milosevic-generated phrase of "NATO Aggression"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to instead used the phrase "NATO intervention to stop Serbia's fourth war since 1991, and to stop massive murder, ethnic cleansing and destruction of a large part of its own civilian population by the government"?

You note that the scale of aggression against Serbia was "not seen on this scale in Europe since the WWII" That is technically incorrect. It was seen in Bosnia and Croatia in 1991/92 when Serbian forces started two very nasty and deadly wars.

I'm glad you brought up our dear friends the Greeks. Are your referring to the same Greeks who had paramilitaries participating in the Srebrenica massacre? The same Greeks who lauded Ratko Mladic as a hero? Yup, it must be those Greeks.


Explaining the logic and

Explaining the logic and rationale that will be used by the outside world is very nice and helpful, and I thank you for it. However, at the same time you are trying to convince us that that logic and rationale is right, while it is in fact wrong. That is not nice at all.


da li je gotovo?

Mnogo toga sto ste napisali je netacno, nepotpuno, nekoretno, zlonamerno. Ima li smisla vama to objasnjavati. Ne mislim da ste glup covek.
Taman se ohladih od jucerasnje diskusije... kad navratih na vas blog i ponovo poce da mi kuva u stomaku...
Povod za moju jucerasnju nervozu je bilo nanovo saznje koliko smo svi mi zajedno uljucujuci i vasu Jutu daleko od boljeg drustva u kome ce biti nekog reda i u kome ce se pravdi teziti. Dzaba price o ljubavi, civilizaciji zastiti zivotinja... Sve ce to u nekom sledecem naletu ludila odneti vetar.
Citam ove vase postove i ne verujem... koliko samzadovoljno, samozaljubljeno, samouvereno, bez zadrske ponovo i ponovo iznosite stalno ponavljane teze o legitimnosti, cinjenicama, legalnosti, pravnoj zasnovanosti, uzrocima i posledicama po redolsedu koji vam odgovara. Posebno me fascinira vase pozivanje na pravo. Necu ni objasnjavati. Toliko je ocigledno da je besmisleno.
Ma sve je u redu. Dobice Kosovo drzavu. Dosta nesrecnih ljudi ce se ponovo iseliti. Pridruzice se ostalima koji su dosli iz hrvatske ili bosne. Ko zna mozda ce smoci snage da odu na neko bolje mesto pa ce njihova deca ziveti mnogo bolje nego oni sami. Projekat koji ocigledno podrzavate ce biti realizovan. Svaka cast. Poen za vas...
Samo nesto me zanima... hocete li biti ljubazni, kada eto i kosovski albanci budu oslobodjeni celicnog zagrljaja srba i dalje ostati ovde i pisati na ovom blogu? Mislim hocete li jos nekoga da oslobadjate ili cete se posle toliko godina provedenih van svoje domovine vratiti kuci? Mislim 10 godina ste ovde, medju srbima, hrvatima, albancima i svima nama ostalima kojima je potreban spas? Hocete li nas i dalje spasavati? Toliki ljudi su napustili Balkan. Vecina od onih koji su mogli. Neki tuguju, ko zna mozda se i vrate jednog dana... ali vi... vi ste za razliku od svih njih tu (eto i ja sam pobegao) dosli... i imam utisak, ne znam zasto, da vam prija. Mislim tu na tom uzasnom balkanu?
U losim vremenima ima dve vrste ljudi. Vi ste izgleda od onih koji se dobro snalaze u mutnom. Ne nije to uvreda. Ma svaka vama cast. I za to treba biti dasa... samo ne moze to svako...treba imati stomak...Razlog zbog koga pomislih da bi bilo lepo da vam nesto napisem je ono kuvanje u stomaku koje pomenuh malopre. (uzgred je li vama kuva u stomaku? mislim ikada?)
Kao sto rekoh dzaba borba za zastitu zivotinja dzaba briga o globalnom zagrevanju. Na kraju ce sve biti isto. A razlog za to nisam ja gospodine lajon ni svi ovi ljudi koji manje ili vise prihvataju vase argumente. Razlog ste vi gospodine Lajon. I ljudi kao vi, koji se bez srca igraju sa sudbinama ljudi. Svih ljudi. Kao crna udovica, kao gospodar rata, kao onaj tip sa kosom. Izvinite na poredjenju. Stvarno mi nije namera da vas uvredim... pre sam tuzan.
Eto, toliko od mene. Jos bih samo hteo da vas pitam da li je vasa misija na balkanu gotova? Da li smo konacno spaseni? Da li je gotovo? Da li nema vise? Da li idete kuci?


Am I going home?

It depends on how Serbia reacts to Kosovo.....

If Belgrade makes the situation worse, and tries to drag in Bosnia and tries to annex, then I will probably have more work here.... :-(

Why is it that you will not realise that the events unfolding today are not the result of some plot against Serbia. Most of the outside world really, really wants to like Serbia. Rather, the problems are the results of the 1990s and unresolved issues stemming from Serbia's unacknowledged aggressive behaviour. Today's Serbia is unfortunately having to pay bills that were created in the 1990s.

And frankly, I would prefer to write about other things on this blog. Such as a weekly restaurant review.


It is very hard to see

It is very hard to see events as anything other than the result of some plot against Serbia.

As one example, you said that NATO bombed Serbia because Serbian security forces ethnically cleansed 200,000 Kosovo Albanians, while destroying their homes and so on (that isn't exactly true but let's even assume that it is). A few years prior to that however, Croatian security forces ethnically cleansed more than 200,000 Serbs, while destroying their homes and so on, but NATO didn't bomb Croatia. You did say that the difference is that Croatian actions were caused by Serbian violence, but Serbian actions were also caused by Albanian violence, and you were unable to show otherwise. I don't see any difference in these two cases except for the ethnicity of victims and perpetrators, yet in both of them NATO sided against Serbs.


I get goosepumps

when I read constructions such as "we all know..." - this is by far the most ridiculous and counterproductive intro for an 'attempt' of an argumentative analysis. Second but not far from that is the notion of what is "obvious" - so well known and practiced by Ivan Markovic, Goran Matic, and lately the prominent analysts of Serbian government. To me, James Lyon makes more sense than Kostunica in many aspects and for many years - he made more sense in 1999, and he still does. As long as this is the case, attempts (such as yours) to discredit his work will remain unsuccessful and, of course, ridiculous.


Should this be a compliment

Should this be a compliment for James or an insult for Voja? :)


mr. Lyon is only trying to

mr. Lyon is only trying to be objective and constructive: also- he is trying to help us.
I think he succeeds in first two things; but if he can help? i don`t think so.
sometimes (maybe 15 years ago) i had a feeling that it is as it is in Serbia- and forever. From this perspective today, I wish i was wrong, but ....


Kume

The notion of what is "obvious" as in:

"For a situation like Kosovo, where the bonds between citizens and state have so obviously and violently been broken by the state"?

I agree. Sends the shivers down the spine.

Now, I have no Idea what getting goosepumps feels like, but it certainly sounds chilling and just thinking about it is enough to give me goose bumps.

By the way, I enjoyed your piece on R2P, only I don’t understand why have you directed it to Kostunica (I didn’t know he posts here) and not to James Lyon who actually proposed it as a basis and justification for imposed secession of Kosovo? Since you take upon yourself to defend his writings and integrity, I’m sure he would oblige you.

As for me “attempting to discredit his work” I’m afraid you give me too much credit. I do not try nor I can. But, unless he addresses his “Serbian genocide” claims soon, he would have done a good job to that effect himself.

And just one more thing:

Kume, izgore ti kesa!

(Sorry, couldn't resist it. Hope you don't mind.)


It would serve the purpose

if the opponents of James Lyon, once he appeals to retroactive implementation of R2P principles in international law to the case of Kosovo, could challenge his words with some arguments - plenty can be found if carefully approached here. However, I will not engage in justifying our recent history by pointing out misachievements and double-standards of the only remaining superpower, for I am not convinced that this would help us solve *our own* problems (of which there are plenty). One of those problems is how we interact with the international scene, individual and distinguished representatives of foreign countries and institutions. If we haven't learnt anything from the past 20 years, if nothing has opened our eyes and helped us understand ourselves and others more, then what is the point of struggling? Preserving what? Defending whose ideals? Aiming for what kind of future?

It doesn't suprise me that I am labeled 'drveni advokat' to Mr. Lyon - if I lived in Serbia, knowing myself and my integrity & drive to speak up, I would be called a traitor and a shame of 'our people'. This will change. No doubt, it will change, and if the price for that change is to lose sovereignty and disintegrate, split and divide the country, in order to allow new generations to be prepared for *their* key moment in some new historical cycle, then so be it. I have no problem with Serbia disappearing for a while.

Now, who do I 'work for'?


What is your purpose

Kum Djole:

Quote:
if I lived in Serbia, knowing myself and my integrity & drive to speak up, I would be called a traitor and a shame of 'our people'

We have very high opinion of ourselves, don’t we? The state enemy No 1 no less?

Kum Djole:

Quote:
if the price for that change is to lose sovereignty and disintegrate, split and divide the country, in order to allow new generations to be prepared for *their* key moment in some new historical cycle, then so be it. I have no problem with Serbia disappearing for a while.

Well this is the problem with people who think they are morally superior to others; they immediately think they have the right to impose their will on the majority that disagrees with them. Even by force if needed. You have no problem with Serbia disappearing for a while, do you? I must say, rarely honest statement.

But let me ask you this: do you think that that process can/is going to be painless? Victimless? No life taken, no property lost, no families broken? Have you literally been born yesterday? Who gives you the right to dismiss all that as irrelevant? How can you now expect be taken seriously regarding any comments you make on the future of the country whose demise you covet? Do you think you still have any credibility after what you’ve said?

Yet, for all your righteousness and integrity, you are missing the point of the subject you yourself started. It is JL, who invoked the R2P as the reason for secession of Kosovo, who has to justify his argument. Burden of proof is on him. Not the other way around. But I can see how in your mind, where the Serbs are guilty by default, this upside down logic can work. And you represent the “new generation that will bring about the change”? Well I pray to God I’m not around when it happens.

PS

Who do you work for? Why do you think anyone cares?


typo

When I wrote

Quote:
So NATO relies on force (first military and now diplomatic and financial) and its significant propaganda machinery, to which James Lyon's article also serves, to fulfill its goal. They may well succeed, "jer sila Boga ne moli", but whoever thinks this will bring stability and prosperity to Kosovo, Serbia and the West Balkans region is a full. Well, they only have to look at Middle East, don't they?

I obviously meant "is a fool" not "a full", although they might also be full of something as well :-)


You are the devil's advocate

Mr Lyon, You seem to be an intelligent person, but for the wrong cause. Since your arrival here, in Serbia, you served as Albanians' advocate. That's why no one believes you, your intentions are not good, you are playing dirty game. OK, it is your right to hate serbness, but don't try to tell us that you are objective. Nobody can trust you.
If you back the minority's (Albanians are minority in Serbia and were minority in former Yugoslavia) demand for independence, then minorities in other countries should have the same right / say Serbs in Bosnio, Abhazians in Georgia, those people in Moldavia who don't wish to stay there anylonger etc. etc.
Don't forget, never forget, Kosovo is Serbia's ancient heartland.


Dear Mr. Petrovic,

I realise that Kosovo is an emotional issue for Serbs. But please stop insisting that is "Serbia's ancient heartland". According to all reliable history books, Serbia's medieval (not ancient) heartland is Raska (Rascia), that is the area now known as Sandzak. Serbia's oldest churches and monasteries are there, and that is the heart and birthplace of the medieval Serbian kingdom. Not Kosovo.

As nearly as I can tell, Kosovo was part of a Serbian state in the medieval period for approximately 200 years (slightly more or less depending on which part of Kosovo we are referring to).

Now, if we wish to discuss the role the Kosovo myth and cycle of epic poems plays in Serbian culture, national identity and the Serbian Orthodox Church, that is another matter entirely. On this I will agree that Kosovo is an important part of many Serbs' image of who and what they are, and in this context I understand the tremendous dilemma. And I sympathise.

But please don't use historical distortion to make matters worse.


have your read Rebecca West?

Stop telling us this bla bla about emotional thinking.
I wonder whether you have ever heard for a "travel" book of Rebecca West, written in 1939 or so, about her tour to the former Yugoslavia. Have you ever thought about her feelings towards Serbs throughout that book? She's met others too, but she knew to recognize the value of the Serbness. I wish you were Rebecca West! Maybe in some future life...


Rebecca West

Yes, I've read Rebecca West. Just think of all the trees that have died so her book could be printed. It is a wonderful travelogue. And it is considered a classic in the travelogue genre. It is, however, not considered either good history or political science. She had a wonderful time. I too have had a wonderful time in the Balkans, meeting wonderful people of all national groups. But just because someone is wonderful doesn't mean I am going to put up with nationalist ideas that denigrate other ethnic groups and cover up mass crimes against humanity.

And if you only knew how much time I have spent defending Serbs and trying to explain to outsiders that not all Serbs are genocidal maniacs. But Serbian attitudes of victim-hood do not help me make my case very efficiently.


something to consider

[qoute]And if you only knew how much time I have spent defending Serbs and trying to explain to outsiders that not all Serbs are genocidal maniacs. But Serbian attitudes of victim-hood do not help me make my case very efficiently.

You have to consider that an average citizen here is totaly missinformed and without any idea what has happened here actualy during past 15-20 years. What do you think about our medias in general? I'm realy chalenged about this, I can't believe that politicians outside are unaware of that problem.


anyway...

...who knows who and what stirred up Rebecca West's emotions about the Serbs....that's not really a valid argument...I think Mr. Lyon is totally MISUNDERSTOOD in thie blog. btw, what is the value of Serbness...? I'd really like to know.


What is the value of being

What is the value of being yourself? If you are something, why not being that to the greatest extent possible?

What is the value of value? Why is that important?


Wrong

What you conveniently overlook is that before and after those 200 years, Kosovo was ruled by various empires but had overwhelmingly Serbian population. Albanians became majority on Kosovo only recently, through ethnically cleansing Serbs.

I might agree that Kosovo is not the heartland of Serbia. But with Prizren as one of Serbia's capitals and Peć as the seat of Peć patriarchy - it is a heartland of Serbia.


Kosovo je Bugarska..................

The other day I saw a piece of graffiti on the corner of Palmoticeva and Svetogorska. Someone had spray-painted in Cyrillic the slogan "Kosovo je Bugarska".

If we look at Balkan history, we find that Kosovo was held by the Byzantine Empire until the mid ninth century. Then it was held by Bulgarian Khans/Tsars from the 850s until the early eleventh century, during which time it was under the Bulgarian dioceses of the Orthodox Church. Then it fell under Byzantine rule until the end of the twelfth century. So does that mean that until the Serbian kingdom began moving into Kosovo in the late twelfth century, the Slavs in Kosovo were theoretically "Bulgarians"?

Would this explain the Nemanja rulers felt it necessary to build so many churches depicting their ruling dynasty on its walls? Was this in an effort to "Serbianise" and politically indoctrinate the heretofore "Bulgarian" Slav population.

Just kidding. But it makes one think, doesn't it?


Mr. Lyon,

Don't kidd, please! Someone may have a heart attack.


emergency harm prevention

In case aaaaaanyone out there is not fluent in English -
just kidding = just joking !!

(lest someone should suffer from heart attack on the bloody spot!)

Jesus, James!


Yes, it does mean that they

Yes, it does mean that they were theoretically "Bulgarians". But they were not Bulgarians practically.


Practically?

By your logic this means that the Slavs in Kosovo during the Nemanja dynasty must also have been "theoretically" Serbs. But they were not Serbs practically.

Why is Balkan history not taught in the schools in the Balkans? Keep in mind there is no such thing as Serbian history. Or Croatian history. Or Bosnian history. Or Bulgarian or Greek history. There exists only Balkan history. The others are modern political constructs that do not fit historical reality. It is possible to have a history of the Serbian or Croatian or Bosnian or Greek or Bulgarian states. Or a history of the Serbian or Croatian or Bosnian or Bulgarian or Greek peoples. But Serbian/ Croatian/ Bosnian/ Greek/ Bulgarian history is simply political propaganda.


Why is Balkan history not taught in the schools in the Balkans?

Exactly. A very good question. And it still is not taught anywhere in the Balkan schools, but, as you say the political constructs that do not fit historical reality. But the historical reality is not just some 'objective reality' out there waiting to be uncovered - it always is a construct (either by those writing about contemporary events or those who read and interpret them a few or many hundred years later), it is always a certain reading of the past. And this applies to all histories, not only those of the Balkans.


Slavs in Kosovo during

Slavs in Kosovo during Nemanjic dynasty were Serbs both theoretically (living in Serbia) and practically (being of Serbian ethnicity).


Definitions

Your modern-day definition of Serbs and Serbia would not apply to many "Serbs" and "Serbia" during the medieval period. Many of those who today define themselves as Serbs took this identity upon themselves during the 19th century. Defining all Slavs living in Kosovo during the medieval period as "Serbs" according to today's definition might prove to be problematic from a scholarly perspective.

After all, how can a member of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church who speaks an as-yet undefined South Slavic language, who lives in the Bulgarian Khanate/Empire, be considered a Serb? By what criteria should we define "Serbdom" back then? Was it allegiance to a particular political leader who was Serbia? Was it membership in a the Serbian Orthodox Church? Was it a South Slavic language, the antecedent to today's Serbo-Croatian?


the very problem is that

the very problem is that non-existing history of Serbs was builtd and kept alive by orthodox church, and it was in its interest to build a pseudohistory, that was not realy taught at schools and therefor was a plenty room for mis-interpretation ?.
do i see this wright ?


defining

all mayan living in americas during the medievel period according to todays definition might prove to be problematic
from a scholarly perspective


aha

there is no amrc.indian history, there is no amrc.african history.only american history. there is no history at all. this moment is past and future is now.
propa-ganda i don't like that word.


Mr Lyons you keep losing it

Or as they say: nije sija nego vrat. Or is the scotch?

Perhaps all this is necessary in the name of "uncontained hyper-use of military force in international relations". Do you yourself know in whose name and what you are advocating?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
READ YOUR FOR YOURSELF:
Submitted by James Lyon on 4 February, 2007 - 10:21.
Let's try one more time: Why should Serbia keep Kosovo?
Sovereignty is indeed an artificial construct. If it isn't, then Serbia should return Kosovo to Turkey. Or Turkey should return it to Nemanja Serbia. Or Nemanja Serbia Should return it to Byzantium. Or Byzantium should return it to Bulgaria. Or Bulgaria should return it to Byzantium...... Get the point?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Submitted by James Lyon on 4 February, 2007 - 00:59.
Why is Balkan history not taught in the schools in the Balkans? Keep in mind there is no such thing as Serbian history. Or Croatian history. Or Bosnian history. Or Bulgarian or Greek history. There exists only Balkan history. The others are modern political constructs that do not fit historical reality. It is possible to have a history of the Serbian or Croatian or Bosnian or Greek or Bulgarian states. Or a history of the Serbian or Croatian or Bosnian or Bulgarian or Greek peoples. But Serbian/ Croatian/ Bosnian/ Greek/ Bulgarian history is simply political propaganda.


ehem, you say serbian history is propaganda?

please clarify, do you think the history _subject_ in schools is propaganda, or the entire history of Serbs as an entity on its own is propaganda?

I understand your point about the subjectivity of our view, and this is right, in a way if we speak about modern history. But we learn a lot of international history and we get to know that there were far worse attrocities done, and that this is simply in the nature of humans. It is just that many got away with their share of dark deeds. Because we didn't, throught the martyrdom which we are undertaking, we shall become morally (two ls?) superior to everybody else. A moral superhuman. Hah!

oh, my little addition to this overdebated topic:
All of you would dismiss Bush policy in Iraq as a nonsense (not to use hard words), but still seem to think that the same policy will succeed in preserving the impossible situation on Kosovo. Because, lets be realistic, we would need a huge army presence there to ensure sovereignity. I don't understand what do you people want? Our demise? More tragedy on that cursed land? Hey, battle of Kosovo was beginning of the end of our empire!? What is there to feel loss about? We will lose the biggest criminal hive in the whole Europe. That's a good loss.


Independence for Kurds

One question. Why doesn't the US, NATO, EU, IC fight so passionetly for the creation of a Kurdish state in southern Turkey and Northern Iran? The Kurds have certainly suffered much more repression at the hands of Turkey, than the Albanians have at the hands of Serbs.

You can't possibly tell me that the case is different to the one of Kosovo Albanians.

Aside from Turkey being a NATO member and Iran being a bigger chunk than can be swallowed at the moment.

We are just talking realpolitik here, don't sell that nonsense about 'humanitarian concerns'. When have the US ever cared about these, unless they were a good excuse for pursuing interests (African oil, diamonds and uranium, Iraq's oil, controlling maritime routes and passages in cenral America and Carribean....)


simple

Don’t set aside what you have, and you’ll have your answer :-)


Don't be so cynical

Believe it or not, there are instances where humanitarian concerns do take a role in decision-making. But also bear in mind that Kosovo is much closer to Europe than Kurdistan. This means that war in the Balkans has an immediate impact on Europe's economy, refugee flows inside Europe, criminality, etc. I am sure you will find that in the decision-making process both realpolitik and humanitarian concerns played a significant role.


Ha, ha! Now, your are going

Ha, ha!
Now, your are going to tell me that there are problems with our identity in the Middle Ages. The Serbs were clearly identified as a nation by Byzantinian sources when they came to the peninsula, so arguing your point about independent Kosovo by bringing into question Serbian "medieval" national identity is the wrong path.
I do however acknowledge that there is a certain possibility that Albanians have their origins in the Ilyric tribes who settled the area before the Slavs, but this doesn't give any more weight to their claim in present times.

I am primarily interested in rational and ethical justification of Kosovo independence. And in ethical compartment there is a bit of a problem with death trucks in the beautiful Danube.


when you say nation....

keep in mind that the term nation came into existence only during the last part of the 18th century. I'm sure that Byzantyne rulers had no idea about nationhood. They knew there was a group of people called the Serbs, or the Servs, but they had no knowledge of what a nation is (was). The justification, or explanation, of Kosovo's likely independence is self-determination of a group of people with a common language, ethnic background, and some other factors. Also, them being the demographic majority in KiM and KiM being in, at least still formally, a democratic country, this being Serbia, Kosovo Albanians have a say in their national self-determination. Now, as far as international law goes and the right to sovereignty, Kosovo's succession would be a violation. However, keep in mind that political sovereignty is declining in states worldwide as countries open up their borders to globalization and other free market elements. It's unfortunate that Serb politicians continue to call upon Serbia's right to sovereignty, when, with time, this argument is less and less viable. If Kosovar Albanians were given substantial mechanisms for economic development and political representation, we would not be talking about an quasi-independent Kosovo. Anyway, what's done is done.


Mackinder and pivot of history

I'd rather say that Mackinder's Geographic Pivot of History and Heartland vs Midland theory hold more water here, than humanitarian concerns.

The segmentation of territories in Eastern, SE Europe and Middle East into small economically and/or militarily dependent states to create a buffer zone between the Russian Heartland and Western Midland and prevent the former from controlling the 'World Island' (and in the long run become the world empire), that ought to retain a global balance of power and keep alive the democratic ideal, fits into Mackinder's theory quite nicely.

I'd sooner subscribe to that than to liberal jibberish about humanitarian concerns. A country that hasn't stopped waging wars for the last hundred years and was concieved on the corpses of 40 million native Americans, cannot have humanitarian concerns, only geostrategic interests and concerns over the balance of power in its domain, which is now the entire world.

But we all know from history how that always ends....

Now, if it is true that the various new oligarchs in Serbia's economy are just a front end for Russian capital streamlined through the remnants of the Milosevic family and a few other ppl in the shadows, while on the other side we also have US presense in Kosovo and Western capital in Serbia (banks, natural resources...), it seems as if the hornlocking of the powers that be is far from over on Serbian territory, albeit in another less violent form hopefully.

The opposition of some Eastern European states to Kosovo independence is also interesting in that respect.


može li par pitanja James,

al' da mi na srpskom odgovoriš, jer slabo divanim engleski?!

-kako to da, iako slabo razumem tvoj jezik, mogu sa sigurnošću da tvrdim da si ti neprijateljski nastrojen prema srpskom narodu i srpskim interesima?
-iako pišeš na engleskom, ja osećam kako u tebi ključa mržnja prema mom narodu... čime smo ti se toliko zamerili da nas toliko mrziš?... znam da si plaćen i to dobro da budeš protiv Srba i srpskih interesa! to razumem i to mi je O.K., to je legitimno... ali ne razumem zašto toliko negativnih emocija unosiš u svoj posao? otkud tolika mržnja? to ne razumem pa ako možeš da mi pojasniš?
-da li možda znaš koliko su Hrvati, Bosanci i Albanci platili za usluge PR agenciji Ruder Fin (mislim da se tako zove) iz Vašingtona da radi za njihove interese, a protiv srpskih? i da li si i ti na njihovom platnom spisku? ili samo volontiraš za njih? nemoj samo da kažeš kako nisi čuo za njih!
-zanima me čime si ti zaslužio da ti B92 blog odobri da pišeš kao VIP član na ovom blogu? siguran sam da imaš zasluga, ali bih voleo da ih saznam!!!
-i još me zanima da li su tvoji poslodavci imali kao opciju neku drugu ličnost da pošalju na ovaj Balkan? nekog lepšeg i onako da je dičan i častan tip? ili su tebe poslali po principu Kanjoša Macedonovića:"bolji i ljepši, dopadoše boljima i ljepšima, a vi kak'i ste jedva vam dopade i James Lyon!

Baš me zanima James da li ćeš da mi odgovoriš, il' ćeš da se praviš da ne razumeš, il' ćeš da me obrišeš ili možda da me banuješ?


Ја напротив

Ја напротив нисам приметио неку мржњу према српском народу код Џејмса. Напротив, човек веома професионално обавља свој посао, а можда чак и сам верује у то што прича, ко ће га знати.


Quote:kako to da, iako slabo

Quote:
kako to da, iako slabo razumem tvoj jezik, mogu sa sigurnošću da tvrdim da si ti neprijateljski nastrojen prema srpskom narodu i srpskim interesima?
-iako pišeš na engleskom, ja osećam kako u tebi ključa mržnja prema mom narodu

Dorćolac, zaštiti ovo da ti ne ukradu za scenario. Bilo bi to bolje od Balkanskog špijuna.


The more I watch that movie,

The more I watch that movie, the more I ask myself if Ilija was in fact rational.

He was tortured and imprisoned by the regime for no good reason. A figure of authority tells him that his tenant might be a spy. If that turns out to be true, he might get imprisoned again, especially given his past. Trying to discover if his tenant is a spy and then turning him to authorities seems to be a reasonable option. (Of course, later he does venture too far.)

Now, what if mr. Lyon here is in fact baiting Serbian nationalists in order to find and plug holes in ICG's propaganda? Here he has a supply of young, educated and intelligent people, well versed in recognising propaganda (this is B92 after all). For example, when he says that Serbia would ethnically cleansed all Albanians from Kosovo even if NATO didn't bomb Serbia, I countered that there isn't the slightest evidence to support it, to which he apparently has no reply. Mr. Lyon, you should note that, if some documents proving your divination magically surface, no one will believe in them because of this post.

Remember, the fact that you are paranoid does not mean that they aren’t out to get you.


Dorcolac...

lobiranje je sasvim normalno u USA iako mnogi na Balkanu misle da je ono nefer i neopravdano. U USA svuda gde postoji sansa, neko i profitira pa je to tako i na ovom polju - i takodje potpuno legitimno. Nije to nista lose, vec je, da skratim pricu- jednostavno tako. I Srbija je trebala placati u slicne svrhe ali je sada za to kasno.
U postu gospodina Lyon nema nista antisrpsko. Sumnjam da ce vas banovati, mozda samo ignorisati jer objasniti vama da niste u pravu trazilo bi tomove knjiga, dokaza i nadasve puno vremena.


Ja sam mislio...

...da je na Dorćolu nemoguće produkovati ovakav tekst.
No,očito vrlo neutemeljeno. Pa na Dorćolu su SANU, Patrijašija, Politika. Tri od četiri stuba "memorandumske" pameti.


Al zamalo. Vidim da vam

Al zamalo. Vidim da vam geografija Beograda nije jaca strana, ali ne mogu da vam zamerim, ipak ste vi iz neke druge price.
Ipak za razliku od vas, ja znam sta je sigurno na Dorcolu, npr. Simina 41 :D.


mene zanima...

..zasto neki ljudi koji posecuju B92 vesti i blog misle da sve sto je napisano na ovim stranicama mora da bude "pro-srpsko"..sta vec to znacilo. da li je nesto "pro" ili "anti" srpsko zavisi od samog citaoca i jedino od toga. takva politika, Slobina i radikalska, nas samo unazadjuje (ako je to uposte vise moguce) i pravi nas (vas) jos vise slepim. istina boli, a nju neki Srbi tesko prihvataju.


My contribution to this

My contribution to this discussion (sorry for the mistakes in translation)
MT-dorćolac 51. said:
“But could you give an answer in Serbian, cause my English is poor?!

- How is that, although I barely understand your language, with certainty I can claim that you are hostile towards Serbian people and Serbian interests?
- Although you write in English, I can feel hate boils inside of you towards my people… what did we do to you that you hate us that much?... I know that you are being paid and pretty fair, to be against the Serbs and Serbian interests! That I can understand and is O.K. by me, it is legitimate… but what I do not understand is: why do you bring in so much bad energy in your work? Where does all this hate come from? That is what I don’t understand, so if you can explain?
- do you maybe know how much Croatians, Bosnians (Muslims) and Albanians paid to PR agency Ruder Fin (I think that the name) from Washington, to work for their interests, and against Serbians? In addition, are you on their pay list? Or, are you just doing it voluntarily? Just don’t say you haven’t heard of them!
- I want to know what you did to earn to write on this blog as a VIP member, that B92 gave you. I am sure that you have credits, but I would like to know of them!!!
- And I would like to know: did your employers have alternative to send some other person, rather than you, to this Balkan? Someone nicer and more prideful and honorable person? Or did they send you by the principle of Kanjoš Macedonović: "better and nicer to better and nicer, and the way you are, you hardly deserve even James Lyon!""
End of translation
Translating this saying, i felt like – you can’t mix grandmothers and frogs :)))


??

Mozes slobodno da kazes sta god zelis. Ali cu Vas zamoliti da izbegavate:
1) vulgarnosti/psovke/pornografiju
2) licne napade
3) verske/nacionalne napade

Sve ostalo moze.

And how much have Serbs and the Serbian government paid for PR/Lobbying groups in Washington? The answer might surprise you, because its a lot more than the government has stated thus far.


enlighten us pls....

Judging by our CNN campaign for promoting tourism, money can't buy everything. If our lobbyists are as good as these promoters, then we're better of without them :)


wish I'd seen this post earlier...

because now it's too late for me jump in. Nonetheless, why are there posts in Serbian? Isn't this blog supposed to be in English? Please, don't call me less patriotic for asking;)


Дорћол

Не знам одакле си ти, Драго, али ја јесам "рођени Београђанин" па знам да се ниједна од три институције које си ти са онаким презиром споменуо не налази на Дорћолу.


Maybe not in Djortjol...but

Maybe not in Djortjol...but in Great Djortjol. ;->


just a simple question :

If the Serbs are the one that did the ethnic cleansing and genocide for so long time, the result is completely absurd : there are far more Albanians then Serbs in Kosovo now. Can you explain that ?

We sure did a lousy job...


¿Qué? do you know what you

¿Qué?
do you know what you just said?


corect

2 milioooooons albs. and no srbs? where do they all come from?


Tough questions, toughter answers.......

Why are there almost no Germans in Vojvodina and Poland and Czech Republic today? The answer to that question and your question are similar.


no mistery at all

the stories like: "Tito let them Albanians across the border in order to f... Serbs and Hodza" are just a serbocentric communist propaganda.
Albanians have been living in Kosovo just as long as Serbs did, and this will also going to be possible in the future.


"Albanians have been living

"Albanians have been living in Kosovo just as long as Serbs did, and this will also going to be possible in the future", dissimilarly to Serbs, whose future life in Kosovo is almost impossible to imagine.
Regarding the emphasized word, intentionally or not you used the correct tense.


Dear Mr. James, guess you've

Dear Mr. James, I guess you've already collected a huge amount of cherries :).
Once again Serbia!=Nazi Germany no matter how hard you are trying to persuade us. Simply, facts are not on your side.

And just as you like to pose counter questions without answering on them simple one for you. Why are there almost no Indians in USA? The answer to that question and your answer (question) are similar.
For other readers just a quote from Wikipedia (not for you coz I know you know it by heart)

"Spin
In public relations, spin is a sometimes pejorative term signifying a heavily biased portrayal in one's own favor of an event or situation. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics. Politicians are often accused of spin by commentators and political opponents, when they produce a counter argument or position.

The techniques of "spin" include:

1) Selectively presenting facts and quotes that support one's position (cherry picking)
2) Non-denial denial
3) Phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths
4) Euphemisms to disguise or promote one's agenda
5) Ambiguity
6) Skirting
7) Rejecting the validity of hypotheticals
8) Appealing to internal policies
"

From your side so far we've seen strongly points 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and partially 2 and 4. Only 8 is missing.


white boy ;)

I applaud you for your wisdom. All has been said. Over and out.


answer

no freedom.......


tough answer....................

no freedom.......no peace ..............


what is funny

to me how all americans love in their arguments to compare
orange to pateto and poteto to tomato.ha
and no, me not pro serb,me for peace, eqval rights and justice


odlican tekst

lw


Hau yes nou

Ko Mara u kriv kosmos. Vas ionako prevesla svaki Novi kovsmonaut sto prodje dzadom.

Policaj minister. Bre!


Dear Mr Lyon,

could you please give us your view on the historical facts about the Balkan region in the period from the WWII until 1990 that are presented in the following article.

Serbia's Memories
By Michael Neumann

What the Serbs remember is that (i) they were conquered by the Ottoman Turks and forced into virtual slavery for hundreds of years; (ii) Muslims were spared this fate, and constituted the bulk of the landowners; (iii) some of these Muslims were in fact Serbs, and converted in order to escape the penalties of retaining their Orthodox religion. Unsurprisingly this resulted in intense ethnic and religious hostility. There were frequent Serb revolts and, after the Ottomans were expelled, much ethnic violence. This violence, which involved shifting alliances among the Croatians as well as the Muslims and Serbs, was ugly, but far from genocidal in the narrow sense of the word: there were expulsions, but no one set out to exterminate a whole people. (Here and throughout it is to be understood that references to the misdeeds of peoples are used in the usual way, denoting a tendency, but nothing like unanimity. They don't mean that thousands of Croats, Muslims, Serbs, or, for that matter, Germans, weren't pure as driven snow.)
When the Nazis invaded, and Yugoslavia was destroyed, a 'holocaust' ensued. It is beyond dispute that (i) the wartime atrocities were instigated by both the Croats and the Muslims, not the Serbs; (ii) shortly afterwards, they were organized by the Croats with the widespread and enthusiastic participation of the Muslims, both Bosnian and Albanian; (iii) the scale and viciousness of these atrocities were a whole order of magnitude beyond anything the region had known in its vicious, atrocious history. Confirmation of these statements can be found in (a) almost any book on the region written before 1990 or so; (b) almost none after. If other words, all those who have written on the 'tragedy of Bosnia' have practiced an outrageous distortion of the history which is, quite precisely, what is called 'holocaust denial' when it relates to the Jews.
Though the Croatians were certainly the main culprits, it is worth specifying that both the Nazi General Staff and the Italian fascist civil authorities found Muslim activities too vicious! This was the case, not only in Bosnia, but also in Kosovo. In Tim Judah 's words: "Carlo Umilta, an Italian civil commissioner, wrote of what he saw: 'The Albanians are out to exterminate the Slavs.' In one region he found villages where 'not a single house has a roof: everything has been burned. There were headless bodies of men and women strewn on the ground.'"
Historians of the region sometimes dismiss all this by saying that 'there were atrocities on both sides' - does it matter who started it, given the viciousness of the Serb reaction? This is a distortion. It is quite true that Serbian chetniks tortured and killed Moslems with surpassing cruelty. It is misleading to say that 'the Serbs' did so. The largely Serb communist forces not only engaged in no massacres, but, from late 1941 on, were fighting the chetniks as well as the Nazis and Croatian fascists. In other words, a largely Serbian force fought the Serbs who massacred Moslems, but no largely Moslem force fought the Moslems who massacred Serbs, and no largely Croatian force fought the Croatians who massacred Serbs. In this clear and concrete sense, wartime massacres were committed by Serbs but not 'the Serbs'. Nothing similar can be said of 'the Croatians' or 'the Moslems'. It is also worth noting that protests against anti-Serb atrocities are recorded among the Bosnian Moslems, but not among the Moslems of Kosovo.
At the end of the war, Tito managed to make the Serbs forget this very recent past, at least as long as his state survived. Against all probability, the Serbs cooperated with 'the Croats' (and 'the Muslims') who tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of their kin, precisely because they did not regard them as 'the Croats' and 'the Muslims', even though they were as much to blame as 'the Germans' whom we accuse of equally monstrous behaviour. Everyone was to be regarded as a Yugoslav and a fellow communist, and this viewpoint was promoted with all the resources of an authoritarian state.
It should have been obvious to everyone that this was a wonderful achievement. Tito had erased a recipe for endless mayhem but his successors could not overcome a more formidable opponent: "Against stupidity the Gods themselves strive in vain." With the decline of communism, ethnic nationalism revived, and nobody thought to crush it. Instead, in an carnival atmosphere, Slovenia became independent, laughing at the hesitant Yugoslav troops who were restrained, perhaps, by some soon-to-be-lost remnant of decency. Soon Croatia joined them, hardly troubling to conceal the trappings of unrepentant fascism, and supported by the German government and the Pope.
The West represented, and still has the gall to represent, the idea of a multiethnic republic as the key to ethnic peace. But the region already had ethnic peace before the West destroyed it, and multiethnic republics are no way of restoring it. On the contrary, Yugoslavia's stupendous triumph over its very bitter past was due to a policy suppressing ethnic nationalisms in favour of a secular, modern, blended Yugoslav and 'Serbo-Croatian' identity. Tito stopped ethnic strife by founding a nonethnic state, not a multicultural one. Every death, every atrocity, all the war and hatred of recent years were caused by the willful undoing of his work.
By inviting everyone to reclaim their ethnic memories, the West has stirred all the old dreams of revenge. The Serbs alive today are poisoned by acts committed during their wartime childhood, or that of their parents: "I should like to kill every Turk there is", said a Serbian girl in 1941 whose aunt and three cousins had been raped and then murdered by the Moslems. When you stir up the past, you stir up old hatreds.
But do these feelings excuse the crimes of the Serbs? Yes, that's exactly what they do: the crimes are indeed crimes, and there is indeed some excuse for them. Certainly the Serbs should respect human rights, and Serbs who have tortured Albanians deserve punishment. Just as certainly the West has created a situation in which no reasonable person would expect human rights to be respected. The Serbs had a country - not their own, but something better, a country in which they could live and put the past behind them. It has been deliberately and systematically destroyed , with considerable outside help. The Serbs fought, first to keep it, and then to establish a nation of their own. They do not deserve collective punishment, or an assault on their sovereignty, without the neutral judgement that a UN mandate would provide and which, significantly, the world is not prepared to grant.
The world does not judge Serbia as NATO wants it to be judged because Serbia has, in fact, done little or nothing worse than many NATO members have done at one time or another. The ethnic cleansing undertaken by the Serbs is not an attempt to wipe out a population, but to secure a state against its enemies. That thousands of people are killed in such actions, and hundreds of thousands driven from their homes, is entirely within the boundaries of accepted international practice - however much we might like to think otherwise. Neither Bosnia nor Kosovo are anything like Rwanda, or the Nazi empire, or any other attempt to exterminate a whole population. The Serb leaders are sons-of-bitches, but their involvement in those genuine atrocities committed in Kosovo is, as far as we know, not so certain, deliberate and direct as to make them monsters. In other words, they are members in good standing of the international community, perhaps in line for a Nobel prize - certainly they have less to answer for than Henry Kissinger. They are blameworthy, but not much more so than the Czechs and Poles who expelled German civilians in 1945.
The point here is not that two wrongs make a right, but that international standards can be raised only in ways the world will accept. If a relatively pure institution like the UN wants to raise them, fine. But the NATO cannot raise standards by waging aggressive war to punish Serbia for crimes born of desperation, against NATO-sponsored former enemies who were only too happy to participate in full-fledged genocide against the Serbs. This vigilante justice does not exactly set a precedent whose value outweighs all the additional suffering produced each time NATO exacerbates the civil war it instigated.


My questions to you, Nale/Neumann

Well, wouldn't you just say that it wasn't very smart to suppress ethnicities and create a non-ethnic state from scratch. A failed experiment that was doomed to fail and anybody with half a wit appreciating the value of history, tradition and inherited cultural values would have known this. I guess carefree postmodernism hit us at an awkward moment, eh?

If Tito wanted a non-ethnic state and superimpose a Yugoslav national identity, why did he draw federal borders along ethinc lines and why was the 1974 Constitution, a virtual invitation for the future break up, brought then?


tnosugar

I fully agree with what you said.
Tito was full of contradictions, and maybe one day we'll know more about that...


Dear Mr. Lyon! I am sorry

Dear Mr. Lyon!

I am sorry for adding another question on the pile here, I am sure that you did not expect to have to be this busy responding to this very interesting discussion.

Q: Above you stated:

Quote:
If Serbia were to keep Kosovo, then the international community would force Serbia to remove laws prejudicial against Albanians. This would mean that Albanians could purchase property wherever they wish in Serbia. What does that mean for Vranje and Niš (sic!)? The Kosovo and Albanian question will dominate Serbian politics and prevent Serbia from concentrating fully on its real problems. The Serbian parliament would immediately be at least 20% Albanian...and that number will simply increase until 75 years from now, when it will be over 50% Albanian (sic!). So, one day Serbs will be a minority inside of Serbia. That is the true death of Serbia. Losing a piece of real estate, no matter how emotionally significant, is nothing compared to the death of an entire nation.

which implies that you believe/have read/were told that K-Albanians are gaining territories by means of high birth rate(the Serbian "rabbit theory"), and property purchase (famous "territory snatching theory" already claimed about Kosovo). Yet both have often been regarded in the West as Serb propaganda. I am consequently surprised that this idea supposedly invented by the Serbs and claimed to be highly prejudicial and chauvinist is confirmed by yourself who claim to stick to facts and history. I wonder how you formulate this idea when you talk to Albanians? Or do they just nod and say: that's the plan "B"!?

This, however, also contradicts your previous statement of Serb genocide over Albanians, since there's no logic in explosive increase of an ethnic population that suffered a genocide (in any case it is hard to see any Jews, Native Americans, Armenians, Amazonian Indians etc. thriving demographically in the regions where they had previously been systematically exterminated, even hundreds of years after).
According to your mutually contradicting statements both two of the following are true:

a)Yes, there was a genocide over Albanians in Kosovo, thus Serbs should pursue their goal of keeping Kosovo inside its state, since Albanians suffered a harsh demographic decrease and will never pose a threat with their numbers (at least not more than the mere -& de facto- 20% in the parliament)...
b) There was no genocide and Serbs should get rid of the demographically gangrened province since it will soon be spilling over to other parts of Serbia.

Was that simply a non sequitur in the heat of discussion about what is best for Serbia or did you use the birth rate assertion to turn the argument in your own favor?

I am looking forward to your answer

Sincerely,

Bojan


Evolution for devolution

As the international law continues to evolve, I wonder how an analyst like you could possibly miss the simple fact that the Serbs' relationships with Bosnia and Croatia had been similarly violently broken by these states even before they became states. Perhaps, the international law has not evolved sufficiently for them?

Of course, I know that deeply inside you couldn't care less.

So I'll be waiting to see your next asignment.


Kosovo's impact in the region

Here are a couple of Reuters AlertNet blogs that pull together the world media's opinions on Kosovo:

Will Kosovo's independence be an anti-climax?
http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/1265/2007/01/5-181317-1.htm

Kosovo's 'independence lite'
http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/1265/2007/00/26-202824-1.htm

Regarding some of the media's concerns about the consequences of Kosovo independence/partition/other solutions on the region, there is a good article by Tihomir Lozo in Transitions Online. This is from the first blog.

"...Tihomir Lozo, writing for Internet magazine Transitions Online says it's crazy to predict that Kosovars will "freak out" because independence isn't even mentioned in Athisaari's proposal. "Kosovo Albanians are not wild political animals who fly into raging fits every time they are denied immediate gratification of their desires," he writes. Besides, they know that all they need to do now is be patient in order to get what they're striving towards.

But surely Serbia wouldn't give up Kosovo without fight? The chance of Serbia mustering support for military action in Kosovo is "precisely zero", Lozo says. The democratic parties, which when counted together were the real winners of the recent Serbian elections, have explicitly ruled out military intervention.

And what about Bosnia? Another media myth, in the eyes of Lozo. Republika Srpska Prime Minister Milorad Dodik effectively confirmed this when he threatened to use force against anyone looking to exploit the likely dissatisfaction with Athisaari's proposal..."


Copy&Paste

Am I wrong or you are copying and pasting paragraphs from your previous comments?


ICG should be concerned

Putin accuses U.S. of making world unsafe
Gates and McCain sit stone-faced as the Russian leader assails American militarism during a speech at a Munich security conference.
By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
February 11, 2007

MUNICH, GERMANY — Russian President Vladimir V. Putin berated the United States in a major speech Saturday before senior American and European officials, declaring that Washington's militarism had fostered global instability and forced vulnerable nations to seek nuclear weapons.

In harsh language sometimes reminiscent of the Cold War and at other times pleading or mocking, Putin accused the United States of attempting to create a world in which it was free to ignore international law and impose its economic, political and military will.

"We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of military force in international relations," Putin said. "One country, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way."

------------
The Russian president also said he believed American and other Western economic interests were seeking unfettered access to Russian markets, even as they blocked Russian groups from achieving parity abroad.

Putin was most specific when discussing U.S. moves in Eastern Europe, saying efforts by the Bush administration to set up a missile defense system with radar and interceptor rockets in Poland and the Czech Republic threatened Russia's ballistic missiles.

Germany also targeted

Putin's criticism was not limited to the U.S. He noted that Germany had shortly after the end of the Cold War sought to reassure its historic rivals in Moscow that it would never send its military forces outside its borders. Berlin now has troops in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

"Where are those guarantees now?" Putin asked, arguing that Europe was attempting to set up new "virtual" barriers to replace the Berlin Wall.

He also dismissed European complaints about Russian threats last year to cut off energy supplies to its neighbors, saying Moscow was only seeking market prices and stable, long-term contracts with countries including Ukraine and Georgia, which in the past had received subsidized supplies.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fg-putin11feb11,0,2941418,full.story

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

AND JUST A REMINDER OF SOME TRIFKOVIC'S DECEMBER PREDICTIONS:

Thursday, December 21, 2006
AHTISARI NA NIZBRDICI
AHTISARI NA NIZBRDICI
Srdja Trifkovic

Premda njegove preporuke tek slede, vise je nego jasno da je Ahtisarijeva misija dozivela krah. Pobornici nezavisnog Kosova postaju sve nervozniji. Jedan od uticajnijih medju njima, publicista Misha Glenny, u poruci bivsem ambasadoru SAD u Beogradu Vilijamu Montgomeriju 7. decembra tako kaze, “Ozbiljno sam zabrinut situacijom oko Kosova… medju nama budi receno, Martijev ucinak duboko me je razocarao.”

Ima zlobnika koji Vojislava Kostunicu podrugljivo nazivaju “legalistom”, uz implikaciju da je njegovo insistiranje na postovanju slova i duha zakonskih odredbi prevazidjeno i neprimereno “politici kao umetnosti moguceg” kako ju je razumeo i vodio npr. pokojni Zoran Djindjic. U natezanju izmedju njega i dela “medjunarodne zajednice” olicenog u Martiju Ahtisariju oko buducnosti Kosova i Metohije, medjutim, “legalizam” se pokazao kao veoma efikasan element odbrane srpskih nacionalnih i drzavnih interesa.

Stav da resenje problema mora da bude u skladu sa medjunarodnim pravom, sa UNSB 1244, sa Poveljom UN i Helsinkijem 1975, moze biti relativizovan samo uz saglasnost Srbije. Ahtisari i njegovi nalogodavci to naravno znaju, ali su se isprva pravili kao da se radi samo o sitnoj, neprijatnoj formalnosti. Njihovo ponasanje podseca nas na savet Josipa Broza sudijama u SFRJ da se ne drze zakona kao pijan plota.

Ahtisarijev nezgrapni pokusaj da “isporuci” Srbe ukazuje da su vasingtonski i briselski scenaristi izabrali pogresnu osobu za taj posao. On se posrednicke uloge prihvatio kao vec deklarisani zagovornik odvajanja Kosova od Srbije, svojim angazmanom u okviru Medjunarodne krizne grupe. Vec na startu pokusao je da ubedi Kostunicu da, toboze, zaista zeli da pomogne Srbiji da se resi “tog problema” (Kosova) glatko i bezbolno, jer – naravno – svesni smo da je Srbija de fakto vec izgubila juznu pokrajinu i da nema svrhe gubiti vreme sa pravnim formalnostima.

Ahtisarijev pristup bio je zasnovan na pogresnim signalima koje su tokom proteklih sest godina on i “medjunarodna zajednica” dobijali od zapadnih diplomata u Beogradu i od male ali uticajne konklave “prozapadnih” zvanicnika i analiticara u Srbiji. Oni su istovremeno tvrdili da ce Srbija da popusti ukoliko joj se ponudi neki smokvin list (uslovna nezavisnot, medjunarodne garantije za prava manjina, obecanja o ubrzanom prikljucenju EU itd.) – i zdusno zagovarali takav ishod.

Da je Srbija legla na rudu, Rusija i Kina bi glatko prihvatile koreografisano resenje u Savetu bezbednosti jer niko na Ist Riveru ne bi bio veci katolik od pape, tj. veci Srbin od samih Srba. Po tom scenariju, problem bi bio resen do kraja ove godine svecanim primanjem jos jednog dela bivse Jugoslavije u “medjunarodnu zajednicu”. Za scenariste manje je bitno sta bi Kosovo bilo (medjunarodni protektorat, EU-NATO kondominijum, ili buduca pokrajina Velike Albanije) vec sta ono vise ne bi bilo: deo Srbije.

Uverenje da je takav scenario savrseno realan pothranjivao je, izmedju ostalih, i Vuk Jeremic, glavni spoljnopoliticki savetnik predsednika Borisa Tadica i jedan od retkih beogradskih zagovornika pobede Dzona Kerija novembra 2004. godine. On je u Vasingtonu 18. maja 2005. godine svedocio pred Kongresom da Kosovo treba da ostane u sastavu Srbije. Medjutim, prilikom tog svog boravka u nezvanicnim razgovorima Jeremic je uveravao americke sagovornike je sustina zadatka iznaci formulu da se gorka kosovska pilula oblozi secernim prelivom kako bi je Srbija lakse progutala – i da se istovremeno spreci da Radikali politicki profitiraju od takvog ishoda.

Suocen sa Kostunicinom nespremnoscu da prihvati navedene polazne predpostavke, Ahtisari je pokusao da ga privoli na razgovore u cetiri oka. Svestan mogucnosti Ahtisariju svojstvenih intriga i manipulacija koje bi pristanak na takve aranzmane mogao da prouzrokuje, Kostunica je insistirao da svi susreti budu zvanicni, uz vodjenje zapisnika i uz prisustvo savetnika. Usledili su becki pregovori koji su propali jer drukcije nije moglo da bude: Albanicima je nagovesteno da je ishod ionako zacrtan, pa nisu imali razloga da ozbiljno pregovaraju.

Cinjenica da je Ahtisari morao da pomeri rok prvobitno postavljen za kraj ove godine ima ogroman psiholoski i politicki znacaj: kao sto analiticari medjunarodnih odnosa dobro znaju, najsigurniji nacin nedonosenja neke odluke jeste odugovlacenje njenog donosenja. Tek sada zagovornici nezavisnog Kosova sa zakasnjenjem sagledavaju da je postavljanje cvrstih rokova bila velika greska, pogotovu s obzirom da nemaju spreman “scenario B”.

Dodatni za sada neresiv problem im predstavlja cvrst stav Rusije da nece podrzati ma kakvu rezoluciju Saveta bezbednosti koja ne bi bila prihvatljiva Srbiji. Pitanje je da li bi podrska Moskve bila toliko cvrsta da su SAD dopustile mogucnost da Kosovo posluzi kao presedan za Pridnjestrovlje, Abhaziju, Juznu Osetiju i Nagorno-Karabah; ali posto je jasno odbio takvu mogucnost, zvanicni Vasington nije dao Putinu nikakv motiv da se ponasa kao sto bi se Jeljcin ponasao jednu deceniju ranije. Sto se tice Kine, pak, Peking je svestan da bi pruzanjem podrske nezavisnom Kosovu postupao u korist svoje stete, tj. pripomogao stvaranje presedana koji bi ubuduce i te kako mogao da se primeni po pitanju Tajvana, Tibeta ili Sinkjanga.

Agim Ceku je pocetkom decembra izneo svoj scenario “B”: skupstina Kosova ce proglasiti nezavisnost bez obzira sta UN odluce i zatrazice bilateralno priznanje po modelu Slovenije, Hrvatske I BiH. Problem je u tome sto Evropljani zaziru od takvog resenja, cak i oni (Velika Britanija i Nemacka, na primer) koji se zalazu za nezavisnost. Plan B ne moze da se primeni ukoliko ga ne podrzi EU kao celina. Neke zemlje clanice vec su jasno izrazile protivljenje takvom resenju – Spanija, Portugalija, Grcka, Rumunija i Slovacka – sto otezava saglasnost o priznanju u Briselu. Vasington nece olako pokusati da zaobidje Savet bezbednosti ukoliko bi to bio uzrok razdora sa Evropom: Vasington i te kako racuna na njih za sanaciju u Avganisatnu i za predstojeci dezangazman iz Iraka.

Nasuprot zaprepascujucem defetizmu predsednika Borisa Tadica, kako sada realno stoje stvari Kosovo nece postati nezavisno. Gg. Server, Bugajski, Lantos, Bajden ili Holbruk, Njujork Tajms, Vasington Post i zapadni medijski « mejnstrim » zagovarace svakakve pritiske i obecanja, ali ni posle 21. januara nista se bitno nece izmeniti. Ni posle izbora Srbija nece popustiti, Rusija nece promeniti stav, a Albanci nece da odustanu od onog sta im je obecano od strane onih faktora u « medjunarodnoj zajednici » koji nikada nisu posedovali pravo ili ovlascenja da im takva obecanja daju. Iz Pristine sada prete novim nasiljem, ali te pretnje samo pothranjuju stav da Kosovo nije spremno ni za sta. Kako ruski ambasador u UN rece svojim zapadnim kolegama 13. decembra, “vi ste mozda spremni da popustite pred ucenama Albanaca, ali mi nismo.”

Kada se sagleda stvarna slika na svetskoj sceni, negde pocetkom februara 2007. imacemo konacno priliku za pokretanje istinskih pregovora. Ne znamo kakav ce biti njihov krajnji rezultat, ali to je i priroda pravih pregovora: ishod ostaje nepoznat do samog kraja.

Ahtisarijeva misija je propala, a njegovi mentori i navijaci postaju sve nervozniji. Navedimo primera radi veoma indikativno vajkanje Mise Glenija bivsem ambasadoru SAD u Beogradu Viliamu Montgomeriju, u poruci od 7. decembra : “Ozbiljno sam zabrinut za situaciju oko Kosova… medju nama budi receno, Martijev ucinak duboko me je razocarao.”


Putin o nevladinim organizacijama, da li je dobro obavesten?

What do we see happening today? .....People are trying to transform the OSCE into a vulgar instrument designed to promote the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries. And this task is also being accomplished by the OSCE’s bureaucratic apparatus which is absolutely not connected with the state founders in any way.

Decision-making procedures and the involvement of so-called non-governmental organisations are tailored for this task. These organisations are formally independent but they are purposefully financed and therefore under control.

MUNICH 2007


Partition

Mr. Lyon, when Czecheslovakia was partitioned they did some border changes too to achieve a truely ethnic border. Yet this did not lead to demands that Slovakia's Hungarian minority should be allowed to secede and attach to Hungary. So I don't see any reason why a partition of Kosovo should lead to demands elsewhere. There is only one region whose status changes and the border changes are part of a packet of measures concerning the status of Kosovo.

Belgrade politicians have suggested partition many times and each time they were clubbed down by the international thought police. For some mysterious reason the Contact Group has proclaimed "no partition" as one of its "principles" for Kosovo's future. This means that anyone who advocates the most logic solution for Kosovo risks to be branded as a would be ethnic cleanser by all the great powers of our time.