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?

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.

This should be seen as the Kremlin further flexing its muscle toward Europe.

Gazprom set to take over Serbian oil and gas company

The European Commission is worried about energy giant Gazprom’s regional expansion because it is ready to buy a controlling stake worth a billion euros in Naftna Industrija Srbije (NIS), or the Petroleum Industry of Serbia, the largest state-owned national oil and gas company.
Experts said the deal would be closed during President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Serbia on January 18.
Other customers were deterred because of the minority stake’s $550 million price, the need for additional investment and other prohibitive barriers.
Troika Dialog analyst, Valery Nesterov, said the Serbian company now offered more attractive terms for would-be investors.
Serbian authorities decided that a strategic investor would first buy a minority stake, and that majority stakes would subsequently be sold and top managers hired.
Nesterov said Gazprom had made the most attractive offer, and one that Belgrade could not refuse because otherwise it risked losing a promising gas project.
Gazprom will pay 400 million euros for a 51% stake in NIS and will invest the remaining 600 million euros into corporate development. The energy giant also promised to assist in the construction of the 400-km South Stream gas pipeline system worth $800 million, due to pass through Serbia.
Moreover, Gazprom offered strategic partnership in building a gas reservoir in Banatski Dvor, Serbia.
Timur Khairullin, an analyst with the Antanta Capital brokerage, said politicians and corporate officials had virtually coordinated the deal, and that Serbia’s Minister of Economy and Regional Development Mladan Dinkic who had previously claimed that the NIS stake was worth 2 billion euros, would resign from a commission examining the bilateral contract.
Commenting on the European Commission’s nervous reaction, Khairullin said any company had the right to sell their assets to anyone, and that its objections seemed far-fetched.
Nesterov said Gazprom had recently eliminated gas shortages in Greece and Turkey after Iran curtailed gas exports. The company did this by pumping more gas along the Blue Stream pipeline linking Russia and Turkey via the Black Sea.
“Instead of trying to create artificial competition for Gazprom, the European Commission should adopt a more constructive stand,” Nesterov said.

Here are some things to consider:

Oil:

• 45% of EU oil imports originate from the Middle East;
• by 2030, 90% of EU oil consumption will have to be covered by imports

Gas:

• 40% of EU gas imports originate from Russia (30% Algeria, 25% Norway);
• By 2030, over 60% of EU gas imports are expected to come from Russia with overall external dependency expected to reach 80%.

Coal:

• By 2030, 66% of EU needs is expected to be covered by imports.

Russia does not need to join the EU - the EU will be at the Kremlin’s feet.

Original Post: Saturday, December 1, 2007 - http://www.serbianna.com/columns/averko/006.shtml

By Michael Averko

My August 21, Serbianna article “A Different Settlement Plan for Kosovo” prompted some private questioning of how the proposed suggestion could work. Shortly after the article’s release, I privately stated additional points to a select few. Relative to what was said on the idea of overlapping realities, is the high profile reality that both parties (Serbs and Albanians) remain at loggerheads. A hypothetical scenario where Kosovo will be simultaneously independent and a part of Serbia would include:

- The return of refugees.
- Kosovo having full UN and Olympic representation, with the understanding that as long as there’s a Serbia, Kosovo will remain a part of it. Ukraine and Belarus had UN delegations with full UN voting rights during the Soviet period. Puerto Rico (US territory), Taiwan (recognized by most as a part of China) and Hong Kong (recognized by all as a part of China) have their own Olympic delegations (Taiwan’s going under the name “Chinese Taipai”). Palestine, a present non-nation has its own Olympic and UN observer representation. In the hypothetical Kosovo instance, Kosovo’s residents can choose between representing Serbia or Kosovo.

- For consistency and fairness sake, Republika Srpska (the predominately Serb portion of Bosnia) would be offered the same option (in Republika Srpska’s instance, a continued affiliation with Bosnia and the status as an independent nation). 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) isn’t 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.

This settlement plan is close to the current one favoring very broad autonomy for Kosovo as it remains part of Serbia. The bottom line is that the Albanians want a nation, with the Serbs seeking Kosovo to remain part of Serbia. The above August 21, article and addendum work those two desires in a proposed settlement. As previously noted, this hypothetical plan isn’t enthusiastically endorsed by yours truly. Rather, it was thought out as alternative to break the diplomatic impasse.

On another issue, a somewhat bemusing exercise is to review the political psychoanalysis of what’s motivating Russia to sympathize with the Serb position on Kosovo. This take frequently assumes that the official Western slant is reasoned and without any need of rebuke. For newsworthy purposes, a perfectly legitimate story would individually study each of the disputed former Communist bloc territories respective claims for independence. Such a feature would compare the historical and human rights issues of these troubled lands. Rather than do this, outlets like The New York Times (”the paper of record”) will babble on about how Kosovo must become independent, while showing no willingness whatsoever to consider the view that one or more of the disputed lands have better claims for independence. A point that has been credibly detailed by others besides myself.

Continue reading Serbianna: Thoughts on the Past Year…