Category Archives: The Balkans
Serbia Should Stand Strong
This article, on its original publication website (Studlife.com) was featured on Serbianna’s “News Around the Web” section.
As recently as 1999, there were NATO troops butchering the Serbian people under the guise of aiding the supposedly innocent Kosovors in their war against the peoples of Serbia. It marked the second time in a decade that ill-informed Western forces disregarded the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia to support the rogue independence forces of the non-Serbians. Never mind that this entailed providing support for the Kosovo Liberation Army, which had ties to al-Qaida, or the jihadi-enhanced rebel forces of Bosnia that were sustained by Wahhabist aid.
In the years leading up to, during and after these events, ample proof was found to disprove the claims of the United States and NATO regarding the events in the region. What little evidence there was of mass killing, ethnic cleansing, or genocide was usually of Serbians by the Islamist militants of Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia or the Croatian forces seeking a return to their nationalist glory days when they embraced Hitler with open arms. One would hope that, in light of such information, the Western powers would issue an apology, or at least cease their abuse and harassment of the Serbian people. But, to do so would require that those in charge not suffer from moral cowardice, a seemingly unreasonable expectation when it comes to political leaders. Instead, two actions were taken.
First, a court was created to try military and political leaders from the region for various war crimes. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was designed, at least in theory, to bring to justice those who had inspired and instigated needless bloodshed in the Balkans. Unfortunately, the court has proven itself lacking in the most crucial aspect: objectivity. With a cost in excess of $135 million a year, this specially-created temporary court has disproportionately indicted and convicted Serbians. Thus far, three-fourths of those either tried or awaiting trial are Serbian. And, when it comes time to issue verdicts, the bias is quite clear. For example, the Bosnian military leader who hid his forces among non-military personnel to provide human shields and bring about media accusations of Serbia slaughtering innocent civilians, Naser Oric, was cleared of all charges. By contrast, Vojislav Šešelj, a Serbian member of parliament who did not have any control over or involvement with the military will almost certainly spend the rest of his life behind bars because he verbally expressed nationalist sentiments and led his party to vote against surrendering to NATO. It is of course noteworthy that he is being held in prison, prevented from assuming the Assembly seat he is entitled to as the top ranking member of the popular Srpska Radikalna Stranka, while the former head of the KLA, and a man therefore directly responsible for overseeing genocide and ethnic cleansing, Hashim Thaçi, is allowed to serve as Prime Minister of the illegally-created state of Kosovo (more on that below).
Second, after recognizing the independence of the rebel regions, they passed a U.N. resolution leaving the future status of Kosovo undecided, but affirming the territorial integrity of Serbia to include said area. Had this been upheld, and the Serbians actually consulted in determining the ultimate outcome in Kosovo, this would’ve been good. Instead, continuing the dishonestly and unwelcome interference in regional affairs that defined her under Bill Clinton, the United States pushed for international recognition of Kosovo as an independent nation. From an American point of view, this was great strategy, as endorsing the creation of a new pro-Western Islamic state in the heart of Europe would lend credibility to a country whose image in the Middle East seemed tarnished beyond repair. Of course, it also violates the very same international legal code cited as justification for getting involved in the region initially, and only inspired increased tension there. But not even John Bolton could convince our government to avoid such a dangerous policy.
Now, after all of this, European nations, including some of the very same countries that aided the United States in the above actions, are pressuring the Serbians to join the European Union. Without an apology, or even a change in attitude toward Serbia, they insist that the tiny nation must choose between membership and isolation from the West. Given its experience with these countries, how can Serbia be expected to choose the former? Whatever benefits might come along with joining the EU are outweighed by the reasonable suspicions of the Serbian people, and the perfectly fair hostility they still have toward the nations that helped turn their homeland into a shell of her former self. So, rather than cave to the pressure of the nations who’ve done nothing but harm to Serbia, it is time that the leftist government stand up to reject entry into the EU and begin the restoration national dignity.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
International Consequences of Serbia’s Elections
On Sunday, Serbians headed to the polls to cast their votes in an election that was, without question, the most politically significant event in the Balkans since Slobodan Miloševic was handed over to the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) in 2001. In fact, the scope of the consequences associated with its outcome will impact the stability of the international community for years to come.
This being the second round, there were only two choices. One was Boris Tadic, the incumbent president, who enjoyed a degree of popular support among the masses and strongly advocated strengthening relations with the West. The other was the acting head of the Serbian Radical Party, Tomislav Nikolic. He was decidedly more interested in building better relations with an autocratic Russia, and had long exhibited Euro-skeptic tendencies. The primary issue around which this election centered, and the source of the greatest division between the two candidates, was the status of Kosovo.
Following unjustified NATO bombings and military assault on the Serbians, U.N. peacekeepers took control of Serbian Kosovo and have remained in charge since 1999. Their tenure is about to expire, and Russia’s power of veto on the Security Council ensures that this time, Serbian sovereignty will be safeguarded. Consequently, the United States and many of the Western members of the European Union have said they plan to recognize the independence of Kosovo the moment they formally declare it. This is expected to happen in the coming weeks.
Both Nikolic and Tadic stated that they would not accept an independent Kosovo, as they believe it to be part of Serbia’s heartland. Yet their approaches differ greatly. Nikolic, who was unfortunately defeated, vowed to retain control of the territory by any means necessary, including war. Further, he would cease efforts to obtain EU membership, and cut relations with nations that recognized Kosovo as a legitimate country. By contrast, Tadic had said that Kosovo would not be a roadblock to the Westernization of Serbia. Even if the EU acknowledged Kosovo’s claim of independence, he would seek entry into the EU quasi-state.
In other words, one candidate would have prevented the creation of Kosovo, and he lost. With a win by Tadic, it is virtually certain that within one or two months, there will be an independent, internationally recognized Kosovo. This would be a devastating blow to Serbia in every sense, and will undoubtedly fuel rabid anti-Western sentiments among the masses. And it will do far more to retard relations with the West than Nikolic’s victory ever would have.
And yet, horrible as the consequences are for Serbia and those nations wishing to deal with it, the consequences are even greater for the rest of the world. Eastern Europe is one of the most ethnically divided parts of the world. Tension and animosity based on familial geographic origin is par for the course in many regions, and can frequently manifest itself in violent conflict. War is the natural consequence of secession efforts. And Kosovo sets the sort of dangerous precedent that will lend automatic credibility to countless similar efforts in the region. Among the many places likely to play the Kosovo card and seek new nation status are Abkhazia, Kurdistan, Nagorno-Karabakh, North Cyprus, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Srpska, and Vojvodina. And that is just the East! Further west we’ve got Aland, Alsace, Basqueland, Flanders, and Scotland. This says nothing of the non-European world, where independent movements are exceptionally numerous.
Thus, the establishment of an independent Kosovo sets a dangerous example that will invariably be mimicked elsewhere, to the great detriment of the international community. It will catalyze large-scale Balkanization and separation along arbitrary ethnic lines. There is not one way in which the international community benefits from such numerous hostile splits. And all of this will have been caused by one small election.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
Sovereignty Hypocrisy
Earlier today, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer demanded that Russia withdraw troops from Abkhazia, a breakaway region of the ex-Soviet state of Georgia. He claimed that the action, unauthorized by the national government, was a violation of Georgian sovereignty. Unsurprisingly, this is an inaccurate framing of the issue, and reflects the exception hypocrisy practiced by US and the international institutions it dominates, such as NATO.
First, it is quite clear that this is not a violation of sovereignty in any capacity. The Georgian government officially recognizes Abkhazia as an autonomous republic. More importantly, the vast majority of said territory has not been under Georgian control for the past 16 years. For years now, the Russian government has been the main source of aid and stability for the highly volatile region. This is reflected by the nature of the recent military deployment. Russia did not send in troops to bolster revolution, but to aid in railway repair. The 300 soldiers were unarmed, and came via non-military transportation vehicles. Clearly, this was a humanitarian mission, with the Russian government aiding de facto dependents that the national government of Georgia lacks the financial resources to care for. The average citizen in Abkhazia is neglected and lives in poverty, relying on Russian support to survive, but remaining under the thumb of an incompetent national government. Yet this story of aid in infrastructure repair does not reveal the full extent of Abkhazian-Russian ties. They use the Russian ruble instead of the Georgian lari, in large part because one of their largest industries is tourism from Russia. And, while a visa is needed for Russians to enter Georgia, it is not needed for Abkhazia. Thus, there is clearly a strong relationship between the Russian and Abkhazian people.
While a distinct language is spoken among their population, and they are religiously more similar to the rest of Georgia based on Ottoman conquest, that is where the Abkhazia-Georgia relationship ends. They are not closely tied to the people of Abkazia, whose distinct identity has afforded them autonomy under many alien rulers in centuries past. Georgia may have done likewise, but remains in violation of international law. The right to self-determination is one of the cornerstones of UN policy. So, if NATO and the UN insist on upholding international law, then they must condemn the Georgian control of Abkazia, not the Russians who have elected to assist these maligned people.
Of course, when it comes to Eastern Europe, US-led institutions consistently and flagrantly defy international law. In this era of unipolarity, the US feels it has license to violate the very same laws it helped to author; avoid taking any responsibility for such actions; and still continue to hold others accountable, even where their guilt is questionable at best. This vile hypocrisy was perhaps most clearly illustrated by American involvement in the Balkans. Excluding the two American attacks on Serbia during the 1990′s, which is another topic deserving a lengthy analysis, the present Kosovo crisis provides an excellent case study.
Kosovo is, quite clearly, an integral part of Serbia, and has been since its founding. Even in the 11th century, when Serbian kingdoms were divided by Ottoman rule, the vast majority of them were concentrated in and around Kosovo. When Stefan Nemanja created what many regard as the first unified Serbian nation in 1180, he included Kosovo in it, as it was home primarily to the Serbian people. Prizren and Priština, both cities in Kosovo, long served as alternate capital cities for the Serbian monarch. It was only when Serbia fell to the Ottoman invaders that Kosovo began to undergo a demographic change. The Serbians largely refused to convert to Islam, and thus were discriminated against, forcing many to flee when able. By contrast, the Albanians welcomed the new religion, and were afforded greater territorial control within the empire. Albanian Muslims, who now account for 90% of the population in Kosovo, have only controlled the region since the 19th century, and did so mostly with the support of their own foreign rulers. Their first attempt at real independence for Kosovo came only after the Young Turks did not afford the Albanians the rights they sought. There was not ever a push for an independent Kosovo in and of itself, but for a Greater Albania, based on migration over the past two centuries. To this day, the strongest advocates in Albania and Macedonia for Kosovo are those politicians who want to create a massive pan-Albanian state, able to dominate the ethnically polarized region.
In spite of the obvious illegitimacy and irrationality of the Albanian declaration of independence, the United States supported this. Perhaps, if international law were on their side, they could be given a pass for displaying a profound ignorance of regional history. However, there is no doubt that Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is a violation of international law. Resolution 1244, passed during the illegal foreign interference in a Yugoslavian civil war, remains the most important piece of legislation regarding the status of Kosovo, and has garnered acceptance even among the most radical segments of Serbian society. It established the United Nations Mission in Kosovo, which would serve as the interim administration of Kosovo until a final status consensus could be reached. Suffice to say, the UN Security Council, which has the sole legal right to undermine sovereignty and arbitrate major land disputes was not consulted. Why? Two of the five permanent nations, Russia and China, disagreed with American policy. So, rather than comply with the rules whose design was largely American, the United States opted to circumvent the established legal protocol, and unilaterally legitimize the independence of an illegally created state. Many nations in Europe and elsewhere have noted this. Rather than attempt to correct this by withdrawing support from a false government and comply with international norms, the US has attacked nations who dare suggest that recognition of Kosovo creates a dangerous precedent and undermines the letter and spirit of international law and institutional cooperation.
With the handling of Kosovo in mind, it is unsurprising that the United States has again opted to impose its will in Easter Europe without properly understanding the realities of the region, its history, and the applicable international law by which it is bound. This does not however excuse such behavior. Other nations need to take the United States to task for this, and force them to comply with the rule of law. If the US fails to respond to such demands, then it only strengthens the case for a coalition of other powers to unite and end this unipolar reality that empowers American arrogance in foreign policy. After all, the United States is clearly in the wrong, and will continue to support or enact inappropriate policy unless forced to change course. Only then will the sovereignty hypocrisy end.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
