The Ottawa Serbian Heritage Society
3662 Albion Rd. South, Gloucester, Ontario, K1T 1A3
serbian.heritage@... (613) 225-3378
PUBLIC STATEMENT BY SERBIAN-CANADIAN ORGANIZATIONS
IN RESPONSE TO THE REPORT PRESENTED BY THE "INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENT
COMMISSION ON KOSOVO"
Ottawa, December 6, 2000
While we unreservedly share the Commission’s stated objective of
achieving a lasting, stable and just solution for Kosovo, we differ from
its diagnosis, methodology, and conclusions. We believe that the
Commission has erred in fact and judgment, and that its recommendations
- even if well intentioned - will have the opposite effect of the
hoped-for consequences.
Almost two years after the event, it is our considered opinion that the
war waged by NATO against the Serbs in the spring of 1999 was illegal,
unnecessary, and an abject failure. We are encouraged by the fact that
this is not an eccentric view from the margins. Many eminent analysts
and institutions – even those initially tricked or cajoled into
supporting the intervention - have come to see it as an exercise in
criminal folly. The war is being condemned ever more frequently and
deservedly by liberals and conservatives alike, by the upholders of
multilateralism no less than by the adherents of the traditional
Realpolitik based on national interest.
It is a matter of regret that such arguments have not been properly
considered by the Commission. Bereft of either legitimacy or legality,
it seems to find its raison d’etre in an unending quest for retroactive
justification of the war. Its historic amnesia is reflected in dating
the crisis only to 1989. Its muddled thinking is apparent in the
advocacy of "qualified independence" for the Serbian province Kosovo.
This goal, however qualified and rationalized, would place many borders
all over the world in doubt and make a mockery of the rule of law in
international affairs.
The moral absolutism that is at the core of the Commission’s apologia,
the one that has been routinely invoked by the proponents of NATO
bombing as a substitute for rational argument, is unsustainable. Genuine
dilemmas about our human responsibility for one another must not be used
as an excuse for the doctrine of benevolent global hegemony.
The Commission’s recommendations, so disdainful of the principle of
sovereignty of nation-states, may be motivated by a single-minded belief
that the war against the Westphalian order is a "just" war - but its
"justice" needs to be revealed in its pragmatic simplicity. The
Commission inadvertently confirms that the more arrogant the new
doctrine, the greater the willingness to lie for the truth. To be
capable of "doing something" sustains moral self-respect, if we can
suppress the thought that we are not so much moral actors as consumers
of predigested choices.
Unlike the Commission, we do not seek to lobby for any particular set of
policy options. Historical, political, legal, and moral arguments need
to be cleansed of propagandistic spin if there is to be a proper debate.
Because the treatment of the Kosovo episode by the media and politicians
has been largely one-sided and propagandistic – and, at times,
mendacious – that debate is sorely needed to restore balance in public
perceptions and in policy making. It is in sorrow, rather than anger,
that we aver that this particular Commission has not contributed to that
goal.
Specifically, we reassert the verifiable fact that the "Rambouillet
Peace Accord" was, in truth, a declaration of war disguised as a peace
agreement. The Serbs were told they had only two choices: sign the
agreement as written - or face NATO bombing. By that time the Clinton
Administration’s partnership with the KLA was unambiguous. Its effusive
embrace of an organization that only a year ago its own officials
labeled as "terrorist" was startling.
A key contention of the Commission, the "humanitarian" contention, is
rank hypocrisy. "Illegal but legitimate" is a piece of casuistry
unworthy of serious policy debate. What about Kashmir, Sudan, Uganda,
Angola, Congo, Sierra Leone, Chiapas, Sri Lanka, Algeria…? Properly
videotaped and Amanpourized, each would be as "legal" and "legitimate"
as a dozen "Kosovos". Compared to the killing fields of the Third World,
Kosovo before the bombing was a brutal but unremarkable low-intensity
campaign, uglier than Northern Ireland ten years ago, but much less so
than Kurdistan. Bearing in mind the many brutalities, aggressions and
"ethnic cleansing" ignored by the Western alliance - or even condoned,
notably in Croatia, or in eastern Turkey - it is clear that "Kosovo" is
not about universal principles. Abdullah Ocalan is a terrorist, but Agim
Ceku and Nasir Oric are freedom fighters.
The Commission has failed to acknowledge that the "Kosovo genocide" was
the most outrageous lie of the past decade. It did not happen. We were
force-fed a grotesque myth concocted to justify the war. It was waged in
the spring of 1999 on an independent nation because it refused foreign
troops on its soil. A truly independent Commission - unlike this one -
would have grasped that all other justifications are post facto
rationalizations. The powers that waged that war have aided and abetted
secession by an ethnic minority, secession that – once formally effected
- will render many European borders tentative.
The recommendations presented to us today for the future of Kosovo will
engender countless new hotbeds of instability. They will unleash an
uncontrollable chain reaction throughout the ex-Communist half of
Europe. Its first victim will be the former Yugoslav republic of
Macedonia, where the restive Albanian minority comprises a third of the
total population. With the murderous narco-mafia known as the "KLA" in
charge in Pristina, and the Serbs (and others) gone, the rising
expectations among Macedonia’s Albanians will be hard to contain. Will
the Pristina model not be demanded by the Hungarians in Rumania (more
numerous than Kosovo’s Albanians) and in southern Slovakia? What will
stop the Russians in the Ukraine (Crimea), in Moldova, in Estonia, and
in northern Kazakhstan from following suit? What about the Turks in
Thrace, and the chronically unstable and utterly unviable Dayton-Bosnia,
to mention but some of the European dominos that may fall in the wake of
Kosovo’s evolution as recommended to us today?
And finally, when the Albanians get their "qualified" secession, will
the same apply when the Latinos in southern California, New Mexico,
Arizona, or Texas eventually outnumber their Anglo neighbors and start
demanding bilingual statehood, leading to reunification with Mexico? Are
Russia and China to threaten the United States with bombing if
Washington does not comply?
The fundamental problem with the Commission is that the notion of "human
rights" can never provide a basis for either the rule of law or
morality. Universal "rights," detached from any rootedness in time or
place, will be open to the latest whim of outrage or the latest fad for
victimhood. A future, truly independent international commission should
ponder the implications of this course, and gather the courage to say
"no" to interventionism – for the sake of the rule of law, of peace and
stability in the world.
Slobodanka Borojevic, President Bora Dragasevich,
President
The Ottawa Serbian Heritage Society Serbian National Shield
Society of Canada
Snezana Vitorovic, President The Centre for
Peace in the Balkans
Association of Serbian Women Toronto
(www.balkanpeace.org)
Mirko Andjic, President
Serbian Canadian Society of Vancouver
3662 Albion Rd. South, Gloucester, Ontario, K1T 1A3
serbian.heritage@... (613) 225-3378
PUBLIC STATEMENT BY SERBIAN-CANADIAN ORGANIZATIONS
IN RESPONSE TO THE REPORT PRESENTED BY THE "INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENT
COMMISSION ON KOSOVO"
Ottawa, December 6, 2000
While we unreservedly share the Commission’s stated objective of
achieving a lasting, stable and just solution for Kosovo, we differ from
its diagnosis, methodology, and conclusions. We believe that the
Commission has erred in fact and judgment, and that its recommendations
- even if well intentioned - will have the opposite effect of the
hoped-for consequences.
Almost two years after the event, it is our considered opinion that the
war waged by NATO against the Serbs in the spring of 1999 was illegal,
unnecessary, and an abject failure. We are encouraged by the fact that
this is not an eccentric view from the margins. Many eminent analysts
and institutions – even those initially tricked or cajoled into
supporting the intervention - have come to see it as an exercise in
criminal folly. The war is being condemned ever more frequently and
deservedly by liberals and conservatives alike, by the upholders of
multilateralism no less than by the adherents of the traditional
Realpolitik based on national interest.
It is a matter of regret that such arguments have not been properly
considered by the Commission. Bereft of either legitimacy or legality,
it seems to find its raison d’etre in an unending quest for retroactive
justification of the war. Its historic amnesia is reflected in dating
the crisis only to 1989. Its muddled thinking is apparent in the
advocacy of "qualified independence" for the Serbian province Kosovo.
This goal, however qualified and rationalized, would place many borders
all over the world in doubt and make a mockery of the rule of law in
international affairs.
The moral absolutism that is at the core of the Commission’s apologia,
the one that has been routinely invoked by the proponents of NATO
bombing as a substitute for rational argument, is unsustainable. Genuine
dilemmas about our human responsibility for one another must not be used
as an excuse for the doctrine of benevolent global hegemony.
The Commission’s recommendations, so disdainful of the principle of
sovereignty of nation-states, may be motivated by a single-minded belief
that the war against the Westphalian order is a "just" war - but its
"justice" needs to be revealed in its pragmatic simplicity. The
Commission inadvertently confirms that the more arrogant the new
doctrine, the greater the willingness to lie for the truth. To be
capable of "doing something" sustains moral self-respect, if we can
suppress the thought that we are not so much moral actors as consumers
of predigested choices.
Unlike the Commission, we do not seek to lobby for any particular set of
policy options. Historical, political, legal, and moral arguments need
to be cleansed of propagandistic spin if there is to be a proper debate.
Because the treatment of the Kosovo episode by the media and politicians
has been largely one-sided and propagandistic – and, at times,
mendacious – that debate is sorely needed to restore balance in public
perceptions and in policy making. It is in sorrow, rather than anger,
that we aver that this particular Commission has not contributed to that
goal.
Specifically, we reassert the verifiable fact that the "Rambouillet
Peace Accord" was, in truth, a declaration of war disguised as a peace
agreement. The Serbs were told they had only two choices: sign the
agreement as written - or face NATO bombing. By that time the Clinton
Administration’s partnership with the KLA was unambiguous. Its effusive
embrace of an organization that only a year ago its own officials
labeled as "terrorist" was startling.
A key contention of the Commission, the "humanitarian" contention, is
rank hypocrisy. "Illegal but legitimate" is a piece of casuistry
unworthy of serious policy debate. What about Kashmir, Sudan, Uganda,
Angola, Congo, Sierra Leone, Chiapas, Sri Lanka, Algeria…? Properly
videotaped and Amanpourized, each would be as "legal" and "legitimate"
as a dozen "Kosovos". Compared to the killing fields of the Third World,
Kosovo before the bombing was a brutal but unremarkable low-intensity
campaign, uglier than Northern Ireland ten years ago, but much less so
than Kurdistan. Bearing in mind the many brutalities, aggressions and
"ethnic cleansing" ignored by the Western alliance - or even condoned,
notably in Croatia, or in eastern Turkey - it is clear that "Kosovo" is
not about universal principles. Abdullah Ocalan is a terrorist, but Agim
Ceku and Nasir Oric are freedom fighters.
The Commission has failed to acknowledge that the "Kosovo genocide" was
the most outrageous lie of the past decade. It did not happen. We were
force-fed a grotesque myth concocted to justify the war. It was waged in
the spring of 1999 on an independent nation because it refused foreign
troops on its soil. A truly independent Commission - unlike this one -
would have grasped that all other justifications are post facto
rationalizations. The powers that waged that war have aided and abetted
secession by an ethnic minority, secession that – once formally effected
- will render many European borders tentative.
The recommendations presented to us today for the future of Kosovo will
engender countless new hotbeds of instability. They will unleash an
uncontrollable chain reaction throughout the ex-Communist half of
Europe. Its first victim will be the former Yugoslav republic of
Macedonia, where the restive Albanian minority comprises a third of the
total population. With the murderous narco-mafia known as the "KLA" in
charge in Pristina, and the Serbs (and others) gone, the rising
expectations among Macedonia’s Albanians will be hard to contain. Will
the Pristina model not be demanded by the Hungarians in Rumania (more
numerous than Kosovo’s Albanians) and in southern Slovakia? What will
stop the Russians in the Ukraine (Crimea), in Moldova, in Estonia, and
in northern Kazakhstan from following suit? What about the Turks in
Thrace, and the chronically unstable and utterly unviable Dayton-Bosnia,
to mention but some of the European dominos that may fall in the wake of
Kosovo’s evolution as recommended to us today?
And finally, when the Albanians get their "qualified" secession, will
the same apply when the Latinos in southern California, New Mexico,
Arizona, or Texas eventually outnumber their Anglo neighbors and start
demanding bilingual statehood, leading to reunification with Mexico? Are
Russia and China to threaten the United States with bombing if
Washington does not comply?
The fundamental problem with the Commission is that the notion of "human
rights" can never provide a basis for either the rule of law or
morality. Universal "rights," detached from any rootedness in time or
place, will be open to the latest whim of outrage or the latest fad for
victimhood. A future, truly independent international commission should
ponder the implications of this course, and gather the courage to say
"no" to interventionism – for the sake of the rule of law, of peace and
stability in the world.
Slobodanka Borojevic, President Bora Dragasevich,
President
The Ottawa Serbian Heritage Society Serbian National Shield
Society of Canada
Snezana Vitorovic, President The Centre for
Peace in the Balkans
Association of Serbian Women Toronto
(www.balkanpeace.org)
Mirko Andjic, President
Serbian Canadian Society of Vancouver