Informazione
Breaking Yugoslavia
interview
by Diana Johnstone
Global Research, March 10, 2010 | |
New Left Project - 2010-03-03 |
Diana Johnstone is the author of ‘Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions’. She spoke to NLP on the wars in the former Yugoslavia, western involvement and the trial of Slobodan Milosevic. What was your view of Yugoslavia before its dissolution. What was admirable about that society? What was not so admirable? Every society has its good and bad points, and I am not qualified to make an overall judgement of such a complex society as former Yugoslavia. From my personal experience, what was not admirable was that in Tito’s lifetime it was a personal dictatorship. Tito didn’t run everything, but he had the right of final decision in case of conflict. The harshest repression was reserved for communists loyal to the Soviet Union after Tito’s break with Stalin in 1948. But repression is not all that is wrong with a dictatorship, a system which encourages hypocrisy and lack of recourse for unfair or unwise measures. Nevertheless, despite the undemocratic regime, it was always easy to find critical intellectuals in Yugoslavia who thought for themselves and said what they thought. Yugoslavia’s "self-managed socialism" was certainly an improvement over the Soviet model. It provided full employment, which is what people most acutely miss today. It is noteworthy that many former critics of the socialist system today declare that the so-called free market democracy they have now is much worse. As the only European member of the Non-Aligned Movement, Yugoslavia enjoyed privileged relations with Third World countries, notably in the Arab world. The Yugoslav passport was welcome everywhere, and Yugoslavs enjoyed their freedom to travel throughout the world as citizens of a country whose international prestige was great for its size. Tito’s policy toward the great ethnic diversity of Yugoslavia had been to give considerable cultural and linguistic rights to each group, a policy which is pursued today by Serbia – although not by Croatia and Slovenia. (For example, Serbia provides bilingual schools using the mother tongue of Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Albanian and Slovak minorities.) If, in 1990, there had been a national referendum on the subject, I have little doubt that an overwhelming majority of Yugoslavs would have voted to maintain the federation. But elections were held only within the various republics, enabling the bureaucracies of Croatia and Sloveniato promote their secessionist projects. You argue that Western governments bear significant responsibility for the wars in the former Yugoslavia by encouraging the secession of the constituent republics. Was the West not merely supporting those states in their struggle for self-determination? There is nothing in international law or diplomatic practice that justifies secession from an existing state on grounds of "self-determination". There is great confusion and hypocrisy on this point. First one can point to comparisons: Why did the United States not support the struggle of the Basques against Spain, which has been going on much longer? Why did they not support Corsicans against France, Scottish nationalists against Britain, the Kurds against Turkey – a violent struggle with deep historic roots, including Western promises to Kurds after World War I? Why did they not support the separatist "Padania" movement that was growing about the same time in northern Italy, seeking separation from the poorer south of Italy – a movement that had a great deal in common with the Slovenian separatist movement? The answer is obvious: theUnited States does not support separatist movements in countries they consider their allies. The targets are either countries they consider rivals, like Russia or China, or countries that are too weak to resist, and where they can obtain totally dependent client states from the breakup – which is what happened with Yugoslavia. Second there are the simple facts of the matter. History, to start with. Former Yugoslavia was not formed by conquest, but by a voluntary association after World War I as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Croats and Serbs speak essentially the same south Slavic language, and Slovenian is quite similar. This association was sought by Croatian leaders who wished to leave Austro-Hungarian rule and who actually coined the word "Yugoslavia", meaning land of southern Slavs. Since Serbia already existed as an independent country, Serb leaders were wary of this union, but accepted it under urging from the Western powers, France and Britain. After Tito’s death in 1980, Yugoslavia entered an extremely clumsy phase of political transition, which was distorted by severe economic regression caused by the debt crisis. Since Tito’s method of rule had been to respond to unrest by decentralization rather than by democratization, the local Communist parties in each republic of the federal state, as well as the autonomous provinces within Serbia, enjoyed considerable autonomy. Rivalry between the party bureaucracies undermined national unity. The dynamic thus tended toward dissolution rather than democratization. This trend was encouraged by outside forces (German and Austrian organizations represented by the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Otto von Habsburg, who was very active in this phase) which supported secession of the parts of Yugoslavia which had belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire before World War I, Croatia and Slovenia. Now, assuming that "self-determination" would lead to dissolution of the federation, there was the crucial issue of how this would be done. The Serbs interpreted the constitution to argue that Yugoslavia was a political union of three peoples – Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, who would have to negotiate the terms of secession. The Slovenes and especially the Croats maintained that the constituent units were the "republics" in the boundaries set for them by Tito during World War II, which left sizeable Serb populations in both Croatia (about 12%) and Bosnia-Herzegovina (a relative majority up until the 1971 census). Germany persuaded the United States and the European Union to accept the Croatian claim without ever seriously considering the Serbian argument. This was unacceptable to the Serb minority in Croatia who had been persecuted by Nazi-sponsored independent Croatia during World War II, and whose "self-determination" was thereby denied. This was the cause of the civil war in Croatia. Both Slovenia and Croatia enjoyed full equality and autonomy within Yugoslavia. In no way could they be considered oppressed minorities. Tito was a Croat as was the last functioning prime minister of Yugoslavia, Ante Markovic, not to mention a disproportionate number of senior officers in the Yugoslav armed forces. As the richest part of Yugoslavia, Slovenia’s desire to secede was based almost solely on the desire to "jump the queue" and join the rich EU ahead of the rest of the country, which it succeeded in doing. The Croatian secessionism movement was nationalistic, with strong racist overtones, and was strongly supported by a Croatian diaspora with crucial political influence in Germany and inWashington (in the office of Senator Bob Dole). In the absence of any legal justification for unnegotiated secession, nationalist leaders in bothSlovenia and Croatia provoked units of the Yugoslav army stationed in their territory and used the inevitable response as their justification for seceding. This succeeded only because it was supported by Western governments and media – otherwise the Yugoslav army would have held the country together. Instead, the collapsing Yugoslav army effort to preserve the federation, as it was supposed to do, was denounced as a "Serbian invasion". Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic handled this crisis badly, but he did not, as accused, instigate the dissolution ofYugoslavia. You have suggested that there are certain continuities between the policies of the German government and the objectives of the Third Reich in the Balkans. Can you describe those continuities for us? Even before the Third Reich, the government of Kaiser Wilhelm and even more the democratic Weimar Republic supported self-determination of ethnic minorities, and the Federal Republic of Germany continues to do so today, for reasons of national interest and ideology. The "revenge" against Serbia, and detachment of former Austro-Hungarian territories within Yugoslavia, harks back to World War I. Of course, the Third Reich cut Yugoslavia into pieces, and on that point the 1991 German policy was more than disturbingly reminiscent, it was essentially the same.Germany has reasons for wanting to bring Slovenia and Croatia into its own sphere of influence. In a sense I am more critical of Western governments which followed the German policy without bothering or daring to evaluate the situation clearly for themselves. As this turned out to be disastrous, they had to blame the devil Milosevic for everything, in order to cover their own mistakes. Why did the United States so strongly support Bosnian secession? I think this support was the product of a number of factors. One, pointed out by former State Department official George Kenney, was the influence of media reports, in turn heavily influenced by a propaganda campaign run by Ruder Finn public relations agency on behalf of the government of Croatia, and later the Bosnian Muslims, which succeeded in presenting the Serbs as "new Nazis". This public relations campaign was hugely successful with the public and politicians alike. American foreign policy-making can be vulnerable to the propaganda of lobbies, and the Croatian lobby was active and influential. The Bosnian lobby was smaller but very well connected, notably through Mohammed Sacirbey, the American son of a colleague of Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic who chose him to be Bosnia’s ambassador to the United States. There was a natural class affinity between American officials like Richard Holbrooke and the Bosnian Muslims, who had been the upper class under theOttoman Empire and presented themselves as more anti-communist than the Serbs. A second element was that since Germany was emerging as the sponsor of Croatia, the United States could have its own client state by supporting the Bosnian Muslims. Some US leaders thought that siding with the Muslim party in Bosnia would make a good impression in the Muslim world, counterbalancing US support to Israel. The late influential Congressman Tom Lantos, who was chairman of the House foreign affairs committee, called US support for the Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo independence "just a reminder to the predominantly Muslim-led governments in this world" that "the United States leads the way for creation of a predominantly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe." Support to Bosnian Muslims was strongly advocated by the pro-Israel neo-conservatives. It is hard to believe that neo-con guru Richard Perle served as advisor to Muslim leader Izetbegovic at the Dayton peace talks with no private agenda of his own. The Clinton administration found it natural to do a favor to the Afghan mujahidin (which then included Osama bin Laden), whom they had supported and used against the Soviet Union, by helping them fight the Orthodox Christian Serbs in the Bosnian civil war. But perhaps the main cause should be seen in the main effect: to reassert United States supremacy in Europe. The August 1995 NATO bombing "marked a historic development in post-Cold War relations between Europe and the United States", wrote Richard Holbrooke in his memoirs, citing columnist William Pfaff who alone seemed to get the point: "The United States today is again Europe’s leader: there is no other." (Richard Holbrooke, To End a War, Random House, 1998, p.101.) By the policy of an "even playing field", the United States created a stalemate between the Bosnian parties which allowed Holbrooke to take charge of what he called "the Bosnian end game" at Dayton. The United States was able to pose as "the indispensable nation". Some have accused you of downplaying or even denying the Srebrenica massacre. How do you respond to such accusations? First of all, I think these accusations are designed primarily to distract public attention from the main focus of my writing on Yugoslavia, and in particular my book, Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions. That focus is political. As the title indicates, my book is not about Srebrenica. It is about the historical and political background, and the deception and self-deception involved in media coverage and Western policy-making that led to the illegal NATO war of aggression in 1999. The only reason I wrote about Srebrenica at all is that I could not very well avoid the subject, but I stated from the start I was not writing about what happened at Srebrenica (on which I claim no special knowledge) but about the political uses of it. I am not a war correspondent but a political analyst. The trouble is that some people do not welcome political analysis of the Balkan conflicts, and use Srebrenica to ban it. If mothers are weeping, how can anyone engage in such a heartless exercise as political analysis? Judging complex events solely on the basis of images and emotions, which are often deceptive, is infantile. But we are living in a period of infantile regression. For instance, the wives and mothers of the men who were killed deserve sympathy, but is their individual grief any greater if their son was one of several hundred or one of several thousand? Why this insistence on a particular number, which has not been clearly proved? Isn’t it possible, and even likely, that the genuine grief of mourning women is exploited for political ends? How many people are in a position to know exactly what happened at Srebrenica? Where are the documents, where are the photographs? Yet people who know nothing are ready to consider it scandalous if someone says openly, "I don’t know exactly what happened." I do know that from the very start of the Yugoslav tragedy, there were significant massacres of Serb civilians (for instance, in the town ofGospic in Croatia) that were studiously ignored in the West. But I do not care to engage in competitive victimhood. As for Srebrenica, certainly any execution of prisoners is a war crime and deserves punishment, even if the figure of 8,000 is certainly exaggerated, since it includes men who died in ambush while trying to escape, or even men who actually did escape. But whatever the number of victims, a single massacre of military-age men while sparing women and children cannot in my opinion be correctly described as "genocide" – unless the term "genocide" is redefined to fit the single case of Srebrenica. And this is precisely what was done by the International Criminal Tribunal on former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. In order to convict General Radislav Krstic (who was not even present at the scene) of complicity in "genocide", the ICTY judges ruled in August 2001 that killing a large number of Muslim men from Srebrenica was "genocide" because of the "patriarchal" nature of their society. Women and children survivors were too insignificant in such a patriarchal society to matter! This preposterous verdict simply confirmed the obvious fact that ICTY is working for those who set it up, choose its judges and pay its expenses: that is, essentially, NATO. It is there to justify the NATO interpretation of the conflicts in former Yugoslavia, by putting the entire burden of blame on the Serbs. Unless an Orwellian future bans free historical inquiry, I am confident that my critical appraisal of ICTY will be justified by history. Why do you believe NATO carried out its bombing war against Serbia? The essential reason was to save NATO from obsolescence after the collapse of the Soviet bloc, whose supposed threat had been its ostensible raison d’être. The United States came up with a new "humanitarian mission", and the large-scale NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 served to prove that NATO could get away with it, without United Nations authorization. This was "the war to start wars". It is regularly cited by apologists as "the good war" which proves that "human rights" constitute the most efficient excuse for aggression. It was indeed a perfect little war, waged safely from the air with all the casualties on the ground, whether Serb or Albanian. How do you view the UK’s role in the conflicts of the former Yugoslavia? As absolutely shameful. The British foreign office certainly had experts able to understand the complexities of the Yugoslav situation, and indeed the conservative government hesitated. Lord Carrington and then Lord Owen, if supported, might have brokered an early peace inBosnia. But Tony Blair preferred to strut the stage of "humanitarian intervention", and most of the left swallowed the wild tale according to which the world’s most powerful military alliance was henceforth motivated by sentimental concern for the underdog. What did you make of the trial of Slobodan Milosevic? That trial actually aroused my first admiration for Slobodan Milosevic. He defended himself, and his country, with great courage and intelligence, and successfully disproved most of the charges against him, even though he died before the defense could make its case. The ICTY was set up largely to convict Milosevic, and would surely have found a way to do so regardless of the evidence. His death spared them that trouble. Of course, Western media failed totally to report fairly on the proceedings. You speak of your admiration for Milosevic "defending his country" in the Hague. But is there not a wider and more fundamental sense in which Milosevic’s rule was by no means beneficial for Serbia? V. P. Gagnon Jr. has written about how Milosevic used war as a tool against movements for democratic reform, by effectively changing the subject to whether people were pro or anti-Serb at any point where these movements became too strong. Karel Turza and Eric Gordy have written about the deleterious effect that Milosevic’s rule had on Serbian society and culture. Little of this speaks of a man worthy of admiration, even from a Serbian perspective. Was Milosovic defending Serbia, or just defending his regime? When I said that Milosevic on trial in The Hague aroused my first admiration for the man, I was obviously making the distinction between Milosevic as President and Milosevic as prisoner of a biased tribunal that had been set up to convict him. However unfortunate his policies as president, he became a victim when he was illegally shipped off to The Hague, in a rather sordid deal between prime minister Zoran Djindjic, who violated Serbian law in the hope of economic rewards, and the NATO powers, who needed the trial in order to justify their 1999 bombing campaign. What is meant by "democratic reforms"? Milosevic did introduce a multi-party system, which is the basic democratic reform. Whatever his faults, it is by no means clear that his political adversaries in the early 1990s would have been better for the Serbian people than he was. Now that Serbia has Western-approved "democratic" governments, major industries have been sold to Western corporations, the media are more uniform than ever, and the economic situation of the majority of the population has worsened considerably. Many people in Serbia who hated Milosevic when he was in office admired his defense at The Hague. His self-defense was automatically a defense of his country, since the totally arbitrary (and unproven) charge of a "joint criminal enterprise" in effect implicated collective guilt, since the alleged enterprise had no defined limits. Little blame for the Balkan wars appears to attach to the Serb side in your account. Yet Bosnian Serb figures such as Vojislav Šešelj, Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić have stated publically that there was a drive for a Greater Serbia. Doubtless there have been many attempts to reduce the conflict to nothing more than a case of Serbian aggression, but while correcting for that is it not also important to still leave room for attaching the appropriate level of blame to the Serbian side? Testifying at the Milosevic trial, Vojislav Šešelj stated clearly that Milosevic was not in favor of Greater Serbia, and that he had slandered him politically for that very reason, because Šešelj himself did favor Greater Serbia. The meaning of "Greater Serbia" is complicated, and I have dealt with it in my book, "Fools’ Crusade". But Serbs were divided on the matter, and Milosevic for one did not advocate a "Greater Serbia". Milosevic was competing with politicians such as Vuk Draskovic and Zoran Djindjic, whom the West considers "democratic", but who were far more nationalistic than he was. No Serbian politician could be totally indifferent to Serb populations cut off from Serbia by the disintegration ofYugoslavia. Nevertheless, starting in 1992, Milosevic signed onto a series of potential peace accords that left Serbs outside of shrinkingYugoslavia, and were clearly incompatible with a greater Serbia. I do not presume to attach "appropriate levels of blame" to the various Yugoslav parties. I simply point out certain facts, and the only blame that really interests me is that of the Western powers and especially of the United States. That is my responsibility as an American citizen. It is the United States that exploited the tragedy to strengthen NATO, and the people of Yugoslavia who suffered and are still suffering. Many of our readers will find it hard to accept your expressing admiration for Milosovic. Its well understood that the West portrays its enemies dishonestly (take Saddam’s mythical WMD, for example). But to praise the "courage" of a man widely seen (including by those who are no fans of Western power) as having a lot of blood on his hands goes a good deal further than this. Is your choice of words here really appropriate? I am not going to change what I say because many of your readers, as you allege, have a limited capacity to understand the complexities of human character. Of course, all leaders of countries involved in wars can be said to "have blood on their hands". The stereotype of an inhuman Milosevic is a fictional propaganda creation, like the long line of "Hitlers" the West keeps discovering. But supposing the man was utterly ruthless, does that preclude courage? I fear our "humanitarian" age is adopting an unprecedentedly simplistic notion of what people are – either innocent lambs or savage beasts. Look at many of the heroes of ancient tragedy, who were complicated enough to be ruthless and courageous, and often displayed a mixture of good and bad qualities. If we are incapable of recognizing the humanity of our chosen enemies (and Milosevic was a chosen enemy, who actually liked the United States where he had lived as a banker, and never even slightly threatened the West), then there can be no peace in the world. What have been the consequences for the constituent republics of becoming independent states? In general, secession is beneficial to the bureaucrats. Someone who was only a minor official in a large country gets to be Cabinet Minister, or ambassador. So secession was a good thing for members of the bureaucracy in each statelet. It has also been good for a minority who live off crime and corruption. For the rest of the population, it was beneficial primarily to Slovenia, whose leaders succeeded in getting into the European Union ahead of the others. Of course it was not beneficial to the small population of Yugoslavs who were not ethnic Slovenians and found themselves living in Slovenia without any civil status. Croatia has the advantage of strong German support, but so far this has not yielded all the economic benefits hoped for. Most of the Serb population has been driven out, which is of course satisfying to the racist Croat nationalists, and does not seem to disturb the Western leftist multiculturalists. Otherwise, people who once were citizens of an independent, medium-sized European country find themselves confined in small mutually hostile statelets, dependent on outside powers and poorer than before. Outside intervention has served to exacerbate ethnic hatreds, and continues to do so, notably in Bosnia and Kosovo. The political situation of most of the successor states is precarious and further tragedy is almost certain. | |
Global Research Articles by Diana Johnstone --- Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@... www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor@... © Copyright Diana Johnstone , New Left Project, 2010 The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18030 | |
IN QUESTA CIVILISSIMA EUROPA UN "GIORNO DEL RICORDO" NON LO SI NEGA A NESSUNO
http://www.lernesto.it
In Lettonia le autorità consentono l’esaltazione delle SS e proteggono i criminali di guerra. Nell’indifferenza dei governi dell’Unione Europea.
Da qualche anno, nell’ignoranza pressoché totale dell’opinione pubblica europea, il 16 marzo è celebrato in Lettonia (repubblica ex sovietica appartenente all’Unione Europea) come “giornata del ricordo” della legione lettone delle Waffen SS, che ha partecipato, integrata nell’armata hitleriana, non solo alle operazioni di repressione della Resistenza, ma anche allo sterminio di decine di migliaia di ebrei e di appartenenti alle minoranze nazionali. Fin dal 2008, il lugubre rituale del “ricordo” si concretizza nell’organizzazione di marce, a cui prendono parte i criminali reduci del collaborazionismo e i loro simpatizzanti neofascisti. Adunate che godono della protezione delle autorità locali. Lo stesso presidente della Repubblica ebbe a dichiarare nel 2008 che “non considerava nazisti” i veterani della legione SS lettone. La vergognosa “sceneggiata”, che la dice lunga sulle caratteristiche “democratiche” dell’attuale
corso politico lettone e che dovrebbe suscitare l’indignazione di tutti i democratici e gli antifascisti europei, si ripeterà molto probabilmente anche il prossimo 16 marzo. E molto probabilmente anche questa volta passerà inosservata dalle nostre parti. Eppure, in questa occasione, non sono mancate le proteste del locale movimento antifascista. Il Consiglio delle Organizzazioni non governative ha chiesto al sindaco della capitale lettone, Riga, di proibire la manifestazione. E’ prevista, in concomitanza con la marcia, una mobilitazione delle organizzazioni antifasciste e dei partiti di sinistra, esattamente come è avvenuto in passato, quando l’adunata dei nazisti lettoni è stata vivacemente contestata dai manifestanti democratici.Come mostra il video girato il 16 marzo dello scorso anno.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrZ_xUbhp0I
In Lettonia le autorità consentono l’esaltazione delle SS e proteggono i criminali di guerra. Nell’indifferenza dei governi dell’Unione Europea.
Da qualche anno, nell’ignoranza pressoché totale dell’opinione pubblica europea, il 16 marzo è celebrato in Lettonia (repubblica ex sovietica appartenente all’Unione Europea) come “giornata del ricordo” della legione lettone delle Waffen SS, che ha partecipato, integrata nell’armata hitleriana, non solo alle operazioni di repressione della Resistenza, ma anche allo sterminio di decine di migliaia di ebrei e di appartenenti alle minoranze nazionali. Fin dal 2008, il lugubre rituale del “ricordo” si concretizza nell’organizzazione di marce, a cui prendono parte i criminali reduci del collaborazionismo e i loro simpatizzanti neofascisti. Adunate che godono della protezione delle autorità locali. Lo stesso presidente della Repubblica ebbe a dichiarare nel 2008 che “non considerava nazisti” i veterani della legione SS lettone. La vergognosa “sceneggiata”, che la dice lunga sulle caratteristiche “democratiche” dell’attuale
corso politico lettone e che dovrebbe suscitare l’indignazione di tutti i democratici e gli antifascisti europei, si ripeterà molto probabilmente anche il prossimo 16 marzo. E molto probabilmente anche questa volta passerà inosservata dalle nostre parti. Eppure, in questa occasione, non sono mancate le proteste del locale movimento antifascista. Il Consiglio delle Organizzazioni non governative ha chiesto al sindaco della capitale lettone, Riga, di proibire la manifestazione. E’ prevista, in concomitanza con la marcia, una mobilitazione delle organizzazioni antifasciste e dei partiti di sinistra, esattamente come è avvenuto in passato, quando l’adunata dei nazisti lettoni è stata vivacemente contestata dai manifestanti democratici.Come mostra il video girato il 16 marzo dello scorso anno.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrZ_xUbhp0I
Il criminale di guerra Ejup Ganic è di nuovo a spasso
Il Regno Unito è una grande democrazia occidentale. E nelle democrazie occidentali chi ha i soldi è sempre innocente.
Con 300 mila sterline di provenienza - diciamo così - bizzarra, è infatti ritornato a spasso Ejup Ganic, uomo politico bosgnacco (cioè nazionalista bosniaco-musulmano), già braccio destro di Izetbegovic. Uno di quelli ai quali va ascritto l'inizio della guerra fratricida per lo squartamento della Jugoslavia: in particolare con la strage della via Dobrovoljacka, quando la colonna dell'esercito jugoslavo che abbandonava la Bosnia in seguito alla secessione fu aggredita alle spalle anche per ordine di Ganic, allo scopo di scatenare la guerra. 42 morti, 73 feriti, 215 prigionieri, la prima grande strage di Sarajevo - mai ricordata da nessuno in Italia. Adesso "Repubblica" è costretta a parlarne, e la racconta a modo suo, usando comodi anacronismi e parlando di un "incidente". (a cura di Italo Slavo. Sull'arresto di Ganic a Londra si veda anche: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/6692 )
---
Una protagonista del jet set inglese, ex rifugiata della guerra balcanica, crea un caso diplomatico
pagando la cauzione per l'allora presidente musulmano Ganic ricercato in Serbia
Londra, ex leader bosniaco libero
grazie ai soldi della bella Diana
dal nostro corrispondente ENRICO FRANCESCHINI
LONDRA - Lei è Diana Jenkins, una ex rifugiata bosniaca diventata la moglie di un banchiere della City miliardario. Emigrata di nuovo, stavolta con i soldi, i figli e il consenso del marito, a Malibù, la spiaggia più chic di tutta la California perché in Inghilterra si sentiva trattata dalle altre donne del suo ambiente come "una moglie comprata su catalogo", insomma come una puttana. Lui è Ejup Ganic, ex presidente della Bosnia, arrestato una settimana fa all'aeroporto londinese di Heathrow e sbattuto in un tetro carcere di Londra in attesa che il tribunale valuti la richiesta di estradizione nei suoi confronti presentata dalla Serbia con l'accusa di crimini di guerra. Una corte inglese aveva rifiutato la libertà provvisoria, mettendo una cauzione di 300 mila sterline, circa 350 mila euro, nel timore che il carcerato, se rilasciato, sarebbe fuggito. Ma la moglie del banchiere ha pagato la cauzione di tasca sua e lo ha fatto tornare libero.
Sembra una favola. "La bella e la bestia", la riassumono furibondi i serbi. Ma di fiabe ce ne sono almeno due, in questa storia dall'ancora incerto lieto fine. La prima riguarda soltanto la protagonista femminile, Diana maritata con Roger Jenkins, nata 36 anni fa a Sarajevo col nome di Sanela Dijana Catic, fuggita a piedi dalle macerie e dalle stragi dell'ex Jugoslavia, approdata a Londra senza conoscere nessuno, senza sapere l'inglese, senza un lavoro e senza una sterlina. Nella capitale britannica ha fatto i mestieri più umili, si è messa a studiare e un giorno a una lezione in una scuola di business ha conosciuto un professore estemporaneo il cui vero lavoro è fare il banchiere, anzi, il superbanchiere, anzi, uno dei banchieri più ricchi della City. E' amore a prima vista tra Diana e Roger, che si sposano e inziano a fare la bella vita nel jet-set londinese. Lei si rivela non solo affascinante e seducente come una top-model, ma anche intelligente e scaltra come un banchiere: durante una vacanza in Costa Smeralda diventa amica di un'altra musulmana, la moglie dello sceicco del Qatar, attraverso la quale suo marito conosce lo sceicco e ottiene un favoloso prestito da 7 miliardi di sterline con il quale salva dalla bancarotta la Barclays Bank. E il superbanchiere diventa ancora più ricco.Secondo capitolo della favola. Un bel giorno, o brutto dal suo punto di vista, Diana pianta tutti e se ne va. Dice che le feste e le cene a cui partecipa insieme al marito la fanno sentire "vuota, umiliata e perfino sporca", per il modo in cui la trattano le altre donne, le altre mogli, facendola sentire come una "moglie ordinata su catalogo", modo elegante di dire che la fanno sentire una bella puttana, "comprata" dal marito per la sua bellezza e basta. Così, stufa di sopportare, lei accusa Londra e l'Inghilterra di classismo, snobberia, discriminazione sessuale e razziale verso una ex-povera ma bellissima ragazza musulmana bosniaca, fa le valige e si trasferisce con i figli a Malibù, dove si vive un'atmosfera più democratica, dice lei. Il marito la viene a trovare quando può, ogni tanto fa un salto lei a Londra, e intanto si occupa di filantropia e cause nobili.
Il terzo capitolo della fiaba è, per adesso, l'ultimo. Una settimana fa viene arrestato mentre cerca di partire dall'aeroporto di Heathrow un professore di ingegneria bosniaco. Si chiama Ejup Ganic, è stato vicepresidente e poi presidente della Bosnia negli anni Novanta, durante la guerra civile che mandò in frantumi la Jugoslavia e fece scorrere fiumi di sangue in conflitti inter-etnici. Indagato a suo tempo dal tribunale internazionale dell'Aja, Ganic non venne perseguito. Ma ora la Serbia ci riprova e ha presentato alla Gran Bretagna, dove Ganic risiede, richiesta di estradizione. Il crimine di cui è accusato risale a 18 anni fa. E' un famoso incidente che risale ai giorni in cui le forze serbo-bosniache circondavano Sarajevo, all'inizio di un assedio che durò 44 mesi e in cui morirono 10 mila persone. L'allora leader bosniaco Alija Izetbegovic fu preso in ostaggio dalle forze serbe all'aeroporto di Sarajevo mentre rientrava da colloqui di pace in Portogallo. Come risposta, la principale caserma serba di Sarajevo fu circondata dalle truppe bosniache. Un negoziato ad alta tensione, mediato dall'Onu, produsse un accordo per la liberazione di Izetbegovic e simultaneamente dei soldati della caserma serba. Ganic, che era il vice di Izetbegovic, condusse la trattativa e comandava di fatto le truppe della Bosnia in quel delicato frangente. Sembrava che la crisi fosse risolta ma, mentre Izetbegovic veniva liberato, il convoglio su cui viaggiavano le truppe serbe, che stava lasciando la caserma circondata, fu attaccato. Nell'agguato morirono 40 soldati. I serbi accusano oggi Ganic di diretta responsabilità nella morte di 18 di essi.Frottole, protesta la bella Diana. "Che Ganic sia arrestato per un crimine che secondo il Tribunale dell'Aja non sussiste è uno scandalo", dice. "Ora potrà contrastare queste accuse ridicole da uomo libero". Lei non lo ha mai incontrato o conosciuto, precisa, ma non ha esitato a tirare fuori le 300 mila sterline per riparare "un'ingiustizia". A Sarajevo, migliaia di persone protestano da giorni davanti all'ambasciata britannica. E l'attuale presidente della Bosnia, Haris Silajdzic, è appena stato a Londra dove ha incontrato il ministro degli Esteri David Miliband, chiedendo il rilascio di Ganic e protestanto per il trattamento "irriguardoso" che ha sofferto: "In carcere gli hanno tolto le sue medicine e non gli hanno lasciato usare il telefono". Ma senza i soldi di Diana sarebbe rimasto in prigione. Il seguito alla prossima puntata.
La Repubblica 13-11-09
Da profuga bosniaca a protagonista della finanza lascia Londra e attacca l´alta società: mi ha snobbato
La moglie del banchiere "Ho salvato la City ma ora devo fuggire"
La sua storia «dalle stalle alle stelle» era già degna di un film: una giovane bellissima bosniaca fugge a piedi da Sarajevo mentre infuria la guerra, arriva miracolosamente in Inghilterra, fa la sguattera e la cameriera nella capitale, finché non incontra un ricco banchiere, che se ne innamora e la sposa. Lieto fine? Non ancora: in vacanza col marito in Costa Smeralda, diventa amica della moglie dello sceicco del Qatar, e lo convince a investire un po´ dei suoi soldini nella banca londinese per cui lavora il suo sposo banchiere. Lo sceicco inietta 8 miliardi di euro nella Barclays, salvandola dalla tempesta finanziaria, e il banchiere che ha mediato l´investimento, o meglio che l´ha ottenuto grazie alla simpatia e all´arte della persuasione di sua moglie, diventa ancora più ricco, il più ricco della City.Lieto fine? No, non ci siamo ancora per concludere il film della vita di Diana Jenkins, come si chiama ora, nata Sanela Catic nell´ex-Jugoslavia 36 anni fa. Con un´intervista di fuoco a Tatler, il mensile dell´high society inglese, adesso la moglie di Riger Jenkins, il banchiere più famoso di Londra, lancia un sorprendente «j´accuse» contro la metropoli che l´ha accolta. Non contro la città intera, bensì contro l´alta società, la classe dirigente, l´aristocrazia della finanza e della nobiltà, insomma il cerchio di persone di cui era parte da quando non faceva più la sguattera e si è sposata con un uomo da 50 milioni di euro l´anno.L´accusa è pesante: «Sono un branco di snob. Le mogli del bel mondo londinese mi hanno trattata in un modo da farmi sentire inutile, vuota, perfino sporca. Come se fossi stata scelta da mio marito su un catalogo di ragazze dell´est». Non dice: mi hanno trattato come se fossi una puttana slava, ma poco ci manca. Perciò Diana se n´è andata: via da Londra, lontano dalla classista Gran Bretagna, dove a farla accettare non bastavano nemmeno i suoi soldi e il diamante che portava al dito, «mio marito me ne comprò uno grosso così, perché stava male a vedere come mi snobbavano le altre». Ed è approdata, insieme ai figli e al marito (quando sarà libero dagli impegni di lavoro) in America, in California, a Los Angeles: per la precisione a Malibù, non proprio una località proletaria, essendo la spiaggia dei divi del cinema, ma dove per venire accettati è sufficiente esseri ricchi, belli e famosi, non importa avere frequentato Eton, Oxford e avere il sangue blu.Londra, per il momento, non l´ha presa bene. Sui giornali fioccano editoriali di due tipi: o la prendono in giro, notando che gli snob non mancano certamente neppure a Malibù; o contestano la sostanza delle sue accuse, affermando che Londra non è più la società classista di alcuni decenni or sono, bensì un ambiente democratico, vibrante, creativo, dove chiunque può fare fortuna, come in America, come del resto è capitato anche a lei. La stizzita reazione conferma che qualcosa di vero, nelle sue parole, c´è: un pizzico di Old England, nei salotti buoni della City, esiste e resiste. La snobberia di una nazione dove un accento rivela la provenienza non solo geografica, ma anche sociale, non è un´invenzione di Diana Jenkins. I padroni dell´universo, per citare il celebre romanzo di Tom Wolfe su Wall Street, non sono necessariamente più umili negli Stati Uniti: ma un tantino meno snob forse sì.Se diventerà un film o perlomeno un romanzo, questa vicenda, potrebbe essere lei stessa a produrlo o pubblicarlo. Ancora prima di trasferirsi a Hollywood, Diana era diventata amica di George Clooney, Elton John, Cindy Crawford e altre personalità dello show - business. Insieme a Clooney ha lanciato un´associazione di beneficenza che ha raccolto 10 milioni di dollari per i bambini del Darfur. «I soldi sono una cosa meravigliosa e li rispetto e mi piace spenderli, possono comprarti la libertà e anche darti la felicità, ma non sono tutto nella vita», dice a Tatler. «A certi party della buona società londinese con tutte le signore ingioiellate, mi chiedevo: cosa ci sto a fare io qui? Starei meglio a casa in pigiama a mangiare la pizza con i miei due figli». Diana ha portato via da Sarajevo i genitori, ma non ha fatto in tempo a salvare suo fratello, morto sotto le bombe. Su come fece a scappare lei, camminando dalla Bosnia alla Croazia nel mezzo della guerra, e poi a finire a Londra, preferisce tacere: «Non fu bello, ma non sono ancora pronta per raccontare come andò». Neanche i suoi primi tempi nella capitale britannica sono stati facili: «Parlavo a malapena la lingua. Mi aggiravo per le strade in cerca di qualcosa da mangiare o di un lavoro. Pensavo solo a sopravvivere. Certe settimane mangiavo solo una tavoletta di Toblerone». Poi ha trovato lavoro, si è messa a studiare business, si è iscritta a una palestra alla moda e lì un giorno ha conosciuto il banchiere. «Non sarei quello che sono oggi, se non avessi incontrato Diana», giura lui. Chiedere allo sceicco del Qatar, per una conferma.
La Repubblica 13-11-09
Da profuga bosniaca a protagonista della finanza lascia Londra e attacca l´alta società: mi ha snobbato
La moglie del banchiere
"Ho salvato la City ma ora devo fuggire"
La sua storia «dalle stalle alle stelle» era già degna di un film: una giovane bellissima bosniaca fugge a piedi da Sarajevo mentre infuria la guerra, arriva miracolosamente in Inghilterra, fa la sguattera e la cameriera nella capitale, finché non incontra un ricco banchiere, che se ne innamora e la sposa. Lieto fine? Non ancora: in vacanza col marito in Costa Smeralda, diventa amica della moglie dello sceicco del Qatar, e lo convince a investire un po´ dei suoi soldini nella banca londinese per cui lavora il suo sposo banchiere. Lo sceicco inietta 8 miliardi di euro nella Barclays, salvandola dalla tempesta finanziaria, e il banchiere che ha mediato l´investimento, o meglio che l´ha ottenuto grazie alla simpatia e all´arte della persuasione di sua moglie, diventa ancora più ricco, il più ricco della City.
Lieto fine? No, non ci siamo ancora per concludere il film della vita di Diana Jenkins, come si chiama ora, nata Sanela Catic nell´ex-Jugoslavia 36 anni fa. Con un´intervista di fuoco a Tatler, il mensile dell´high society inglese, adesso la moglie di Riger Jenkins, il banchiere più famoso di Londra, lancia un sorprendente «j´accuse» contro la metropoli che l´ha accolta. Non contro la città intera, bensì contro l´alta società, la classe dirigente, l´aristocrazia della finanza e della nobiltà, insomma il cerchio di persone di cui era parte da quando non faceva più la sguattera e si è sposata con un uomo da 50 milioni di euro l´anno.
L´accusa è pesante: «Sono un branco di snob. Le mogli del bel mondo londinese mi hanno trattata in un modo da farmi sentire inutile, vuota, perfino sporca. Come se fossi stata scelta da mio marito su un catalogo di ragazze dell´est». Non dice: mi hanno trattato come se fossi una puttana slava, ma poco ci manca. Perciò Diana se n´è andata: via da Londra, lontano dalla classista Gran Bretagna, dove a farla accettare non bastavano nemmeno i suoi soldi e il diamante che portava al dito, «mio marito me ne comprò uno grosso così, perché stava male a vedere come mi snobbavano le altre». Ed è approdata, insieme ai figli e al marito (quando sarà libero dagli impegni di lavoro) in America, in California, a Los Angeles: per la precisione a Malibù, non proprio una località proletaria, essendo la spiaggia dei divi del cinema, ma dove per venire accettati è sufficiente esseri ricchi, belli e famosi, non importa avere frequentato Eton, Oxford e avere il sangue blu.
Londra, per il momento, non l´ha presa bene. Sui giornali fioccano editoriali di due tipi: o la prendono in giro, notando che gli snob non mancano certamente neppure a Malibù; o contestano la sostanza delle sue accuse, affermando che Londra non è più la società classista di alcuni decenni or sono, bensì un ambiente democratico, vibrante, creativo, dove chiunque può fare fortuna, come in America, come del resto è capitato anche a lei. La stizzita reazione conferma che qualcosa di vero, nelle sue parole, c´è: un pizzico di Old England, nei salotti buoni della City, esiste e resiste. La snobberia di una nazione dove un accento rivela la provenienza non solo geografica, ma anche sociale, non è un´invenzione di Diana Jenkins. I padroni dell´universo, per citare il celebre romanzo di Tom Wolfe su Wall Street, non sono necessariamente più umili negli Stati Uniti: ma un tantino meno snob forse sì.
Se diventerà un film o perlomeno un romanzo, questa vicenda, potrebbe essere lei stessa a produrlo o pubblicarlo. Ancora prima di trasferirsi a Hollywood, Diana era diventata amica di George Clooney, Elton John, Cindy Crawford e altre personalità dello show - business. Insieme a Clooney ha lanciato un´associazione di beneficenza che ha raccolto 10 milioni di dollari per i bambini del Darfur. «I soldi sono una cosa meravigliosa e li rispetto e mi piace spenderli, possono comprarti la libertà e anche darti la felicità, ma non sono tutto nella vita», dice a Tatler. «A certi party della buona società londinese con tutte le signore ingioiellate, mi chiedevo: cosa ci sto a fare io qui? Starei meglio a casa in pigiama a mangiare la pizza con i miei due figli». Diana ha portato via da Sarajevo i genitori, ma non ha fatto in tempo a salvare suo fratello, morto sotto le bombe. Su come fece a scappare lei, camminando dalla Bosnia alla Croazia nel mezzo della guerra, e poi a finire a Londra, preferisce tacere: «Non fu bello, ma non sono ancora pronta per raccontare come andò». Neanche i suoi primi tempi nella capitale britannica sono stati facili: «Parlavo a malapena la lingua. Mi aggiravo per le strade in cerca di qualcosa da mangiare o di un lavoro. Pensavo solo a sopravvivere. Certe settimane mangiavo solo una tavoletta di Toblerone». Poi ha trovato lavoro, si è messa a studiare business, si è iscritta a una palestra alla moda e lì un giorno ha conosciuto il banchiere. «Non sarei quello che sono oggi, se non avessi incontrato Diana», giura lui. Chiedere allo sceicco del Qatar, per una conferma.
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=2749
Strategic Culture Foundation - February 3--9, 2010
New Balkan Wars Loom on the Horizon
Strategic Culture Foundation - February 3--9, 2010
New Balkan Wars Loom on the Horizon
Pyotr Iskenderov
-[T]he plan for a final solution for North Kosovo is similar to the one Georgian President M. Saakashvili had in mind launching an attack against South Ossetia in August, 2008. Even the stated objectives – the restoration of the constitutional jurisdiction in Saakashvili's wording – is the same in both cases...
Dr. Petr A. Iskenderov is a historian, senior researcher at the Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Science, and the Vremya Novostey and the Voice of Russia radio station international politics commentator.
===========================
Source :
Source :
Stop NATO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site: http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to: rwrozoff@...
or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Daily digest option available.
==============================
The contours of the Kosovo separatists' plan to suppress the Serbian resistance in the northern part of the province with the help of the US and the EU are becoming increasingly visible.
The statements emanating from Pristina and the intensifying international debates over the Kosovo theme do not only show that the Albanian separatists are preparing an attack against their opponents but also give an idea of its potential scenario, the distribution of roles in it, and the extent to which Hashim Thaci and other former leaders of the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army are relying on international support in the process.
The debates at the January 22 open session of the UN Security Council on Kosovo were unprecedentedly heated. It was the first time since the summer of 2007 (when Russia managed to derail the Resolution recognizing Kosovo independence, proposed by the West on the basis of UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari's plan) that the parties to the dispute over Kosovo defined their positions with such utmost clarity.
There was an impression that the world's major powers were speaking different languages. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the US, and West European countries “urged flexibility” in admitting Kosovo to regional and international mechanisms and forums, whereas Russia and Serbia regarded the approach as an attempt to dilute the role of the UN in the province and to legitimize its independent status.
The discussions were centered around Pristina's so-called final solution plan for North Kosovo, which Thaci inadvertently unveiled several days prior to the session. He said the plan was being drafted jointly with international representatives and was aimed at strengthening what he called Kosovo sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Thaci said 2010 would be the year of consolidation for Kosovo. The priorities in the framework of the plan include the elimination of Serbian self-government established in Kosovska Mitrovica and nearby Serbian communities based on the May, 2008 elections held in accordance with the laws of Serbia. Another blow will be dealt to Serbian police forces and the custom service, which at the moment are maintaining at least partial control over the traffic across the administrative border between Kosovo and the rest of Serbia.
NATO's KFOR deployed in Kosovo will render military assistance to Albanians. There is information that on the whole the corresponding decision was made during Commander of Joint Force Command Naples, Admiral Mark Fitzgerald's January visit to Kosovo, after which he described the Serbian self-government as... a threat to the security of Kosovo. “All violations of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 pose a threat to security. Since the resolution does not approve of parallel institutions, they are cause for concern”, said Fitzgerald.
Pristina's priority is international support for the operation, which the US and the EU are supposed to ensure. The US will be blocking attempts by Russia and China to have a response resolution passed by the UN Security Council. At the same time Brussels will be exerting ever greater pressure on Serbia to make it deny support to the Serbs of Kosovo and seal off the border with the province so as not let Serbian volunteers reach Albania.
Chances are that the operation will be launched already this April after the International Court of Justice issues an indefinite verdict on the Kosovo independence and the establishment of the Mitrovica municipality headed by Albanians and the few Serbs ready to cooperate with them.
Serbia's pro-Western President Boris Tadic spoke with great caution of the anti-Serbian plan harbored by Pristina, NATO, and the EU, essentially saying little more than that the “final solution” promised nothing good to the Kosovo population. Russia's Deputy Permanent Representative to UN I. Shcherbak was much more outspoken. He said that from Russia's standpoint it is necessary to stop decisively any attempts to float concepts harmful to Kosovo regardless of their source, as they do not only breach UN Security Council Resolution 1244 but also destabilize the province and provoke tensions.
There is information that the plan was co-authored by EU Special Representative and UN Civil Administration head Peter Feith. The Administration was established in the spring of 2008, shortly after the declaration of Kosovo independence and its recognition by the US and major EU counties.
The Administration that no UN documents regulate comprises representatives of 14 EU and NATO countries and Switzerland, which are implementing the Ahtisaari plan, a EU brainchild the UN Security Council never approved.
It is noteworthy that Kosovo separatist government foreign minister Skender Hyseni who represented Kosovo at the UN Security Council session made no comments concerning the plan for the northern part of Kosovo. Speaking to the media after the session, he claimed without elaborating that the EU mission and the Civic Administration were not promoting any final solution for North Kosovo.
A survey of recent developments leads to the conclusion that the blueprint for suppressing the Serbian resistance in Kosovo is being drafted at a level much higher than that of the province. Given its basic parameters (a snap offensive supported by the NATO and EU pseudo-peacekeepers with international political backing plus the installation of a puppet administration), the plan for a final solution for North Kosovo is similar to the one Georgian President M. Saakashvili had in mind launching an attack against South Ossetia in August, 2008. Even the stated objectives – the restoration of the constitutional jurisdiction in Saakashvili's wording – is the same in both cases.
Even earlier, in August, 1995, a similar scenario was imposed on the Serbs of Krajina when Croatia sent regular army forces to attack them while the US and the EU backed the operation diplomatically. Actually, at that time the diplomatic support played no practical role as neither Yugoslavia nor the Russian leadership demonstrated any will to help Serbian Krajina in its tragedy....
It is hard to predict the outcome of the current developments as the Bosnian front, no less important to Serbs, Russia, and the Orthodoxy, is likely to gain a place on the map of the new Balkan war alongside the Kosovo one. Outgoing Croatian President Stipe Mesic said the Republic's army should launch an offensive against the Bosnian Serb Republic in case it holds a Kosovo-style self-determination referendum.
Blog site: http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
To subscribe, send an e-mail to: rwrozoff@...
or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Daily digest option available.
==============================
The contours of the Kosovo separatists' plan to suppress the Serbian resistance in the northern part of the province with the help of the US and the EU are becoming increasingly visible.
The statements emanating from Pristina and the intensifying international debates over the Kosovo theme do not only show that the Albanian separatists are preparing an attack against their opponents but also give an idea of its potential scenario, the distribution of roles in it, and the extent to which Hashim Thaci and other former leaders of the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army are relying on international support in the process.
The debates at the January 22 open session of the UN Security Council on Kosovo were unprecedentedly heated. It was the first time since the summer of 2007 (when Russia managed to derail the Resolution recognizing Kosovo independence, proposed by the West on the basis of UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari's plan) that the parties to the dispute over Kosovo defined their positions with such utmost clarity.
There was an impression that the world's major powers were speaking different languages. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the US, and West European countries “urged flexibility” in admitting Kosovo to regional and international mechanisms and forums, whereas Russia and Serbia regarded the approach as an attempt to dilute the role of the UN in the province and to legitimize its independent status.
The discussions were centered around Pristina's so-called final solution plan for North Kosovo, which Thaci inadvertently unveiled several days prior to the session. He said the plan was being drafted jointly with international representatives and was aimed at strengthening what he called Kosovo sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Thaci said 2010 would be the year of consolidation for Kosovo. The priorities in the framework of the plan include the elimination of Serbian self-government established in Kosovska Mitrovica and nearby Serbian communities based on the May, 2008 elections held in accordance with the laws of Serbia. Another blow will be dealt to Serbian police forces and the custom service, which at the moment are maintaining at least partial control over the traffic across the administrative border between Kosovo and the rest of Serbia.
NATO's KFOR deployed in Kosovo will render military assistance to Albanians. There is information that on the whole the corresponding decision was made during Commander of Joint Force Command Naples, Admiral Mark Fitzgerald's January visit to Kosovo, after which he described the Serbian self-government as... a threat to the security of Kosovo. “All violations of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 pose a threat to security. Since the resolution does not approve of parallel institutions, they are cause for concern”, said Fitzgerald.
Pristina's priority is international support for the operation, which the US and the EU are supposed to ensure. The US will be blocking attempts by Russia and China to have a response resolution passed by the UN Security Council. At the same time Brussels will be exerting ever greater pressure on Serbia to make it deny support to the Serbs of Kosovo and seal off the border with the province so as not let Serbian volunteers reach Albania.
Chances are that the operation will be launched already this April after the International Court of Justice issues an indefinite verdict on the Kosovo independence and the establishment of the Mitrovica municipality headed by Albanians and the few Serbs ready to cooperate with them.
Serbia's pro-Western President Boris Tadic spoke with great caution of the anti-Serbian plan harbored by Pristina, NATO, and the EU, essentially saying little more than that the “final solution” promised nothing good to the Kosovo population. Russia's Deputy Permanent Representative to UN I. Shcherbak was much more outspoken. He said that from Russia's standpoint it is necessary to stop decisively any attempts to float concepts harmful to Kosovo regardless of their source, as they do not only breach UN Security Council Resolution 1244 but also destabilize the province and provoke tensions.
There is information that the plan was co-authored by EU Special Representative and UN Civil Administration head Peter Feith. The Administration was established in the spring of 2008, shortly after the declaration of Kosovo independence and its recognition by the US and major EU counties.
The Administration that no UN documents regulate comprises representatives of 14 EU and NATO countries and Switzerland, which are implementing the Ahtisaari plan, a EU brainchild the UN Security Council never approved.
It is noteworthy that Kosovo separatist government foreign minister Skender Hyseni who represented Kosovo at the UN Security Council session made no comments concerning the plan for the northern part of Kosovo. Speaking to the media after the session, he claimed without elaborating that the EU mission and the Civic Administration were not promoting any final solution for North Kosovo.
A survey of recent developments leads to the conclusion that the blueprint for suppressing the Serbian resistance in Kosovo is being drafted at a level much higher than that of the province. Given its basic parameters (a snap offensive supported by the NATO and EU pseudo-peacekeepers with international political backing plus the installation of a puppet administration), the plan for a final solution for North Kosovo is similar to the one Georgian President M. Saakashvili had in mind launching an attack against South Ossetia in August, 2008. Even the stated objectives – the restoration of the constitutional jurisdiction in Saakashvili's wording – is the same in both cases.
Even earlier, in August, 1995, a similar scenario was imposed on the Serbs of Krajina when Croatia sent regular army forces to attack them while the US and the EU backed the operation diplomatically. Actually, at that time the diplomatic support played no practical role as neither Yugoslavia nor the Russian leadership demonstrated any will to help Serbian Krajina in its tragedy....
It is hard to predict the outcome of the current developments as the Bosnian front, no less important to Serbs, Russia, and the Orthodoxy, is likely to gain a place on the map of the new Balkan war alongside the Kosovo one. Outgoing Croatian President Stipe Mesic said the Republic's army should launch an offensive against the Bosnian Serb Republic in case it holds a Kosovo-style self-determination referendum.
***
The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina will become strained soon as Bosnian Serbs hold a referendum on their constitutional status.
Its aim is not to let the leaders of Sarajevo, the US and EU put an end to Republika Srpska. The outgoing Croatian President, Stjepan Mesic, promised that in case the referendum takes place, the regular army of Croatia will enter the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina to cut off the 15-km Posavina corridor, which connects the western and the eastern parts of Republika Srpska in the area of Brcko, close to the Croatian border.
“If Milorad Dodik (Prime Minister of Republika Srpska) decides to hold a referendum on separation, I will send troops to divide the region inhabited by Bosnian Serbs”, the Croatian President said, adding that in case of success, a sovereign state of Bosnian Serbs will 'cease to exist'. He made the announcement during an informal press conference in Zagreb on January 18.
A military campaign against Banja Luka may be held simultaneously with an armed action by Kosovo`s Albanian authorities against the city of Kosovska Mitrovica and Serbian communities in Northern Kosovo.
In this case the US, NATO and the EU will manage to complete the separation of Serbian territories. The Serbian Republic will be surrounded by hostile states and thus will be no longer able to carry out an independent foreign policy. The defeat of the Kosovan and Bosnian Serbs will become Russia`s biggest loss in the Balkans over the past two decades and will harm Moscow's attempts to play an active role in other strategically important regions in Eurasia.
The first reaction of Serbia and Russia to such rude interference of the Croatian leader into the affairs of a neighboring state was surprisingly reserved. Serbia's President Boris Tadic made an attempt to respond to the remarks made by his Croatian counterpart at the UN Security Council meeting on Kosovo on January 22. But he commented on the issue not during his main speech (though parallels between what was going on then in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Kosovo were more than obvious). He spoke during the debates because he found such kinds of issues could not be discussed during official reports. Mr. Tadic also met the UN Chief Ban Ki-moon to tell him that Mesic`s 'dangerous words were unwelcome in political discourse' but immediately noted that Serbia did not want to worsen relations with Croatia.
Such peace-loving rhetoric was accepted in Zagreb. Croatia's Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor told journalists that Serbia and Croatia should abandon debates and work together to develop neighborly relations. However, the Prime Minister did not disavow the President's announcement.
Russia's reaction is still too vague. Summing up the results of 2009 at a press conference on January 22 in Moscow, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov commented on Mr. Mesic`s announcement: “We insist that all sides involved respect the Dayton Agreement and avoid the use of force”. (1)
Meanwhile, the way the situation is developing in the region in recent months proves quite the contrary: the West and the leaders of Sarajevo are definitely going to undermine the Dayton agreement.
Two rounds of talks held by the heads of the Bosnian political parties in October 2009 at a NATO base in Butmir outside Sarajevo revealed the western strategy toward Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Bosnian Serbs are demanded to abdicate their authorities settled in the Dayton Peace Agreement. Though formally Russia is a member of the Dayton Agreement Peace Implementation Council, it did not take part in the discussions in Butmir. So, it would be a fatal mistake to expect the US, EU and NATO to abandon their new political course. It would also mean to be inexcusably weak in regard to Russia's interests in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the Balkans in general.
It was not accidental that the International Crisis Group, which traditionally deals with promoting western political propaganda in conflict regions, in every detail commented on the future of the Balkans a few months before recent events. Experts in the Group believe that Moscow and Belgrade remain the West`s major rivals in the region because “an international approach to the Balkans is dominated by concern over Serbia`s reaction to the independence of Kosovo”. In their opinion, Russia “has become stronger in opposing a Western policy it sees hostile to its interests”. (2)
Under these circumstances, Moscow should better revise its policy in the Balkans. Russian diplomats should no longer view the Dayton agreements as too weak to withstand political attacks.
This all will make it logical to put in question the political status of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This approach will help Moscow to no longer be an outsider in Bosnia and launch a series of international talks on territorial, political and ethnocultural problems in the Balkans, where peoples and their interests are in jeopardy.
Taking into consideration intentions of the West to put an end to the Serbian Orthodox community in the Balkans, revision of the existing borders in the conflict regions may become the only way for Russia to defend its interests. As of today, there are at least three self-proclaimed states whose status is in doubted: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Macedonia. Their territorial and administrative revision could become the least painful way to avoid new wars in the Balkans.
It is remarkable that recently the authorities of Sarajevo have been urging Russia to contribute to the 'implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement', the Bosniak Muslim member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Haris Silajdzic, said at a meeting with the Russian special envoy for Kosovo, Alexander Botsan-Kharchenko. And this is a very disturbing sign because Silajdzic has long been known for his extremist views about Republika Srpska. The majority of people in Western Europe cannot but be aware that the Bosnian Serbs remain the only counterbalance to radical pan-Islamic tendencies in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And this it what gives Russia the right to boost its activities in the Balkans.
(1) Http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf
(2) Bosnia`s Incomplete Transition: Between Dayton and Europe. Sarajevo-Brussels, 2009. P.14
Its aim is not to let the leaders of Sarajevo, the US and EU put an end to Republika Srpska. The outgoing Croatian President, Stjepan Mesic, promised that in case the referendum takes place, the regular army of Croatia will enter the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina to cut off the 15-km Posavina corridor, which connects the western and the eastern parts of Republika Srpska in the area of Brcko, close to the Croatian border.
“If Milorad Dodik (Prime Minister of Republika Srpska) decides to hold a referendum on separation, I will send troops to divide the region inhabited by Bosnian Serbs”, the Croatian President said, adding that in case of success, a sovereign state of Bosnian Serbs will 'cease to exist'. He made the announcement during an informal press conference in Zagreb on January 18.
A military campaign against Banja Luka may be held simultaneously with an armed action by Kosovo`s Albanian authorities against the city of Kosovska Mitrovica and Serbian communities in Northern Kosovo.
In this case the US, NATO and the EU will manage to complete the separation of Serbian territories. The Serbian Republic will be surrounded by hostile states and thus will be no longer able to carry out an independent foreign policy. The defeat of the Kosovan and Bosnian Serbs will become Russia`s biggest loss in the Balkans over the past two decades and will harm Moscow's attempts to play an active role in other strategically important regions in Eurasia.
The first reaction of Serbia and Russia to such rude interference of the Croatian leader into the affairs of a neighboring state was surprisingly reserved. Serbia's President Boris Tadic made an attempt to respond to the remarks made by his Croatian counterpart at the UN Security Council meeting on Kosovo on January 22. But he commented on the issue not during his main speech (though parallels between what was going on then in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Kosovo were more than obvious). He spoke during the debates because he found such kinds of issues could not be discussed during official reports. Mr. Tadic also met the UN Chief Ban Ki-moon to tell him that Mesic`s 'dangerous words were unwelcome in political discourse' but immediately noted that Serbia did not want to worsen relations with Croatia.
Such peace-loving rhetoric was accepted in Zagreb. Croatia's Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor told journalists that Serbia and Croatia should abandon debates and work together to develop neighborly relations. However, the Prime Minister did not disavow the President's announcement.
Russia's reaction is still too vague. Summing up the results of 2009 at a press conference on January 22 in Moscow, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov commented on Mr. Mesic`s announcement: “We insist that all sides involved respect the Dayton Agreement and avoid the use of force”. (1)
Meanwhile, the way the situation is developing in the region in recent months proves quite the contrary: the West and the leaders of Sarajevo are definitely going to undermine the Dayton agreement.
Two rounds of talks held by the heads of the Bosnian political parties in October 2009 at a NATO base in Butmir outside Sarajevo revealed the western strategy toward Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Bosnian Serbs are demanded to abdicate their authorities settled in the Dayton Peace Agreement. Though formally Russia is a member of the Dayton Agreement Peace Implementation Council, it did not take part in the discussions in Butmir. So, it would be a fatal mistake to expect the US, EU and NATO to abandon their new political course. It would also mean to be inexcusably weak in regard to Russia's interests in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the Balkans in general.
It was not accidental that the International Crisis Group, which traditionally deals with promoting western political propaganda in conflict regions, in every detail commented on the future of the Balkans a few months before recent events. Experts in the Group believe that Moscow and Belgrade remain the West`s major rivals in the region because “an international approach to the Balkans is dominated by concern over Serbia`s reaction to the independence of Kosovo”. In their opinion, Russia “has become stronger in opposing a Western policy it sees hostile to its interests”. (2)
Under these circumstances, Moscow should better revise its policy in the Balkans. Russian diplomats should no longer view the Dayton agreements as too weak to withstand political attacks.
This all will make it logical to put in question the political status of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This approach will help Moscow to no longer be an outsider in Bosnia and launch a series of international talks on territorial, political and ethnocultural problems in the Balkans, where peoples and their interests are in jeopardy.
Taking into consideration intentions of the West to put an end to the Serbian Orthodox community in the Balkans, revision of the existing borders in the conflict regions may become the only way for Russia to defend its interests. As of today, there are at least three self-proclaimed states whose status is in doubted: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Macedonia. Their territorial and administrative revision could become the least painful way to avoid new wars in the Balkans.
It is remarkable that recently the authorities of Sarajevo have been urging Russia to contribute to the 'implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement', the Bosniak Muslim member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Haris Silajdzic, said at a meeting with the Russian special envoy for Kosovo, Alexander Botsan-Kharchenko. And this is a very disturbing sign because Silajdzic has long been known for his extremist views about Republika Srpska. The majority of people in Western Europe cannot but be aware that the Bosnian Serbs remain the only counterbalance to radical pan-Islamic tendencies in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And this it what gives Russia the right to boost its activities in the Balkans.
(1) Http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf
(2) Bosnia`s Incomplete Transition: Between Dayton and Europe. Sarajevo-Brussels, 2009. P.14
