This is the sort of diplomacy that maintains my suspicion of the Kremlin.

Russia has cited the exacerbation of separatist movements having a legal leg to stand on, if Kosovo is granted independence from Serbia as a key reason for opposing Kosovo independence. I agree with that.

However, when it comes to Abkhazia and South Ossetia:

The lower house, or State Duma, said President Vladimir Putin and the government should ‘consider the question of the advisability of recognising the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.’

The non-binding motion said that Western recognition of the independence of Kosovo from Russian ally Serbia had ripped up international rules regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

The two provinces of northern Georgia broke away from central government control during wars in the early 1990s that saw the mass expulsion of ethnic Georgians by the ethnic Abkhaz and Ossetians.

There is not a great deal of difference to my mind between the two scenarios. Russia wants it both ways and the credibility I was granting the Kremlin on their stance on Kosovo was wasted.

A recent email thread prompted me to write again about Kosovo. It’s important for people to get an understanding of why there is so much support for Kosovar independence and why Serbia - which would welcome entirely different relations with the US or the West in general – garners no support at all.

I have mostly focused on US efforts to gain the love of Muslims and our projection of power in Russia’s backyard as the main reasons for the US position on Kosovo. However, there are other issues.

The destruction of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and the relegation of Serbia to the West’s whipping boy came about because of the nationalist ambitions of every ethnic group making up the soviet-era Yugoslavia. The Serbian military support for Bosnian and Croatian Serbian nationalists was probably the geopolitical catalyst for NATO action against them. Milosevic bit off way more than he could chew with Bosnia and Croatia. He drew a line in the sand with regards to those two countries and was thrown under the bus by those he supported. I don’t know specifically if Milosevic was guilty of any war crimes because of the orders he issued. I know he was castigated because of his support for the Serbian uprising across the Balkans - but when it came time to talk in Dayton, as far as diplomacy was concerned, Milosevic was offered all stick and no carrot.

It may be an over-simplification of the issue, but the NATO/US actions against Serbia to stop genocide was a fallacy. A year before Srebrenica the world watched and did nothing as 800,000 Hutus and Tutsis were killed. Yet, Milosevic was seen – as much as Mladic – as the reason 8,300 men and boys were killed and 40,000 residents displaced in Srebrenica.

I have no love for Milosevic. I see him as an oppressive communist with nationalist ambitions of returning Serbians to glory throughout the Balkans. Yet, despite a lack of war crimes evidence against him, Milosevic seems to have been as much a victim of Srebrenica as those who were murdered there. The atrocities at Srebrenica killed him too. Those who were more directly involved in the atrocities are still at large, and the Serbian government is being held responsible for that – fair treatment or excuse to break up a nation? You decide.

Just as anyone else who had an interest in the region, NATO was filling a strategic vacuum and the straw man was genocide. These days, if you look at the news reports, you don’t see a lot of reference to NATO. The terms used now are “international community”, UN, US, and EU as the diplomacy becomes more “civil” in nature - which brings us to Kosovo being carved out of Serbia. Call it whatever you want, but that is exactly what is happening – no different from the parceling that occurred at the end of the Great War. And the reasons are no different, either.

Since 2000, Serbia has had diplomatic relations restored with many countries, including the US, and has rejoined the OSCE and the United Nations. Underscore: Serbia is a member of the United Nations. In 2003, the United States confirmed that Serbia was operating under its commitments of Dayton-Paris. Underscore: Serbia is not in violation of any treaties or “international law”. There is still a carrot and stick scenario for Serbia - again mostly stick. Serbia can ostensibly get back into western favor and join the EU; the stick seems to be lose Kosovo.

The question of Kosovo independence is about what - ethnic demography? Muslims have displaced and oppressed Serbians from this region since the reign of the Ottoman Empire. Kosovo is recognized as a part of a sovereign Serbia in UN resolution 1244. That resolution also requires the KLA to demilitarize – has it done so? That resolution also allows the UN to facilitate a political process to determine the future status of Kosovo. Facilitate a process – the last time I checked - did not mean impose. It means to be the non-interested party in a discussion between the principles in such a way as to keep the discussion alive. The UN is not facilitating the discussion; it is declaring “independence for Kosovo as the only viable option”.

To me, western nations are making the same grunting noises now that were being made during the aftermath of the Great War. Britain, France, and Italy were still steeped in the imperial traditions during the parceling of the Ottoman Empire. I don’t see a great deal of difference between the European Union today and the European parties of the Entente 100 years ago. Back then America was an undecided observer/participant with no real aims for the region – especially since Russia was out of the picture when the Bolshevik kicked off. Today, Kosovo seems to have a two-fold appeal to our government. The first is to show Muslims across the world that the US is not anti-Muslim. The second is to have a strategic bridgehead in or near Russia’s sphere of influence. Kosovo suffices are part of both missions.

My opposition to an independent Kosovo is - ironically – in agreement with what appears to be Russia’s position. Yet, Russia is in a push-pull situation because the Kremlin position on Kosovo is in direct contravention with its position on South Ossetia. However, think of all of the separatist movements existing in just about every nation on the globe. Kosovo can easily become the catalyst for each of those movements to have some measure of international credibility as independent nation-state candidates. Is the UN going to “facilitate” the destruction of those nations too - France, Britain, China, Russia, Georgia, etc? How can you be so sure?

I cannot conceive, nor has it been posed, what we intend to gain by supporting Kosovar independence from Serbia. I have said several times in these pages there is only the obvious desire to show our “even-handedness” to Muslims. We really have no dog in this race. We may get a military base out of this, but with a few thousand troops in the area, we have that already.

We have used the United Nations to conspire the break-up of a member nation for no clear reason other than to gain favor with terrorists. Kosovo is the United States’ Balkan Tragedy.

UPDATE:

By Michael Averko

Original Posted at American Chronicle

Numerous reasons are presented to support Kosovo’s independence. Upon presentation, there is often little challenge to those points. Much of the pro-Kosovo independence advocacy involves fuzzy history and double standards.In an effort to deflate Serbia’s claim on Kosovo, Albanian nationalists portray the province as being initially inhabited by Albanians. In conjunction with that view is the comment about Slavs arriving in the Balkans after the Albanians. The origin of the Albanians is a matter of historical debate. It is said that modern day Albanians are likely derived from one or more groups, who were in the Balkans before the Slavs. In terms of significant numbers and a well established presence, reasonable evidence indicates that the Serbs predominated the Kosovo area of the Balkans before the Albanians. More recent history shows that the Albanian numbers in Kosovo started to increase in the 15th century, after the region had a noticeably inhabited Serb makeup.

The more convincing pro-independence argument focuses attention on Kosovo’s present day Albanian majority, overwhelmingly favoring separation from Serbia. The past 120 years have seen a process of Albanians replacing Serbs as the majority in Kosovo - a demographic change resulting from a series of ethnic cleansing campaigns, immigration from Albania (much of it illegal) and the comparatively high birth rate of Albanians.

Kosovo has been part of modern day Serbia since 1912. Centuries before, it had been an integral part of Serbia. Kosovo was never part of an independent Albania, or an independent entity unto itself. Kosovo’s historic attachment to Serbia is very real and legitimate. It is therefore inappropriate to dislodge Kosovo from Serbia. Allowing Kosovo great autonomy as a continued part of Serbia can hypothetically include the province having full United Nations membership (like Belarus and Ukraine during Soviet times) and International Olympic Committee representation (like non-nations Puerto Rico, British Virgin Islands and Hong Kong). This scenario appears to come closest to simultaneously matching the conflicting Albanian and Serb desires.

For consistency and fairness sake, Republika Srpska (the predominately Serb portion of Bosnia) would be offered the same option (in Republika’s Srpska’s instance, a continued affiliation with Bosnia). Based on the existing circumstances, the whereabouts of Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic (two Bosnian Serbs leaders wanted by an overly politicized legal body, who are thought to be residing in either Republika Srpska and-or Serbia) is not a valid counter-argument against Republika Srpska’s inclusion. The dubious trio of Hasim Thaci, Ramush Haridnaj and Agim Ceku are considered acceptable leaders for Kosovo. Like Kosovo, Republika Srpska’s territory was part of former Yugoslavia. Unlike Kosovo, Republika Srpska has the status of a republic and shows itself capable of governing a multi-ethnic land at peace.

Diehard anti-Serb/pro-Kosovo independence enthusiasts are not convinced by this proposal. They have a series of talking points which in their view legitimizes the dismembering of Serbia.

One of them pertains to the period from 1974-89, when the non-Serb Communist dictator Tito granted Kosovo autonomy as part of the Serb republic in Yugoslavia. The follow-up claims that Kosovo during that period was essentially a republic. In point of fact, it remained a continued part of Serbia. That period of great autonomy saw an increase in violence against non-Albanians.

This reminds one of how the concept of American “states’ rights” has been viewed. It is ideal to allow a reasonable amount of regional autonomy. But what if such a scenario results in a greater ethnically related persecution? During the Kosovo autonomy years, Western mass media news reports detailed the increased ethnic violence in that province. By 1988, a consensus was reached in Yugoslavia about the failure of autonomy in Kosovo.

Enter the period of armed skirmishes between Yugoslav authorities and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The 1999 NATO led bombing of Yugoslavia in support of the KLA is an example of what happens when a country does not have nukes, Capital Hill lobbying clout and membership to an American club. Reference Russian actions in Chechnya, Israeli strikes against its adversaries and Turkish actions against the Kurds. For that matter, note the number of civilians killed as a result of the 2003 American led attack on Iraq. These examples are given to put into perspective how the Serbs have been mistreated.

This mistreatment is compounded by the thought that as punishment for fighting the KLA, Serbia lost the right to Kosovo. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 contradicts that belief. It specifically states that Kosovo is a part of Yugoslavia. Serbia is internationally recognized as the successor state to Yugoslavia. In Communist and post Communist Yugoslavia

Kosovo was part of the Serb republic. UNSC 1244 calls for a return of refugees, as well as of Serb military and government bodies to Kosovo. This has yet to happen. In legalese, the 1244 clause about taking into “full consideration” the unsigned Rambouillet diktat is not a green light for independence. It simply means that aspects of Rambouillet can perhaps be considered. Prior to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the Clinton

Administration and Kosovo Albanian nationalists wrote a clause in Rambouillet which would have (if signed) permitted Kosovo to vote on independence after three years from the accord’s signing. I specifically recall noted American University law professor Paul Williams bragging about his having written that segment on Geraldo Rivera’s MSNBC cable news show. No one questioned Williams’ objectivity as a then adviser to the Kosovo Albanian nationalist leaders. Madeleine Albright was quoted as having said that Rambouillet was written in a way that was unacceptable to the Serbs. An obvious pretext for starting the war that was to be. The “final outcome” status for Kosovo is stated towards the end of 1244. It relates to how Kosovo should be governed as a part of Serbia. What other logical way can be otherwise suggested when the very same document recognizes Kosovo as part of Serbia, while stating that refugees, Serb government and military bodies should return to that province?”

Turkey and Iraq have not lost parts of their land to create a Kurdish state. Past Kurdish and Turkish actions against Kurds were more oppressive than what the Serbs could be legitimately accused of doing to the Albanians. Keep in mind that there is much wrong to be found on the Albanian side. Serbia minus Kosovo is more democratic than Kosovo, Iraq and Turkey.

The view that Kosovo is a “special case” for independence is not in sync with a reasoned comparison of the disputed former Communist bloc territories. Regarding human rights and history, Pridnestrovie (Trans-Dniester) has a much better case for independence than Kosovo. Pridnestrovie’s historical relationship with Moldova is nowhere near as close as Kosovo’s ties to Serbia. Pridnestrovie has better economic conditions than Kosovo. The former is also free of the level of ethnic divisiveness in the latter.

There is a somewhat Machiavellian reason for going against the Serbs - the idea to please the “Muslim street”. Russia has sympathized with Serbia and fought a war involving predominately Muslim Chechnya. Yet, Russia does not seem to be as much on the hit list of Muslim extremists when compared to some other countries. Some have stated that the Russian-Serb fraternizing is over-emphasized. Seeing how Russia is not so chastised in the Muslim world, it appears that the Muslim street point to support Kosovo’s independence is the more overrated of the two views.

The inconsiderate attitudes taken against Serbia and comparatively greater concern for accommodating Muslim concerns (real and exaggerated) bring up the not so talked about matter of there perhaps being a bias (subconscious or otherwise) against Slavic Orthodox Christians and Orthodox Christians at large. If I’m not mistaken, Ukraine’s slant continues to not side with Kosovo independence. If true, note how some Ukrainian views get propped over others (like the ones bashing Russia, which are not shared by many in Ukraine).

Adrian Karatnycky’s 1999 article “The Condescension of the Christian West” has a few compelling observations. Among Western intelligentsia, not much effort is given to consider the views of Orthodox Christians on issues like former Yugoslavia. On the other hand, there is concerted effort to understand and reach out to perceived Muslim interests (real and exaggerated). The populations in predominately Orthodox Christian countries were overwhelmingly against the 1999 Clinton administration led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

Religious extremism is not relegated to one faith. Note that Orthodox Christians do not propagate their causes by guiding vehicles into office buildings and military installations. Punishing passive behavior in favor of the law of the jungle is not civilized. Some Albanian nationalist leaders and their Western supporters have hinted that enhanced violence might occur if Kosovo does not become independent. Rather than condemning such comments, they suggest that it is a valid reason for supporting independence. This opinion encourages violence as a means of independence elsewhere.

Sources:

American Council for Kosovo

http://savekosovo.org/default.asp

Edward Herman, “Book Review: Travesty”, Z Magazine Online, Apr. 2007

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Apr2007/hermanpr0407.html

G. Richard Jansen, “Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo: An Abbreviated History”, Colorado State University, June 15, 2007

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/kosovohistory.html

Adrian Karatnycky, “The Condescension of the Christian West”, First Things, Aug./Sept. 1999

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9908/opinion/karatnycky.html

Nebojsa Malic, “The Suspended Castle: Kosovo’s Unsustainable Independence Claim”, Antiwar.com, Nov. 2, 2000

http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m110200.html

****

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. His commentary has appeared in the Action Ukraine Report, Byzantine Sacred Art Blog, Eurasian Home, Intelligent.ru, Johnson’s Russia List, Russia Blog, Serbianna, Siberian Light, The New York Times and The Tiraspol Times.

Averko has appeared as a panelist on several radio shows, including the BBC World Service’s Have Your Say and the The Jay Diamond Show, when the latter aired in New York.

He initiated an on line Guardian Unlimited forum, which discusses former Communist bloc issues.

 Let me preface this by saying I do not agree with current US policy on Kosovo. This alarms a lot of my GOP peers, but our reasons for supporting the arbitrary carving of an independent nation in the southern Slavic region are strictly driven to appease the Muslim Street. Not only is that ridiculous - it won’t work.

However, I look at this particular article and wonder why it is slanted as if Russia’s stance on the issue is somehow a surprise.

Russia goes its own way

If the deadlock in the UN Security Council over the final status of Kosovo signals any future trends, it is that Russia has finally dispensed with any lingering beliefs that it should work with the United States to set the global agenda.

One of the legacies that Vladimir Putin bequeaths to his successor is Russia’s changed position in the world. Moscow no longer has any interest in making minor modifications to a policy largely predetermined in Washington. And the principal beneficiary of this changed perception may be Iran.

“Russia has finally dispensed…”?

Only the most myopic would think Russia would side with the US on this particular issue. Only the slightly less myopic would tend to believe Russia is going to side with the US, in the UNSC, on much of anything else. The US and Russia tend to be on opposite sides of most issues being presided over in the UN, since many of these issues tend to impact one or the other nation or its surrogates. These are matters of influence for Russia or the US in most cases - or are matters related to support for an ally.

The IHT article linked above makes it sound like Russia is defying the US giant - but the world better recognize that Russia is a world power still, and becoming stronger.

My curiosity has been steeping lately about Kosovo, mostly because of writings by Mike Averko, Walid Phares, and others. I have been doing a great deal of reading about the hisotry of the region, and the events which have led us where we are today. My conclusion remains that mandating an independent Kosovo is going to blow up in our faces.  Kosovo is already autonomous and functions as an independent state in most respects.

Germany is a mighty advocate for Kosovo to become an independent stat and to follow in the footsteps of other newly created nations in the region; specifically to join the EU. Germany’s reason for this appears to be based upon a foreign policy decision in 1990 to become a stabilizing force in Europe. Perhaps this is an oversimplification, but you can decide that.

The United States is involved in pushing for Kosovar independence with no clear policy reason. I, and others, assume this stance on Kosovo is related to an attempt to show the Muslim world that the US is not “anti-Muslim”.

Something which strikes me first is how “Four Powers” - ish the entire Kosovo argument has become. Germany, Russia, France, UK, and the United States have exerted their influence in the region to attempt to bring about their individual desired results. However, I don’t detect a great deal of concern for the effects of these foreign policy stances on the inhabitants of the region.

Continue reading Kosovo - Self-Determination?…