Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Real Story Behind Kosovo's Independence

By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet. Posted February 23, 2008.


All of a sudden, DC establishment figures care about "international law" when it suits their interests in Kosovo.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jeremy Scahill

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

News Flash: The Bush administration acknowledges there is a such thing as international law.

But, predictably, it is not being invoked to address the US prison camps at Guantanamo, the wide use of torture, the invasion and occupation of sovereign countries, the extraordinary rendition program. No, it is being thrown out forcefully as a condemnation of the Serbian government in the wake of Thursday's attack by protesters on the US embassy in Belgrade following the Bush administration's swift recognition of the declaration of independence by the southern Serbian province of Kosovo. Some 1,000 protesters broke away from a largely non-violent mass demonstration in downtown Belgrade and targeted the embassy. Some protesters actually made it into the compound, setting a fire and tearing down the American flag.

"I'm outraged by the mob attack against the U.S. embassy in Belgrade," fumed Zalmay Khalilzad,the US Ambassador to the United Nations. "The embassy is sovereign US territory. The government of Serbia has a responsibility under international law to protect diplomatic facilities, particularly embassies." His comments were echoed by a virtual who's who of the Bill Clinton administration. People like Jamie Rubin, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's deputy, one of the main architects of US policy toward Serbia. "It is sovereign territory of the United States under international law," Rubin declared. "For Serbia to allow these protesters to break windows, break into the American Embassy, is a pretty dramatic sign." Hillary Clinton, whose husband orchestrated and ran the 78-day NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, said, "I would be moving very aggressively to hold the Serbian government responsible with their security forces to protect our embassy. Under international law they should be doing that."

There are two major issues here. One is the situation in Kosovo itself (which we'll get to in a moment), but the other is the attack on the US embassy. Yes, the Serbian government had an obligation to prevent the embassy from being torched and ransacked. If there was complicity by the Serbian police or authorities in allowing it to be attacked, that is a serious issue. But the US has little moral authority not just in invoking international law (which it only does when it benefits Washington's agenda) but in invoking international law when speaking about attacks on embassies in Belgrade.

Perhaps the greatest crime against any embassy in the history of Yugoslavia was committed not by evil Serb protesters, but by the United States military.

On May 7, 1999, at the height of the 78 day US-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three Chinese citizens, two of them journalists, and wounding 20 others. The Clinton administration later said that the bombing was the result of faulty maps provided by the CIA (Sound familiar?). Beijing rejected that explanation and alleged it was deliberate. Eventually, under strong pressure from China, the US apologized and paid $28 million in compensation to the victims' families. If the US was serious about international law and the protection of embassies, those responsible for that bombing would have been tried at the Hague along with other alleged war criminals. But "war criminal" is a designation for the losers of US-fueled wars, not bombers sent by Washington to drop humanitarian munitions on "sovereign territory."

Beyond the obvious hypocrisy of the US condemnations of Serbia and the sudden admission that international law exists, the Kosovo story is an important one in the context of the current election campaign in the United States. Perhaps more than any other international conflict, Yugoslavia was the defining foreign policy of President Bill Clinton's time in power. Under his rule, the nation of Yugoslavia was destroyed, dismantled and chopped into ethnically pure para-states. President Bush's immediate recognition of Kosovo as an independent nation was the icing on the cake of destruction of Yugoslavia and one which was enthusiastically embraced by Hillary Clinton. "I've supported the independence of Kosovo because I think it is imperative that in the heart of Europe we continue to promote independence and democracy," Clinton said at the recent Democratic debate in Austin, Texas.

A few days before the attack on the US embassy in Belgrade, Clinton released a Molotov cocktail statement praising the declaration of independence. In it, she referred to Kosovo by the Albanian "Kosova" and said independence "will allow the people of Kosova to finally live in their own democratic state. It will allow Kosova and Serbia to finally put a difficult chapter in their history behind them and to move forward." She added, "I want to underscore the need to avoid any violence or provocations in the days and weeks ahead." As seasoned observers of Serbian politics know, there were few things the US could have done to add fuel to the rage in Serbia over the declaration of independence -- "provocations" if you will -- than to have a political leader named Clinton issue a statement praising independence and using the Albanian name for Kosovo.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: kosovo, serbia

Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
So how SHOULD the West have reacted to Serbian behavior in the 1990's?
Posted by: mjabele on Feb 23, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does the author of this article fail to mention, even ONCE, what happened in Bosnia prior to Kosovo? Surely he's not unaware that this is the "elephant in the room", so to speak - i.e., that the actions of the Serbs in Bosnia laid "expectations" for how they would behave in Kosovo?

"On June 21 2007, the Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo published the most extensive research on Bosnia-Herzegovina's war casualties titled: The Bosnian Book of the Dead - a database that reveals 97,207 names of Bosnia and Herzegovina's citizens killed and missing during the 1992-1995 war. An international team of experts evaluated the findings before they were released. More than 240,000 pieces of data have been collected, processed, checked, compared and evaluated by international team of experts in order to get the final number of more than 97,000 of names of victims, belonging to all nationalities. Of the 97,207 documented casualties in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 83 percent of civilian victims were Bosniaks, 10 percent of civilian victims were Serbs and more than 5 percent of civilian victims were Croats, followed by a small number of others such as Albanians or Romani people. The percentage of Bosniak victims would be higher had survivors of Srebrenica not reported their loved-ones as 'soldiers' to access social services and other government benefits. The total figure of dead could rise by a maximum of another 10,000 for the entire country due to ongoing research. [34] [35]"

In point of fact, the West failed to intervene in Bosnia for four years, during which about 100,000 people there were killed, the majority of them Bosnian Muslims, and approximately 1.8 million were forcibly displaced. There's little doubt that these actions were supported and in many cases orchestrated by the government in Belgrade, which also clandestinely supported the brutal Serb paramilitaries raping, pillaging, and murdering in various parts of Bosnia during the war. The siege of Sarajevo, which began in 1992, was finally lifted in February 1996 after about 12,000 of the city's inhabitants had been killed, 85% of them civilians - many of them by Serb snipers in the surrounding hills, who didn't even have the conscience to refrain from shooting civilians as they were burying their dead in the grounds of the former Olympic stadium.

The West finally intervened more forcefully, after about 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were massacred at Srbrenica - a name which I think should be brought up at least once in any article which tries so hard to portray Serbia as an innocent victim of violations of international law.

Personally, I have no regrets as to how the West reacted toward Serbia during the Kosovo crisis, because I really have no doubts in my own mind, after Bosnia, as to what the Serbs intended to do there. Those who've violated international law so repeatedly and so flagrantly in the past have little charge in my book to run screaming to the policeman now for protection and restitution - particularly given that, to date, neither the Serb government nor the Serb people themselves have expressed much if any remorse as to the actions of Serbia during the 1990's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» We agree! Posted by: Torgo
» Serbia is Frustrated. Posted by: mjabele
Franny in Carmel, CA
Posted by: Franny on Feb 23, 2008 9:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The world court has also charged some of the leaders of newly independent Kosovo with war crimes. This is one more mess we should have, and could have, avoided.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

News Flash: Bias Knows No Boundaries ...
Posted by: gazooks on Feb 23, 2008 10:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and who's not guilty, of all the parties mentioned, of exercising violent national, political, racial or tribal self interest of the worst kind at one historic point or other as victimizer?

This isn't journalism, it's propaganda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They'd damned well better protect our embassy better...
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle on Feb 23, 2008 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...or we'll bomb the Chinese embassy again!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's really more complex than that...
Posted by: Marshalldoc on Feb 23, 2008 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all due respect to Jeremy Scahill’s proven excellence in reporting (esp. Blackwater), I must also agree with mjabele’s comment.

The Balkan chaos didn’t begin on May 7, 1999, where Jeremy’s essay begins, but with the death of Tito in 1980 and the subsequent independence movements of the various ethnic groups previously held together by his charisma and ‘soft’ communist force despite centuries of vicious inter-ethnic violence.

Two books, Yugoslavia As History (Lampe) and Yugoslavia - Death Of A Nation (Silber & Little) provide an in depth introduction into the complexities of Balkan history - which are as complex as history can be.

That the rise to power of Milosevic and his rabidly nationalistic and militaristic Serbs with their ‘greater Serbia’ mantra and mission (ethnically Eastern Orthodox - as are their Russian, Slavic, and Greek supporters - See Clash Of Civilizations (Huntington) - led to massive ethnic cleansing is undeniable - and to do so is historical revisionism. It is also true that atrocities were committed by all parties in the subsequent Balkan Wars - none are utterly innocent (the children excepted).

It is also true that U.S. & NATO’s involvement may have been less than legal by international standards and that the U.S. may, indeed, be guilty of war crimes against innocent Serbian civilians (and Chinese diplomats).

What’s in error though, is conflating U.S. crimes against innocent Serbians with an acquittal of Milosevic and his regime’s well-documented crimes against Croats, ethnic Albanians in Kosova, and others. As complicated as the history related by Jeremy is, the history of the region is far more complex.

Whether Kosova will be, as Jeremy and others think, merely a U.S.-NATO puppet and support system for Camp Bondsteel is beyond me and may well be true in part or in the whole. What I do know, though, is that Kosova is 90% ethnic Albanian (Muslim) and has never, in its history, received a fair shake from its Orthodox Serbian conquerors (and they’d rightly say the same regarding their term under Ottoman rule). For people who value both the rule of law and the right of people to live under a government of their own choice the situation in Kosova & Serbia is too complex for simplistic “good-guy - bad-guy” issue frames. Sometimes we must accept the least-worst alternative. The people of Kosova were not going to tolerate Serbian rule. The alternative was renewed open conflict between the Serbs and KLA - something that would rupture the Balkans far worse than the conflict now occurring.

Progressives need to insure that U.S. & NATO exploitation of Kosova is not allowed but that its independence is promoted and defended while the benefits of the E.U. are extended to Serbia to the extent they wish to avail themselves of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ICTY and ethnic cleansing Posted by: brunowe
Excellent article by Scahill. Empire is bipartisan, and Kosovo is Serbia.
Posted by: Torgo on Feb 23, 2008 10:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Milosevic was actually asked to sign is never discussed. That it would have effectively meant the end of the sovereignty of the nation was a non-story. The dominant narrative for the past nine years, repeated this week by William Cohen, Clinton's defense secretary at the time of the bombing, is this: "We tried to achieve a peaceful resolution of what was taking place in Kosovo. And Slobodan Milosevic refused." Refused peace? More like he unwisely refused one of Don Corleone's famous offers. Washington knew he would reject it, but had to give the appearance of diplomacy for international "legitimacy."

Thank you, thank you, Mr. Scahill. Milosevic (for all his alleged crimes for which he was never convicted) did manage to preserve Serbia's sovereignty by forcing NATO to lessen its demands. Into the bargain, he preserved the army by avoiding an Iraq-1991-style "turkey shoot" upon withdrawal.

A month before the bombing began, the Clinton administration issued an ultimatum to President Slobodan Milosevic, which he had to either accept unconditionally or face bombing. Known as the Rambouillet accord, it was a document that no sovereign country would have accepted. It contained a provision that would have guaranteed US and NATO forces "free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout" all of Yugoslavia, not just Kosovo. It also sought to immunize those occupation forces "from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in [Yugoslavia]," as well as grant the occupiers "the use of airports, roads, rails and ports without payment." Additionally, Milosevic was told he would have to "grant all telecommunications services, including broadcast services, needed for the Operation, as determined by NATO." Similar to Bush's Iraq plan years later, Rambouillet mandated that the economy of Kosovo "shall function in accordance with free market principles."

The dishonesty of those who describe the Rambouillet ultimatum as a good-faith attempt to make peace is sickening.

As sickening as it is, I feel better knowing that Empire is tied down in Iraq and that Serbia (and her largely intact army, with or without Putin's help) is just getting warmed up, after blunting NATO's spear in 1999.

Sorry NATO troops, rough times lie ahead for you. But I sleep well at night knowing that I've never encouraged anyone to sell themselves into slavery by joining the NATO military of any nation. I'd prefer everyone join me in the real world of the private sector where we earn our daily bread by trade and consent rather than force and coercion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US and lies in Kosovo-Serbia issue.
Posted by: leland61 on Feb 23, 2008 11:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you really are interested in finding out what is going on and what has gone on there, in particular under Clinton, Check out the lengthy interview with Noam Chomsky.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EEhgwdJldeU

It is fairly long - 6 or 7 parts. But well worth listening to - and of course he usually sites the sources if you really want to know the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd have bombed that Chinese Embassy as well..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Feb 23, 2008 11:16 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade because they had access to U.S. satellites and their positions, and were sharing it with The Serbians so their troop movements and especially Armor tanks and artillery could avoid detection..and our forces..

This enabled the Serbs to continue their ethnic cleansing and murdering whole towns and families and the now infamous routine systemic rapes..!

That was no accident the Red Chinese knew it and we knew it..it's called brinksmenship..

I'd have bombed them too..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some more details about the "Smoke and Mirrors War"
Posted by: gexrobert on Feb 23, 2008 11:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article misses two major ideas about the Kosovo war.

The first main idea was about the reasons for the war. Bill Clinton was impeached in Jan 1999. He was found not guilty and needed an event to move his presidency away from that morass. There was a small massacre in a village in Kosovo in I believe Jan 1999 and he picked up on it and decided that this was the event to move on with. He cooked up the Rambouillet event by making unacceptable demands that any nation would refuse, when the Serbian envoys rejected the demands in Paris, Madeline Albright made her famous quote, "THIS MEANS BOMBING." When I heard this, I knew something curious was going to happen.

Then the "Smoke and Mirrors" bombing started. It was just the kind of war that Americans love to watch on CNN, all the 3 D animations of air strikes, along with the gun camera footage from the planes. It made many Americans proud of their Military Industrial Complex. A sideline on the bombing campaign. The Americans claimed that they destroyed over 200 Serbian tanks in the air war, right after the war they sent teams in to confirm their kills ( a 60 ton chunk of metal leaves quite a mess when destroyed by a missile) and found that in fact all the smoke and mirrors had only blow up something like 12 tanks. The Serbs were a lot smarter than the Americans thought, they had cardboard decoy tanks driven around by remote control that the Americans were hitting. The Serbs also shot down an F117. Apparently the F-117s were escorted by F-16s with a radar signature, the Serbs figured this out and shot at where they thought the F-117 would be in formation with the F-16s and brought one down. Again, the Serbs were a lot smarter than the US thought.

At the end of the war, another very curious event took place. I have never really figured this out. Maybe it had to do with the fear of a ground war with the Serbian army in the mountains. NATO guaranteed that Kosovo would remain a part of Serbia forever. Even Milosevic acted surprised, and declared that he had won the war.

It is this NATO guarantee of Kosovo remaining part of Serbia forever that is the second main idea missing in the article and has the Serbs burning down the US embassy. Western Europe and the USA are reneging on their promises. This seems to have been forgotten by everyone, including Jeremy Scahill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Milosevic was a fascist Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Milosevic was a fascist Posted by: UN1244
» RE: Milosevic was a fascist Posted by: brunowe
Supervised independence, fear of accountability, etc.
Posted by: Torgo on Feb 23, 2008 8:21 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Spiked-online.com has an interesting and informative article by Philip Cunliffe this week on the dirty little secret of Kosovo's current regime.

The doublespeak in Kosovo’s ‘supervised independence’ sets a dangerous precedent, dressing up occupation as ‘freedom’ and interference as ‘democracy’

This is because the representative of the EU in Kosovo will have the power to strike down legislation he or she dislikes. The result will be an empty shell of a country, filled with EU and NATO power.

But even this is not the whole story. It is not just the gap between appearance and reality that is so troubling here. The form of Kosovo’s independence is just as worrying, quite apart from the fact that Kosovo will be a de facto EU puppet state. For the idea of supervised independence undermines self-determination more than bullets and bombs ever can...

...This will have real, tangible effects on the functioning of democracy in Kosovo. In a situation where the state is both formally circumscribed from the outside and independent at the same time, we have a scenario where it will be much harder to clarify political roles and responsibilities. By the same token, it will be much easier to evade political accountability. Under the terms of such regulated sovereignty, it will never be clear where political initiatives originate, or which political claims have genuine precedence: those of the EU or the Kosovo government. Kosovo’s government will legally be unable to resist the encroachment of the EU on its policymaking. On the other hand, it will not be able to cry ‘imperialism!’ either, because it actually conceded to a model of limited autonomy at the outset.

Kosovo also illustrates how international interventionism perversely serves to exonerate national political elites from accountability to their own people. Kosovo’s political leaders will be able to invoke the demands of the international community when calling upon their people to make more sacrifices. Similarly, in Serbia, the political elite will be able to pose as national champions, deflecting attention from other pressing concerns in the drive to recover Kosovo. Serbian prime minister Vojislav Koštunica has already announced a generational struggle to recover the breakaway province.


War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Kosovo is Independent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Compare and contrast: Rwanda and Kosovo - what actions did the "West" take and why?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 23, 2008 8:58 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author and the critics in the comments sections are missing a large part of the picture - why exactly are the Balkans, of all places, of so much interest to NATO, the United States, and Russia?

Believe me, it has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns. In Rwanda in the 1990s, hundreds of thousands were slaughtered in the space of months and the West stood by and did nothing. Neither Russian nor U.S. foreign policy in the Balkans was motivated by a desire to stop the slaughter.

It actually all has a lot to do with energy security for Europe, the war for control of Central Asian oil and gas, and what route the pipelines from the Middle East will take to Europe.

The issue is ongoing - see US champions EU's Nabucco gas pipeline project Feb 2008

"BRUSSELS (AFP) — The EU's gas Nabucco pipeline project, to run from the Caspian Sea to Austria, is necessary to reduce European dependence on Russian giant Gazprom, a leading US official said on Friday.

"The Nabucco pipeline will be built, I am convinced because it makes commercial sense," said Matthew Bryza, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

Nabucco is planned to be a 3,300-kilometre (2,050-mile) pipeline running from the Caspian Sea via Turkey and the Balkan states to Austria. . .

The pipeline will transport 31 billion cubic metres of gas to the energy-hungry EU from the Middle East and Asia so as to reduce the bloc's reliance on Russian supplies.


Camp Bondsteel, the principle U.S. relic of the Kosovo action, provides military protection for the pipeline route, which has been planned for many years. However, it's not just Camp Bondsteel, as this report describes:

Balkan Wars:

The U.S. interventions in Bosnia in 1995, and Kosovo in 1999, were ostensibly reactions to Serbian "ethnic cleansing," yet the U.S. had not intervened to prevent similar "ethnic cleansing" by its Croatian or Albanian allies in the Balkans. The U.S. military interventions in former Yugoslavia resulted in new U.S. military bases in five countries: Hungary, Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia, and the sprawling Camp Bondsteel complex in southeastern Kosovo. . .
"

If the U.S. had wanted a massive military presence in central Africa in order to secure some geopolitical energy goal, they might have gone into Rwanda under the pretense of humanitarian relief, as well. You can't tell the U.S. public you're sending the troops in to secure the energy resources for the benefit of Wall Street, can you?

In the coming years, we may very well see calls for a military intervention in Chad and Sudan, followed by the establishment of U.S. military bases in the region and a call for independence for Southern Sudan, all to be justified by "humanitarian concerns." The real goal will be establishment of a permanent military presence in Africa in order to control the oil output, as already indicated by the new "military command" of Africom.

Gotta wonder if any African country has a "North American Command", don't you? Maybe Libya? Or Egypt? What would U.S. citizens think if African presidents were to declare that "ensuring access to U.S. oil is a matter of national security" and sent warships to patrol U.S. coasts? I wonder. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Remarkably peaceful since 1995??? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» NATO bombed in 1999. Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» P.S. The Nabucco Pipeline... Posted by: mjabele
Interventionist Foreign Policy and Obama
Posted by: mutualaid on Feb 24, 2008 1:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scahill doesn't address here Obama's position on this matter. He was debating Rambouillet with Samantha Power (whom many believe would be sec. of state were obama to be elected pres). She declared that her interpretation of Rambouillet differed from Scahill's; that it was not an ultimatum designed to pave the way for NATO bombing.

I'm assuming that most of those above, including those who favored NATO bombing/intervention, believe that it was illegal under existing international law - although R2P may be gaining a little traction here and there as a justification, it seems far from a universally-held principle.

Given Russia's likely veto of a u.n. sec. council resolution warning of grave consequences, can anyone here divine what Power's alternative interpretation of the diplomacy at Rambouillet might be?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what a f*****g mess
Posted by: lexicon on Feb 24, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an American citizen that tries to pay close attention to world events, and gets information from as many disparate sources as possible, I have come up with only one reliable FACT:

...that ANYTHING you hear about what's going on in the former Yugoslavia, or in Iraq, or in Iran, or in Afghanistan, or in Pakistan, or in Gaza, or in Tel-Aviv, or in Jerusalem, or in Washington, or in Darfur or in Congo or in Venezuela...

...consists of a TINY kernel of truth, wrapped in a BIG lie, wrapped in an agenda, wrapped in an obfuscation, wrapped in a proxy.

In other words, there is just no way to really arrive at any semblance of an understanding of what's really going on, and the only thing you can definitively hold close is that whatever the face value APPEARS to be, the underlying truth isn't even a red-headed stepchild of that face value.

So what can someone like me even hope to accomplish, when there is such a comprehensive subversion of the dissemination of information and ideas?

lexicon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what a f*****g mess Posted by: Amesboy
» RE: what a f*****g mess Posted by: UN1244
» RE: what a f*****g mess Posted by: Gazette del Popolo
balkin war
Posted by: raine1 on Feb 24, 2008 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want to know anything about the Balkin War, try talking to a Croat. My daughter-in-laws grnadmother of 72 at the time of the war was called and told she had an hour to live. Soldiers were coming to her town to kill all the inhabitants. Her crime? Being Catholic, Christian.
the Serbs are insane. Completely insane. Thank God Clinton finally bombed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another more local analogy
Posted by: apple pie on Feb 24, 2008 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Knowing what we now know, being as intelligent as we know believe ourselves (here, collectively, reading and responding to this issue) to be, and as pluralistic, and as humane, and as fair.

Should one have allowed and supported the displacement and slaughter of the Native Americans by the champions on manifest destiny to take place?

Or, is there another way?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's all about the pipelines:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 24, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Energy Profile of the Balkans:

"The countries of the Balkans region are neither major energy producers nor consumers. Although the region does hold some important fossil fuel deposits, these resources are not significant on a world scale, and the political and economic instability in the Balkans in recent years has discouraged any substantial foreign investment in the respective countries' energy sectors. Rather, the region is becoming more important as a transit center for Russian and Caspian Sea region oil exports to Western consumers.

2) Serbia deal tightens Russia's grip on European energy, By Judy Dempsey, IHT, January 22, 2008

"Kostunica brushed aside the criticisms. During a cabinet meeting in which the deal was endorsed, he said the "strategic" deal with Russia would give Serbia a reliable supply of energy for decades.

"This is Serbia's biggest economic undertaking, and this agreement will guarantee our country's huge economic development," he said. . .

The Russian deal coincides with a fiercely contested presidential election that has focused on plans by the United States and the EU to recognize the independence of Kosovo despite opposition from most Serbian political parties and Russia. . .

Regardless of the outcome, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was in Berlin on Tuesday to attend talks about Iran, said a decision on Kosovo could not be postponed indefinitely.


So, on the microscale you have the Muslim-Serb-Croat ethnic conflict over land and grudges, and then you have the European Union, the United States, and Russia all vying for control of a main access point for European energy markets - which needs to be politically stable for the pipelines.

P.S. if you want to read about the roots of the ethnic conflict, see Timeline: the Former Yugoslavia

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it is also clear...
Posted by: lexicon on Feb 24, 2008 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That Organized Religion's power to to good works and accomplish near-miraculous feats of social good, is only matched by Organized Religion's power to destroy and lay waste.


lexicon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't count on peace
Posted by: JayHaden on Feb 24, 2008 11:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's been years, but I do recall the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo by Serbia. It may not have been quite as bloody as Serb action in Bosnia, but it was designed to be more effective. Rooting out all evidence of Kosovar habitation was the goal and it was nearly accomplished through cultural cleansing. Using force and fear, the Serbs sent tens of thousands of Kosovars packing into the mountains of Albania. The next step was to expunge any physical remnants of Kosovar culture. Albanian place names were changed to Serbian, cadastral and ownership records were destroyed and even geodetic bench marks were pulled up so there would be no way to locate property of former owners let alone reassert property rights. The UN found current property records in piles, rotting in the rain. One of the first actions of the UN as administrator of Kosovo after the war was to set up a commission and courts to adjudicate property rights among returning Kosovars. It was a horrible mess.

In interpreting events through the filter of our modern cynicism and ethnocentrism, we lose sight of what may be real reasons for ethnic cleansing and subsequent war. First, remember that Clinton was guilty of not acting fast enough in Bosnia and Croatia and not acting at all in Rwanda. I believe he felt that guilt when faced with the prospect of another bloodbath. Regarding the motivation for ethnic cleansing, there is history. In the former Yugoslavia, go back at least 600 years to the beginning of the Ottoman occupation of Serbia. The Turks were reasonably civil, allowing the Slavs and Illyrians to keep their heads if they simply converted to Islam. Once converted, the occupied peoples enjoyed most of the rights of their ethnic occupiers. The non-converts (real conservatives in modern parlance) suffered or fled to the margins. For centuries, the nations that made up Yugoslavia were on the boundary between Christian and Muslim worlds. Over time, there was a gradual feathering of those two populations, which was never an easy relationship. One night in the early 1800's, for example, the Christians of Montenegro (ethnic Serbs) arose and slaughtered all their Muslim neighbors. For a people (Serbs) who define themselves as warriors, reoccupation of their beloved Kosovo Polje by followers of the religion that had handed them a decisive and humiliating defeat 600 years before on that same spot is a risable subject. Demagogic politicians exist everywhere but, in Serbia, Kosovo Polje is a particularly effective symbol around which to rally their people.

As for oil, yes Kosovo is indirectly related. I think the US defense of ethnic Muslims in the former Yugoslavia was a tactic intended to win the hearts and minds of all Muslims after the Gulf War. It may have worked locally, in Kosovo, but the Bush/Cheney Iraq War nullified any beneficial diplomatic effect elsewhere. Our current eagerness to receive Kosovo into the community of nations is a similar attempt to show Muslims that we're really on their side -- in Europe, at least.

Don't count on the next few months being peaceful between Serbia and Kosovo. A people that can still roll its own cigarets and light them with flint and steel, may not care all that much for the comforts of the EU.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Truth & Blood Money Lies
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Feb 24, 2008 4:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here’s the core truth on the Balkans or anywhere people conduct war [i.e. state sanctioned mass murder] in over-simplified but essentially accurate form:

1] Significant wars have always ALWAYS been fought over public money for private power. A de facto corporate protection racket and criminal wealth transfer.

2] Real power always ALWAYS attracts those who should least have it (real power as opposed to the pretense displayed by corporate circus “leaders” GW Bush, Clintons, Obama, etc, et al.)



Lofty chit-chat of geo-political objectives and “security” is imperial Orwellian blather out of a corporate monopoly owned DC-MSM-“education” axis calculated to brainwash the gullible (most Americans, Brits, etc).

The Balkans are not merely a Big Oil puppet garrison satellite (not nearly as vital as Iraq of course) but about a trillion dollar a year off-the-books and black ops drug corridor of immense importance to our parasite ruling class.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8055

http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/issues/kosovo/
chossudovskykla.html

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/bushcheney.html

http://members.tripod.com/Balkania/resources
/terrorism/kla-drugs.html

Obviously trillion dollar per year “war on drugs” has been a cartel corporate sham far longer than “war on terror” but they are intimately linked. Again, both are arrant criminal frauds prosecuted on the public nickel. One need only look at Britain’s old BEIC Opium Wars as a recurring motif.

Times may change but people never do. (Ever)

In the end, the Balkans are another practical example of gross mismanagement for the world’s resources under the thumb of an unelected ruling class. One parasitic by nature and grotesquely immoral by serial policy that conducts genocide and war by deception as a means of public blood money looting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bogus Kosovo Independence is Extension of Great Game
Posted by: richthedoc on Feb 24, 2008 5:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is nothing independent about Kosovo, not last week and not today.
This is good evidence of the relentless nature of inter-imperialist rivalry and the willingness of masses of people to feed the bottomless pit of bodies sacrificed for witless nationalism and religious insanity. This area has been part of the great game for two centuries and it plays out now as the sinking US and Russian empires spar with one another, using elements that they created decades ago. Notably, Frank G. Wisner was used by PBS on February 18 2008 to explain the Kosovo crisis . Wisner is the son of Frank Wisner of the CIA, leader of Operation Paperclip, among others, which brought wanted Nazi war criminals to the US to serve as anti-Soviet agents. Wisner had recruited Nazi spy chief Reinhold Gehlen to work for the US against Russia--in 1943. Wisner was also involved in the US effort to overthrow the government of Albania in the early 50's. That operation failed when it was blown by Kim Philby. The US has been active in the region ever since, under Operation Gladio among others. The KLA is, in part, a US creation, a criminal drug gang, and an armed group of nationalist terrorists. This does not make the Serbs angels and they have similar ties to the Russians, and are manipulated in similar ways. But that Frank G Wisner was used by PBS to serve as a purported neutral observer to explain Albania events is simply appalling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When did this start? Try 1389
Posted by: CJC on Feb 24, 2008 5:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scahill I think is in over his head in this piece. The information about the military base is important and not well known. Thanks to Scahill for that part.

The roots of the Balkan conflicts go back at least to 1389 when the Ottomans defeated a multi-ethnic army of Europeans under the leadership of Serbian prince Lazar in KOSOVO. This defeat looms so large in Serbian consciousness to this day that there is a monument of a tower of skulls. A friend told of being there in 1965 and watching (in horror, he says) as a father with a young boy spent a long time at the monument apparently instructing his son in the history. The Ottomans held sway in the Balkans until 1912. (Summary of entry under "Kosovo" in Encyl. Americana, 1989)

One of the poisonous features of Balkan political culture seems to be a refusal to forget or forgive anything - for centuries.

Slobodan Milosevic stirred the pot around 1990. He is innocent of nothing. Europe and the U. S. sat by as war started and spread. That was unforgiveable. Sarajevo was shelled to bits. Fundamentally the Muslim Bosnians, and to a lesser extent Muslim Albanians, got the worst of hit. If it had been Muslims who initiated the trouble and massacred Christians, rather than the other way around, I think outside intervention would have come a lot faster.

A final point that is too rarely mentioned. The conflict in the 1990's drew Muslim fighters from around the world and played a part, in my opinion, in fueling groups like al Qaeda.

A novel to read for insight and the long history is "Bridge on the Drina" by Ivo Andric.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a bit more comlex that Scahill makes it out to be
Posted by: Michael S on Feb 24, 2008 9:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Scahill ignores the period from about 1981-99, especially from 1987 on, when the Serbian government (less strongly until Milosevic purged Ivan Stambolic who led the League of Communists of Serbia) went after the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Student demonstrations in 1981 over the lack of education in Albanian (at that time, some 80% of Kosovo was ethnic Albanian - a mix of orthodox, catholic, muslim and atheist) were put down by the police and army. Some educational reforms were introduced; more education was available in Albanian. The Yugoslav Constitution of 1974 gave a great deal of autonomy to Kosovo and Vojvodina - these Autonomous Provinces gained special status vis a vis the State of Yugoslavia and their leaders had a seat in the rotating presidency post Tito.

In April 1987, Milosevic, then a less important party functionary, went to Kosovo Polje and pledged that the concerns and fears of Serbs in Kosovo would be listened to - "No one has the right to beat you ... No one will beat you ever." This was the beginning of Milosevic's rise to power.

[Kosovo Polje was the site of a defeat of the Serbian king and his army in 1389 (an army made up Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks, Bosnians, Albanians, Croats, etc.) by the Ottoman army of Murad I (made up several nationalities as well - although it is hard to know how many of the Jannisaries were truly volunteers from non-Muslim nationalities - however, Murad had the help of Konstantin Dejanovic, a Serbian noble and his army). So the truth of this great loss/victory/"defining moment in the rise" of the Serb nation is something a bit more complex than propaganda would have us believe.]

Attacks in the press and on other fronts continued against the Kosovo Albanians (then 80% to 85% of the population of Kosovo). In 1989, Milosevic forced the resignation of the Representative of Kosovo to the Presidency (Vllasi), replacing him with a Milosevic (Serbian) ally - he followed this in Montenegro and Vojvodina. Many in Kosovo went on strike (lead miners occupied the Trepca mine for weeks, physicians and medical personnel, teachers, etc.) - all were fired (and never went back to work while the puppet government was in power - 80% unemployment before the war began). Later that year, Milosevic sent in the Yugoslav Army to arrest Vllasi as a traitor. I don't think many of them ever left and Kosovo Albanians looked upon the province as occupied. When I make this last statement, I’m not saying I agree (or disagree) this view; I am only trying to give the background Scahill's left not.

In my humble opinion, having lived in Yugoslavia in 1986-88 and having visited Yugoslavia in 1977, 1980, 1993 and 2002 (including about 3 trips to Kosovo), plus having followed the events there and having friends from most of the Yugoslav nationalities, the history of Milosevic and Kosovo were pivotal in the break up of the country - once Slovenian, Croatian and Bosnian media sent reporters to Kosovo, the attitude of many in those republics switched from believing the anti-Albanian propaganda out of the Milosevic press to supporting the Albanian strike and fearing that their governments would be next in Milosevic's drive.

(to be continued)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a bit more comlex that Scahill makes it out to be (Con't)
Posted by: Michael S on Feb 24, 2008 9:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scahill makes the issue of Kosovo appear to have begun with Clinton's actions. He totally ignores the brutality of the wars in Croatia and Bosnia and the fact that once the JNA was pushed out of Bosnia, they were free to be moved by Milosevic at will anywhere in the Fed Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) - so any resistance in Kosovo would be met by force; we had already seen the butchery of the JNA and the paramilitaries in Bosnia. Paramilitary leaders (e.g., Arkan) had been publicly expressing their hatred and plans for "dealing with" any elements they saw as threats. Anyone without an anti-Clinton or pro-Serb agenda would have predicted the butchering of tens of thousands. And, contrary to revisionist history, even before the NATO/US bombing began, Albanians were being forced out of Kosovo in large numbers.

I personally saw no option except for intervention. I was not crazy about it, but at that point, unless ground troops were sent in, bombing was the only option - Milosevic and his armies could not be trusted with anything. I called the White House to support the intervention, but later, when it appeared that the JNA was out, called to ask that the bombing campaign be ended and peacekeepers sent in. Of course, I doubt anyone listened to me on anything, but still, not everyone who supported the intervention felt it should continue the extra couple of weeks (what would have happened with Milosevic had the bombing not continued is something we will never know). I do think the Chinese are wrong about a deliberate bombing. There is evidence that a French military officer with NATO was screwing with maps - while many in France opposed the Serb actions in the rest of the former Yugoslavia, various officers in the French military were very suspect throughout the wars.

Scahill totally ignores that the wars began under daddy bush - in my belief, daddy did nothing to try to prevent these. He sent James Baker to talk to Milosevic (then President of Serbia) and said that the US did not want to see Yugoslavia break up - about the same as saying, "Son, here are the keys to the tanks and airplanes, try not to scratch the paint". Shortly after Baker left, the shooting war began. Great diplomacy, daddybush.

I wonder if failing to see that Milosevic was an imperialist within a federation is related to the unfortunate idea I have found in too many leftists/progressives who never bothered to study this area, that since Milosevic claimed to be a socialist, he must have been one.

To me, Serbia lost Kosovo and the moral right to "own" Kosovo in 1989 - before that, or maybe even later, had the wars not begun, things might have still worked out differently. One could look at the KLA and some of its actions against Serb/JNA troops (and probably all of its actions against civilians) in similar light to that which many of us say about the Iraqis bombing things - that may not be right, but weren't they brought to thinking those acts necessary because of an invasion of an imperialist power (Serb military/JNA/paramilitaries for the Albanians, US military for the Iraqis)? Ibrahim Rugova, the elected leader of an unrecognized parallel Kosovo government in internal exile, had led Albanians in a peaceful (Gandhian?) resistance to Milosevic rule and repression, even through the KLA uprising.

Britain learned from the American Revolution, India, the Near East, Pakistan and more that repression brings revolt and the loss of territory, as well as moral superiority. I guess not everyone has learned that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Elephant in the rom.
Posted by: itchyvet on Feb 24, 2008 10:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh dear, once again, most people fail to identify the elephant in the room, especially US citizens, it never ceases to amaze me how they can continue to look at the World through their own tinted views, totaly disregarding the reality on the ground.
Listen up folks, I don't give a you know what, regards Serbia/Kosovo/Albania ect, ect problems, these have been present for over 600 years now, and the resolution of them, is again, not up to the US, the European Union, Russia or anyone else.
It's up to the people concerned to resolve their own dilemas and find resolutions.
However, what I can see, is such countries may find a resolution that is not in conformity with European Union, US or UK's wishes, that's when the blood begins to flow and foundations are laid for so much unrest and trumoil, that we are becoming so familiar with these days.

I'd like every American citizen to think about the following;
The PRECIDENT that has now been set in Europe, with the formation of Kosovo can also apply just as well to Texas vis a vis Mexico.
Think about it folks, there's far more Mexican blood in Texas then there is Caucasion, and Texas DID previously belong to Mexico, so Mexican decendants and migrants would be within their Democratic rights in demanding their state in Texas, under the same guidleines given for Kosovo's so called independance.

Of course the above scenario would only apply in a DEMOCRATIC World, right ?
Not in the reality World that we currently live in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: lephant in the rom. Posted by: brunowe
Elephant in the room
Posted by: ijdavis on Feb 25, 2008 12:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The elephant in the room is that the US imposed a financial blockade on Yugoslavia in 1991, specifically to bring about the demise of Yugoslavia, following the collapse of the USSR. These sanctions succeeded admirably in precipitating a desire by the various republics within Yugoslavia, to better their own lot, by separating and thus get out from under the sanctions the US was imposing upon them.

Regarding the Ramboillet ultimatum, the elephant in the room which no one ever mentions is that Milosevic could not agree to the occupation of all of Serbia by NATO forces because Article 51 of the 1995 Serbian constitution expressly forbids such an action. Article 51 (resulting no doubt from past experience with Germany being "invited" to occupy Serbia during WWII) made it a crime and an act of treason for anyone to agree to another nation occupy Serbia.

1995 Serbian Constitution.

Milosevic could never have agree to Appendix B of the Ramboillet "accord" (read it if yourself if you think otherwise), which stipulated not just an occupation of Kosovo but an occupation of all of Serbia, and was added as a late addendum to the "accord" which he had till then been considering signing. Indeed there is good reason to suppose that the addendum was added at such a late date precisely to ensure that in refusing to agree to its terms, the US would then have its desired pretext for declaring war on Serbia.

The day Milosevic agreed to the terms in this Annex would have been the day he ceased to be president. The whole exercise was not to find some compromise acceptable to all.. it was to find some justification for the subsequent war. Indeed Madelaine Albright was reported to have boasted at the time that "we deliberately raised the bar too high".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: