http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070620/67538714.html
Russian Information Agency Novosti
June 20, 2007
The future of Kosovo: Europe's hour or, once again, Europe's shame?
Lev Dzugayev, member of the RIA Novosti Expert Council
-Who has pulled out of the ABM Treaty? Who has not
ratified the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in
Europe? Who is stubbornly moving towards the Russian
border despite promises not to expand NATO eastward?
Not Russia.
-[A]n anti-Serb cleansing campaign was carried out in
Kosovo, a UN-administered territory whose "security
has come from a NATO-led peacekeeping force."
Hundreds of thousands of Serbs fled their homes, and
dozens of monuments of Serbian culture were destroyed.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Western experts
studying the situation in that province ask themselves
what lies in store for Serbs, death or flight.
-British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said upon
returning from Munich in 1938: "My good friends, for
the second time in our history a British Prime
Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with
honor. I believe it is peace for our time." Everyone
knows what happened after that.
MOSCOW - The new architecture of the European Union,
its expansion, and Russian-American ties are among the
most frequently discussed issues in international
relations.
They are directly connected to geopolitical events,
which sometimes provoke justified concern.
I am not referring to "Polish meat imports," or the
United States' protectionist policies, or Russia's
unwillingness to sign the Energy Charter under
unacceptable conditions.
I am deeply worried that some forces are trying to
reopen Pandora's box, boldly thinking that they can
deal with the consequences which promise disasters.
Europe has seen this before. It has suffered the shame
of the Munich Agreement, which Neville Chamberlain,
Benito Mussolini and Edouard Daladier signed with Nazi
Germany in 1938. It paved the way for the
Soviet-German non-aggression pact signed by Russia's
Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and his German
counterpart, Joachim von Ribbentrop, in 1939.
In 1938, Western Europe, trying to keep Hitler away
from its borders, settled on the "appeasement" policy,
although the Munich Agreement gave Germany the
Sudetenland starting October 10, and de facto control
over the rest of Czechoslovakia as long as Hitler
promised to go no further.
In 1939, just 20 years after World War I, Europe was
shaken by another global catastrophe. Western military
historians put the blame for the Second World War on
Soviet Russia, saying that the non-aggression pact it
signed with Germany (a year after the Munich
Agreement) led to the partition of Poland (which, I'd
like to remind you, had taken part in the
dismemberment of Czechoslovakia the year before).
One of the lessons we have overlooked is that by
ignoring the principle of cause and effect, we provoke
new conflicts between countries.
Who has pulled out of the ABM Treaty? Who has not
ratified the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in
Europe? Who is stubbornly moving towards the Russian
border despite promises not to expand NATO eastward?
Not Russia. Why put the blame on it then? This reminds
me of what a Russian fable writer said: "The weak
against the strong is always in the wrong."
This is why so many Western forces dislike Russia,
which is struggling to regain its position on the
global scene and the right to express its opinions,
primarily about its own future.
The Wall Street Journal wrote in an editorial on June
11, 2007: "Mr. Bush's principled stand on behalf of a
small European nation's right to self-determination
and freedom is America at its best in Europe. Not
least when in the process Washington pushes back
against an authoritarian leader in the Kremlin with
neo-imperial designs on the Continent's eastern half."
But when President Vladimir Putin spoke up in defense
of the rights and freedoms of Abkhazia and Ossetia,
his position was described as destructive and
neo-imperial.
According to an article entitled "Europe must now
stand up to Russia over Kosovo" (Financial Times, May
25, 2007), "Independence (...) is the non-negotiable
demand of the overwhelmingly ethnically Albanian
population."
Why then is the independence of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia negotiable, even though they demanded it at
least seven years before Kosovo, while all the other
circumstances are the same?
The Canadian Globe and Mail wrote on June 12, 2007:
"No matter how fervently Serbians might wish it were
otherwise, Kosovo is no longer part of their country.
"Serbian troops departed eight years ago, forced out
at the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's
bombing campaign.
"Since then, the territory has been administered by
the UN and its security has come from a NATO-led
peacekeeping force. The Albanians of Kosovo are nearly
unanimous in their determination never again to be
under Belgrade's thumb. It does not matter that Serbia
has embraced democratic reforms or that it might be
open to granting significant autonomy over local
affairs."
Now, let's replace some of the words in the above
quotation, and here is what we get:
"No matter how fervently Georgians might wish it were
otherwise, Abkhazia (or South Ossetia) is no longer
part of their country.
"Georgian troops departed nearly 15 years ago, forced
out at the end of a campaign waged by Abkhazes and
North Caucasian volunteers who supported them. Since
then, the territory's security has come from a
Russian-led peacekeeping force and UN and OSCE
observers.
"Abkhazes (or Ossetians) are nearly unanimous in their
determination never again to be under Tbilisi's thumb.
It does not matter that Georgia has embraced
democratic reforms or that it might be open to
granting Abkhazia (or South Ossetia) significant
autonomy over local affairs."
See the difference? No? Not surprising, for there is
none. Why is the Kosovo situation unique then?
Because it is located in the Balkans? Abkhazia and
South Ossetia are located in the Caucasus, but this
should not be important in terms of international law.
However, "there are no parallels to be drawn between
the UN-administered Kosovo and such troubled regions
as South Ossetia in Georgia," according to The Globe
and Mail.
Yes, parallels must be drawn between the two areas.
A Russian-led peacekeeping operation, which began 15
years ago, stopped the war between Georgians and
Ossetians and prevented new ethnic clashes in the
conflict zones. The Georgian enclave in South Ossetia
lived peacefully by and large, and the two sides
gradually restored trust, thanks to Russian
peacekeepers' mediation.
However, the situation exploded in 2004, after Mikheil
Saakashvili came to power in Georgia and acted on the
recommendations of his "friends."
Meanwhile, an anti-Serb cleansing campaign was carried
out in Kosovo, a UN-administered territory whose
"security has come from a NATO-led peacekeeping
force."
Hundreds of thousands of Serbs fled their homes, and
dozens of monuments of Serbian culture were destroyed.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Western experts
studying the situation in that province ask themselves
what lies in store for Serbs, death or flight.
The G8 countries reportedly agreed at their summit in
Germany that the Serbs and the Albanians of Kosovo
should be given some time to continue talks.
But several days later, U.S. President George W. Bush
made it clear in Tirana that the only reasonable
political solution for Kosovo was independence: "At
some point in time, sooner rather than later, you've
got to say enough is enough, Kosovo is independent."
According to The Financial Times, "The answer then is
for European governments to bury any misgivings and,
to borrow the cliche, stand shoulder to shoulder with
the U.S. Germans need to talk less about the risks of
confrontation with Russia, more about bringing to a
permanent end the cycle of violence that began with
Berlin's recognition of Croatia. [I find the latter
phrase rather interesting, as we had been told before
that it was Serbs who started the wave of violence]
Spaniards, Greeks and the rest should forget about<
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)