Josip Glaurdic responds to a review of his new book, ‘The Hour of Europe: Western Powers and the Breakup of Yugoslavia’, by David B. Kanin, whose own response is also presented below.
By Josip Glaurdic
The twentieth anniversary of Yugoslavia’s breakup came and went without nearly the attention it warranted in the West. Perhaps that is fitting for the crisis which was originally allowed to simmer and boil over by the neglect of the Western powers. My book, ‘The Hour of Europe: Western Powers and the Breakup of Yugoslavia (Yale University Press, 2011)’, was an attempt to change that trend of indifference, so I am particularly grateful to Prof. Kanin for “lending me a hand” with his thoughtful and knowledgeable review. I am also grateful for his praise, but – in the good tradition of review responses – I have decided to move straight to his substantive critique. After all, that is the best way we can build a constructive dialogue and learn from each other.
It would perhaps be most useful to begin with Prof. Kanin’s suggestion that my analysis lacks “an assessment of why whatever forces – whether military, liberal, or ideologically ‘Yugoslav’ – failed to coalesce as events spun downward.” This is a very good question, which we can answer only after answering two related questions – which (credible) forces are we talking about and when?
If we are talking about the period between the decision of Slobodan Milosevic to marry his brand of socialism with Serbian nationalism sometime in mid-1987 and the collapse of the League(s) of Communists and its/their various defeats at the polls in 1990 – then my book answers that question at least implicitly because it deals extensively with the only credible force that could have stopped Milosevic’s march: the League of Communists itself. The book, thus, discusses the reasons why the rest of the Communist elite failed to collectively respond to Milosevic’s ousting of Ivan Stambolic (they did not want to meddle in Serbia’s internal affairs and they thought Milosevic was just a grey, controllable bureaucrat); it explains why nothing was done once the rallies of the “anti-bureaucratic revolution” started in Serbia (again, because it would have been meddling in the internal affairs of Serbia, because all republican Communist elites used their own nationalisms for the purposes of mobilization, and ultimately because some of them – like the JNA and Macedonia, for example – actually agreed with Milosevic); it suggests a set of plausible explanations for why what was done was done once the “anti-bureaucratic revolution” started to spill over beyond the borders of Serbia (new and weak Communist leaderships in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, miscalculations and spinelessness on the federal level, etc.).
Ultimately, however, the main point is that the Yugoslav Communists were deeply divided over what really constituted a “Yugoslav” platform and, besides, they derived their legitimacy from within their republics. For, say, the Croatian Communist leaders of 1989 – who were all of clearly Yugoslavist orientation – to reach out to someone beyond the borders of their republic in order to build an anti-Milosevic coalition, they would have needed courage, enough likeminded partners, an institutional pathway to oust Milosevic, and real payoffs for such a move in the form of increased legitimacy of their rule. They had none of that. As my book demonstrates, their feeble – but still clearly Yugoslavist – response to Milosevic’s campaign was actually the reason for their electoral defeat.
If, on the other hand, Prof. Kanin’s question is referring to the period between the downfall of the League of Communists in early 1990 and the breakup of the country and war in the second half of 1991 – then the answer is slightly different, partly because we are dealing with different actors, and partly because of increased importance of international signals to the Yugoslav players. As my book argues, the only scenario for a possible survival of the Yugoslav state during this period was dependent on the success of the federal government of Ante Markovic, which commenced its program of shock therapy in December 1989, and the success of the plan for the Yugoslav confederation officially proposed by Slovenia and Croatia in the fall of 1990. Since Prof. Kanin devotes some attention to my treatment of both Markovic and the confederal proposal, it may be useful if I answer his aforementioned question by responding to his critique of how these two episodes were dealt with in my book.
Prof. Kanin suggests that I am minimizing the role Ante Markovic played during this period, that I am ignoring his popularity, devaluing the success of his reforms, and taking him to task for “joining Milosevic in condemning Slovene and Croat movements toward independence after the disastrous Congress of Yugoslavia’s League of Communists in January 1990.” However, none of those suggestions are correct. Ante Markovic gets an extensive treatment in my book, from his appointment in early 1989 and the creation of his economic program (pp. 61-66), to his failure to get Western support (pp. 67-69, 80-81, 121-122), his participation in the elections of 1990 (pp. 102, 115), or his role in the war in Slovenia (pp. 169-170, 173, 177-178, 191-192). I also explicitly mention the level of his popular support (p. 120, p. 344n3). And I treat his reforms fairly, in light of their actual success as measured by a variety of economic indicators (presented in Table 5.1 on p. 122) and in light of the response they garnered in the West. Interestingly, I am not the one who termed Markovic’s reforms “illusory”, as Prof. Kanin suggests. It was the CIA, whose National Intelligence Estimate from October 1990 (and which I quote on p. 109) claimed that the reform achievements of Markovic’s government were “mostly illusory”.
As far as taking Ante Markovic to task is concerned, I take Yugoslavia’s last prime minister to task for three things: for harbouring irrational hopes throughout the crisis that the West would bail him out (p. 68), for aiding and abetting the Yugoslavist wing of the JNA in the war in Slovenia, and for the obstructive role his government played in early Western diplomatic efforts during the war in Croatia (as, for example, in the efforts of the CSCE, p. 187). Those criticisms aside, however, I clearly acknowledge the federal prime minister as “the only political actor who presented a pan-Yugoslav alternative to Milosevic” at the turn of the decade and as someone who may have had a chance to neutralize the Serbian leader (p.69). The problem for Markovic, however – and here lies the answer to Prof. Kanin’s question of why pro-Yugoslav forces did not coalesce around the federal prime minister – is that his reforms were doomed to fail without real financial assistance from the West – assistance Markovic never received.
One could also take Ante Markovic to task – though I do not do that in my book – for failing to support the confederal proposal of Slovenia and Croatia, which was officially presented in October 1990. Prof. Kanin suggests that the confederal proposal was not a truly workable plan, but merely a “slogan” which fooled some Westerners. He also suggests that the Slovenes were not intent on reforming Yugoslavia into a confederation, but were only interested in keeping their money. Moreover, Prof. Kanin questions not only whether the Slovene Communist leadership was committed to the idea of a Yugoslav confederation, but also whether it was committed to the idea of liberal democratization, and he asserts I provide no evidence for such claims in my book.
It is certainly true that the bulk of national/nationalist mobilization in Slovenia in the late 1980s, which was condoned and even fostered by the republic’s Communist leadership, was centred on Ljubljana’s financial contributions to the federal budget. This is hardly surprising, considering the economic environment of extreme austerity akin, perhaps, to what Greece has to go through today. To say, however, that the Slovenes wanted to keep more of their money and that they were committed to the idea or reforming Yugoslavia along confederal lines is not mutually exclusive. On the contrary: the confederation was exactly the institutional device which was – among other things – to allow the Slovenes to keep more of their earnings at home. Whether the confederal proposal of October 1990 was practicable or, as Prof. Kanin suggests, “there is no evidence the Slovenes or anyone else actually considered how such a construction would work” is debatable. The proposal was modelled on the European Community and contained a number of different options which were ultimately to be agreed upon in peaceful negotiations of all six republics. The main point is that this platform for negotiations did not “fool” any Westerners, as Prof. Kanin suggests. As my book demonstrates, the confederal proposal was met with basically uniform derision and disregard from the West in late 1990 and early 1991 (pp. 123-124, 137). Only after the Belgrade protests of March 1991 and the violence in Croatia later that April and May, did the Western governments begin to signal their possible acceptance of a confederal reformation of Yugoslavia, but by that time it was too late. It is rather ironic that a number of provisions of the confederal plan found their way into the proposals of the Carrington Conference in the fall of 1991 – after thousands of dead and wounded, and several hundred thousand refugees in the war in Croatia. Had the confederal plan received Western backing and diplomatic involvement in the fall of 1990 when it needed it, it is entirely possible that war could have been avoided, and that some semblance of a common Yugoslav structure could have been preserved.
When it comes to the question of evidence of Slovenia’s commitment to liberal democracy and to Yugoslavia’s confederal future, I can only recommend that Prof. Kanin re-reads the relevant chapters of my book. Is the fact that the leaders of the Slovenian League of Communists took Mladina’s side in its clash with the JNA in 1988 (pp. 27-29) not evidence of their clear choice to defend that quintessentially liberal idea of the freedom of the press? Are the Slovenian constitutional amendments of 1989, which abandoned the Party’s leading role in society and extended the rights of Slovenian citizens in areas such as freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, right to privacy, and freedom for organized participation in politics (pp. 54-56), also not evidence of a commitment to a liberal-democratic transformation? Is the fact that the Slovenian state-run media and the still ruling League of Communists supported Markovic’s reform program in spite of, as the Ljubljana daily Delo put it, the federal prime minister’s “inability to resist the discreet charms of centralization” (p. 65), not evidence of Slovenia’s commitment to a common Yugoslav future? Is the official platform of the League of Communists of Slovenia for the Fourteenth Congress of the federal Party organization, which – in the words of Milan Kucan – was the platform “undoubtedly for Yugoslavia: a voluntary state of equal republics, free and equal nations, a democratic community of free citizens which measures its socialist content and existence by the criteria of a European quality of life… not a Yugoslavia as an extended Serbia to which – according to its wishes – others can be joined” (p. 70) – is this platform not evidence of a still-present commitment to Slovenia’s future in a reformed and democratized Yugoslavia? Are the proposals put forward by the Slovene delegation at the Fourteenth Congress, which included a series of human rights amendments such as the ban on political trials and torture, and which were defeated by Milosevic’s sizeable bloc in the Party (p. 71), not a sign of the commitment of Slovenia’s Communists to liberal democratization? Last, but not least, is the fact that Slovenia was the first republic to call and hold democratic elections, after which the ruling Communists peacefully surrendered their political offices, not evidence of a commitment to liberal democratization? Prof. Kanin is certainly correct in stating that the Slovenes used their financial upper hand in an attempt to negotiate a better deal with the federal centre and that they had used it for years. They were, however, hardly alone in employing such methods.
The case of Slovenian liberalization and democratization is a good introduction to my response to another important critique by Prof. Kanin – the one regarding my supposed inaccurate use of the term Realpolitik to describe the policies of the Western powers. Prof. Kanin uses the example of Bismarck and his ability to mould the European order according to Prussia’s interests to draw a distinction with the Western leaders of the 1980s and 1990s who were operating “in the thrall of inertia”. None of them, as Prof. Kanin argues, deserve the same label of Realpolitiker that belonged to a statesman such as Bismarck.
It is interesting that Prof. Kanin uses Bismarck’s example to challenge my use of the term Realpolitik, because it was exactly the old Chancellor who was often quoted by the Western anti-interventionists who argued – as he did a century earlier – that “The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.” This quote indeed captures the essence of Western Realpolitik when it comes to the breakup of Yugoslavia. Political realism in international relations is primarily concerned with power (derived from military or economic capacity) and the pursuit of stability. It has no place for ethical or ideological concerns. So, what would the quintessential Realpolitiker have done, had he been in some position of power in the West and confronted with the Yugoslav crisis? Well, he would most likely have noted the dwindling importance of Yugoslavia in the European geopolitical system of the late 1980s and he would have wanted it to remain quiet in order to devote his attention to more pressing interests further up north. He would have had little understanding for the liberalization and democratization agenda of Yugoslavia’s north-western republics, or for the clamouring for human rights by the Kosovo Albanians. He would, on the other hand, most likely have supported those who claimed to be fighting for the country’s preservation and centralization, especially since they happened to be wielding the biggest stick.
As my book repeatedly demonstrates, that was exactly the policy pursued by the Western powers until real war broke out in the summer of 1991. Inertia did play a large role, as Prof. Kanin rightly points out, but it was not the only, or even the most important, factor explaining Western policy. To get back to the case of Slovenian liberalization and democratization – inertia alone obviously cannot explain the fact that the Yugoslav Army received Western signals of support for its possible (and contemplated) intervention in Slovenia at the peak of the Mladina affair in 1988 (p. 28-29), as well as during the crisis with the Slovenian constitutional amendments in 1989 (p. 60). Just as inertia alone could not explain a host of other Western policies toward Yugoslavia during the period covered in my book: from the lack of real Western condemnation of the violence against the Kosovo Albanians in early 1989 (with the notable exception of the US Congress) (pp. 39-42); to Cutileiro’s and Carrington’s blackmail of Alija Izetbegovic with the military might of Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs, and with the withholding of the international recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in March 1992 (pp. 294-300).
The important thing to note is that the foreign policy apparatuses of all Western powers – including Germany – subscribed to this rationale until real war broke out in the summer of 1991. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung may have been making a clear distinction between Yugoslavia’s “democratic northwest” and “Communist Belgrade” (as did a number of other press houses elsewhere in the West), but such distinctions did not have any real effect on Germany’s policy toward Yugoslavia. What changed Bonn’s outlook on the crisis were the extreme violence and the clear aggression, first of the JNA on Slovenia, and then of Serbia on Croatia. As I argue in the concluding chapter of my book (p. 307),
The nature and the aims of the Serbian aggression galvanized some of the most deeply ingrained principled ideas within the German foreign policy community: the idea of peaceful self-determination (which had been the basis for Germany’s reunification), the idea of strong anti-expansionism and anti-irredentism (which stemmed from Germany’s own World War II traumas), and the idea of a strong commitment to the growing capability of European multilateral institutions (which was the foundation of Germany’s post–World War II foreign policy). It was Milosevic’s challenge to these three principled ideas which shifted the spotlight of German foreign policy makers away from their material interests in the continuing existence of Yugoslavia – and if any country had real material interests in the perpetuation of the Yugoslav federation, it was Germany – to the moral interests of self-determination for Yugoslavia’s republics and Europe’s strong resistance to Serbia’s expansionism.
The point is that Germany’s policy shift cannot be, as Prof. Kanin does, viewed outside the context of the extreme violence which was unleashed on Croatia and was threatened to be unleashed on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Prof. Kanin’s suggestion that Germany pursued the policy of recognition of Slovenia and Croatia without consideration for what would happen for the rest of the federation is false. As my book shows, Germany had a clear preference for the recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Slovenia and Croatia, but was forced to take a back seat due to the intense criticism it was subjected to, primarily by Britain and France. Unsurprisingly, and unfortunately, the Western diplomatic, humanitarian, and military effort in Bosnia and Herzegovina thus reverted back to the very same mistakes which marred its inglorious beginnings in Slovenia and Croatia. Had my book been longer than the already lengthy 432 pages, and had it continued into the Bosnian war, the analysis would have not only shown Milosevic repeatedly hoodwinking the Westerners, as Prof. Kanin suggests. It would have shown a long record of ultimately unsuccessful Western struggles to shake off their impulses of Realpolitik and appeasement – impulses which culminated with what Prof. Kanin rightfully labels the needless mistake of Dayton.
Dr. Josip Glaurdic is Junior Research Fellow at Clare College, University of Cambridge. He earned his PhD in Political Science in 2009 at Yale University.
An immediate response by David B. Kanin:
Josip,
Thank you very much for taking the time to consider my review and respond to it. I am just about to get on a plane to Istanbul and then other places, so I hope you will not be offended by this very quick response.
First, you mischaracterize just a bit my comments on your treatment of Ante Markovic. In fact, I believe you gave him the right amount of attention and only would quibble with minor points of what you say about him. In fact, I meant to use your appropriate consideration of his shortcomings and failures to take a shot at those who have built up a mythology that he was a would-be liberal alternative to Milosevic and the others who brought Yugoslavia down.
When it comes to Slovenia, the issue is not whether its leaders were sincere about a society more open than Milosevic’s Serbia. The issue is whether – even before Milosevic came to power – they were sincere in their commitment to maintaining Yugoslavia at all. I believe they were not – they knew no re-tinkered “confederation” would hold together and prepared the ground carefully and over time to get out. You believe otherwise – I look forward to more exchanges with you on this point. In my view, part of the problem here is – as I wrote in my review – your narrow focus (1987-1992) just does not cover enough ground to consider the context and follow-on impact of your spot-on assessment of Western disarray and contradictory policies.
As to Bismarck – I agree he knew little about the Balkans, which is why he kept his country out of the region and worried about the implications of how Russia and Austro-Hungary played out their rivalry in the region. I must confess a little disappointment that your comments focused on Bismarck more than my critique of your treatment of Genscher and German policy in 1990-2.
On the later issue, I agree with you entirely that Germany’s policy shift cannot be considered separately from the context of the violence unleashed on Croatia (but not just Croatia). I disagree with your book’s contention that the Germans put the same priority on Bosnia’s independence as on Croatia’s – if that were the case they would not have been ready to drop the issue in reaction to the chaos in the policies of other Europeans until the Americans belatedly stepped in.
These are details, albeit not all minor ones. I want to stress again how valuable I believe your book is – I very much look forward to learning from the fruits of your future research. If I can ever be of any assistance to you, please let me know.
David B. Kanin is an adjunct professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University and a former senior intelligence analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Good thing that you finally showed your real face Mr. Gallucci as an opponent to the Kosovar statehood. It was unfortunate that you headed UN in Mitrovica and from that time Mitrovica still remains divided. Kosovo is a country and is there to remain forever. Problems that Kosovo is faced with are nothing compared to the genocide it went through from Serbia. We did overcome the problem then, and be sure this political mess will be overcome more easily. Kosovo will be part of EU and all the other institutions in due time and Kosovars will get the respect that they deserve.
“conducted what the Washington Post described as a “witch hunt” against Albanians who aided the investigation.”
What a propaganda machine. It was ‘Washington Post’ or Carla Del Ponte’s co-writer? Oh, ooops. The rest is easily solved, don’t lose faith.
“This was followed by another CoE report criticizing Kosovo for its failure to protect witnesses of war crimes.”
——-
Can’t even hide the glee you and Jeremic, can you? Too bad for these headlines: “Reportedly “dead” witnesses in Haradinaj’s case alive
PRIŠTINA — The Muriqi brothers, witnesses in the case against Ramush Haradinaj, who were reported as murdered by the CoE Rapporteur Jean Charles Gardetto, are alive. ”
Enjoy while it lasts
Mr. Galluci,
Tha Ahtisari plan (inculding decentralization) is a compomise that recognizes serbian interests in Kosovo. Any further ‘compromise’ and autonomy for the ‘north’ of Kosovo, will lead to direct partition. If that is what you support, which is probably the case due to the biasness that you have continually shown during your political involvement in Kosovo, then be brave and say so.
Toni. Please provide evidence of genocide by Serbs in Kosovo. Before that maybe look up the definition of genocide. Then ask yourself why Serbia is a multi ethnic country, & why all non Albanian Kosovar minorities face persecution, pogroms, intimidation & death at the hands of KLA terrorists.
According to DEA reports the KLA, led by Thachi was responsible for the vast majority of Heroin trafficked into Europe.
Just to be clear. In the last paragraph I note that a real political resolution must recognize the independence of Kosovo. Also, while the Ahtisaari Plan does include features meant to help maintain Kosovo as a multi-ethnic society, it was not, strictly speaking, negotiated with Belgrade. Rather it was presented to them after discussions. The fact is that most of the world has not recognized Kosovo independence due to continued Serbian resistance to it (from Belgrade and in the north). This is a drag on Kosovo and would seem to require further efforts to reach a political agreement that ends the current impasse. Recent events also seem to suggest the need for more work to put Kosovo on a European path. The EU should therefore stay on the job.
Six pivotal themes in Serbian propaganda are
1. Victimization, in which Serbs were constructed as collective victims first of the NDH, then of Tito’s Yugoslavia, and more specifically of Croats, Albanians, Bosnians, and other non-Serbs.
2. Dehumanization of designated ‘others’, in which Croats were depicted as ‘genocidal’ and as ‘Ustaše’, Bosnians were portrayed as ‘fanatical fundamentalists’, and Albanians were represented as not fully human. These processes of dehumanization effectively removed these designated ‘others’ from the moral field, sanctifying their murder or expulsion.
3. Belittlement, in which Serbia’s enemies were represented as
beneath contempt.
4. Conspiracy, in which Croats, Slovenes, Albanians, the Vatican,
Germany, Austria, and sometimes also the Bosnians as well as the U.S. and other foreign states, were seen as united in a conspiracy to break up the SFRY and hurt Serbia. In this way, the Belgrade regime’s obstinate disregard for the fundamental standards of international law was dressed up as heroic defiance of an anti-Serb conspiracy.
5. Entitlement, in which the Serbs were constructed as ‘entitled’ to create a Greater
Serbian state to which parts of Croatia and Bosnia would be attached, under the motto,’ All Serbs should live in one state.’
6. Superhuman powers and divine sanction. The Serbs were told that they were, in some sense, “super”. They were the best fighters on the planet, they could stand up to the entire world, and they were sanctioned by God himself, because of Tsar Lazar and the fact that Lazar had chosen the heavenly kingdom. Moreover, since Lazar had chosen the heavenly kingdom, the Serbs, encouraged to view themselves as Lazar’s heirs, were entitled to the earthly kingdom which Lazar had repudiated, as their patrimony.
“Also, while the Ahtisaari Plan does include features meant to help maintain Kosovo as a multi-ethnic society”
And do you honestly think Ahtisaari will be in play anymore? It ain’t happening, if the North goes then you asking for a population exchange of sorts. Sandzak might ask for something, Presevo Valley as well.
By the way, this tempest on a teapot, stirred by Dick the Fraud Marty (that conveniently hides behind temporary immunity) will be short lived. In fact it’s dead already. No one takes him seriously, headlines aside, he has no evidence becuase there’s no evidence to be had. You can’t do transplants or take organs in caves, old houses with no water or electricity or take them by donkey to the airport, hoping to find a plane. Every sane person knows that it takes a super-sterile and super-modern clinic with trained staff.
Gardetto, that other moron from Monaco, named two living people as an example of witnesses being killed. That shows the type of losers we’re dealing with.
Always amazed by the hypocrites who attack the Serb perspective in a derogatory fashion. They use the same snearing methods by which they accuse the Serbs. Prejudice, underlying rascism, triumphalism and gloating. There are but a few such examples demonstrated here.
Instead of finding practical solutions suitable to all for a long lasting peace, the Albanians demand a maximalist outcome to the detriment of everyone else. The fact remains Serbia is a multiethnic multireligious State. The only such State left in the former Yugoslavia. Kosovo on the other hand is an exclusivist and racist invention intolerant to all non Albanians. You constantly demand respect. Well earn it. Show your maturity by compromise, negotiation and tolerance. Rid yourself of corruption and primitive clan violence. And prosecute those responsible for war crimes. Then people may see you in a different light.
Hey Galluci, are you being paid by Serbia /Serbs by any chance? It’s OK if you are and frankly I hope they pay a gazillion, I’d love for them to lose money.
This is where the Dick Marty got his ‘information’ from http://whitepaper.prohosts.org/ , Serbia’s BIA. This is plagiarized directly by the Dick : “Although some of the UCK activity could be described as a liberation struggle against an oppressive Serbian regime, serbianwhitepaper@gmail.com doesn’t believe in UCK as a liberation movement.”
And just WHY should the criminal, mafia so-called independent state of Kosovo continue on its rotten path? Why? We’re talking about a regime built and sustained even today on gun-running, sex slave trafficking, heroin trafficking, murder and organ-trafficking, along with routine intimidation or murder of all those who oppose any of this. How many wrongs will make one right? Does might make right? NATO ensured Hitler’s goals were finally met in Kosovo, goals Hitler, himself, couldn’t accomplish due to resistance by the Serbs. Is that the West’s mission now — to fulfill Hitler’s dreams? Well, well done then!
Kosovo is by international law recognized as a province of Serbia, a law that was ignored when it suited the greater agenda of countries like the U.S., Germany, Britain et al. This monster child of an independent Kosovo was an evil seed conceived in the collective womb of terrorists, murderers and thieves and then brought to life by cesarean section using bombers as surgical implements. (The actual surgical implements were used for organ trafficking.)
This was nothing less than a land grab by Albanians in Kosovo with international assistance by those who wanted Camp Bondsteel in the Balkans and knew they wouldn’t get it any other way. To get what they wanted, these countries shamefully looked the other way and even cozied up to the KLA, knowing full well what those KLA “leaders” stood for. They were familiar with and supported the actions of the likes of Thaci and Ceku in Croatia who were directly involved in the ethnic cleansing and murders of 250,000 Serbs, just in the Krajina, alone. Why not support organ trafficking, too, eh? What’s the difference?
No, Mr. Galluci, Kosovo must NOT go forth. One grotesque act on top of another fixes nothing, least of all your consciences if you have them. Those that you work for may well have bribed the Tadic government with big promises if they give up Kosovo for the “reward” of EU membership, but the fact is that the EU needs Serbia more than Serbia needs the EU. And despite fear-mongering propaganda to the contrary, if Serbia doesn’t join the EU, it will do just fine. And Serbia will only give up Kosovo if its own leadership is as corrupt as Thaci’s and the West’s and, since that leadership has been installed there by the West, perhaps it is. But, if Tadic had been able to sell to Serbs the idea of relinquishing Kosovo, he’d have already done it. Do you have any comprehension of what Kosovo represents to Serbs — their heartland? Keep pushing, Mr. Gallucci, in the direction of getting Kosovo recognized, followed by giving Kosovo EU membership, and that’s when Europe’s troubles will really begin, when Kosovo Albanians get those EU passports in their fists.
Partition is the only option. The North, Gracanica and Strpce should go to the Serbians and the rest to the albanians. There can be a thick line separating the two for now with the EU/Russia manning it. The Orthodox churches can use the Mount Athos method and be independent. This would be the most equitable solution.
Mr. Galluci, everything you wrote about the situation in Kosovo speaks against independence of Kosovo, but, still, in the last paragraph you suggest “a political accommodation that accepts Kosovo independence as a fact”. How can a criminal enterprise that puts in danger, not only its neighbors, but individuals all over Europe (heroin trafficked to the West, organ stealing from poor Eastern Europeans, prostitution of poor Eastern European girls, etc) be rewarded such a high reward of an independent state where crime and mafia reign supreme? Is it only to save face of the dangerously corrupt US and West European politicians?
A few comments. First, no one pays me to write. Second, I do not advocate for or against independence. It is a fact. Serbia lost Kosovo in 1999 and is in no position to get it back. There is no way to make it part of Serbia again, certainly not through force of arms. But, third, Kosovo is also unfinished, as Veton Surroi said in Washington a few weeks ago. It will remain so until there is an agreement with Serbia that provides some recognition of its continuing interests in Kosovo. Lastly, repeated threats by some Kosovo Albanians that if they do not get their way they will drop Ahtisaari, and seek “population exchanges” and other regional changes do not serve Kosovo’s interests. It makes them sound like threats from a thug rather than the behavior of European democrats.
Dear Rom, I am very much aware of what genocide means. To me, if the Serbian state ordered its military and police to raid a village in Kosovo, burn all the property and kill everyone, kids and elderly included, that is genocide. And that is exactly what happened in Kosovo. KLA killed no civilians but took the guns to protect people and property from the Serbian army who wanted Kosovo clean of Kosovars. The Hague tribunal released all the KLA figures from charges of killing civilians and the case of the so much debated organ harvesting issue has been investigated more than three times by local and international legal bodies and the result was: a big fat lie of Kosovo’s independence opponents. Having nothing at your hands to prove KLA killed civilians and all the bla bla bla following it, is nothing but a well-known Serbian propaganda of the ’90s. It is clearly not working.
Mr. Gallucci, please stop trying to balance your sided article by providing comments on it and what the others have to say. You will be always remembered as someone who destroyed the future of a generation of people of Mitrovica by creating obstacles and not resolving their everyday problems, during your “reign” as chief UN staff in Mitrovica. Shame on you.
—”It will remain so until there is an agreement with Serbia that provides some recognition of its continuing interests in Kosovo.”
Or until Serbia is ready to enter EU, or until Kosova reciprocates with the embargo (hurt Serbia by $400 mil a year), ban Serbian documents unless they accept Kosova’s etc etc. Serbia is bluffing, they have nothing left, just help some Serbs lob a few more grenades in the North.
—”First, no one pays me to write.”
Speak? Visit? ‘Thank tank’…maybe paid ?I ask because Transconflict clearly has a Serbian flavor (see ‘board of directors’, translated in Serbian..) Maybe it’s for internal Serb consumption as you are being represented as “Former American diplomat,” mistakenly hinting that you are indirectly stating a new Kosovo policy.
—”It makes them sound like threats from a thug rather than the behavior of European democrats.”
Wow, mighty touchy, aren’t we? If Northern Serbs (all 30,000 of them) can’t live with Albanians why can the southern ones? And why should the Albanian in Presheva etc live with Serbia? Truth is that you and Serbia have switched to trying to make Kosova a Bosnia, where Serbia can veto everything. In a sense, a state destined to be a failed state forever and a Serbia colony. It’s not going to work Mr Galluci. Remember the Ahtisaari was a package, if Serbs /Serbs don’t accept it in the entirety, then everything is off. For example, 5% Serbs have at least 20 votes in a 120 seat parliament and a say in the constitution. Do you thin this crap will stand then? Do you think they will be two sets of laws in Kosova? Keep dreaming or helping keep the Serbs in a delusional state of mind.
Let’s start with Serbs paying for the 12,000 civilians they massacred, tens of thousands of wounded, raped, the houses they purposefully destroyed and then we can talk economics. Write about that, next time.
Alberti, you are an Albanian propaganda machine. Mr. Gallucci has written a truthful and accurate article, and all you can do is slander him with your separatist Albanian nonsense. BTW, why do you still use the Jamie Shea 12,000 dead Albanian figure, that has been proven wrong. Are you possibly playing the victim card?
Please admit, an independent Kosovo, with Albanian rule, is a complete failure and in shambles. Thaci is shown to be a criminal clan thug, and there is no one else to lead in Pristina. As opposed to listening to informed diplomats like Mr. Gallucci, you chose to ridicule him, and turn a blind eye, like the West did, to Kosovo’s leadership problems. If you really love an independent Kosova, then why not try and help this new entity survive, as opposed to blaming its critics?
—”Thaci is shown to be a criminal clan thug, and there is no one else to lead in Pristina”
Who showed him to be a criminal, a report with zero facts by the Dick Marty? And two, there plenty of people. States are not created and made successful in a year or two, Galluci should know it better than anyone here. Look at Serbia: Dacic, that idolizes Slobo Milosevic is second in command and just a few years after having a PM killed Serbia is criticizing others. Things change
—”the Jamie Shea 12,000 dead Albanian figure, that has been proven wrong. Are you possibly playing the victim card?”
Google this Winstonovic: “BELGRADE — The Humanitarian Law Center has so far registered 13,472 victims—9,260 Albanians and 2,488 Serbs— in Kosovo between 1998 and 2000.”
That was in 2008, before several new mass graves were discovered.
—”As opposed to listening to informed diplomats like Mr. Gallucci”
Informed with an agenda, and I disagree with his solution. Serbs like to listen to him because he is one of the few that agrees with them.
Any other questions ‘Winston’?
It is vital to firstly make a copy of this comment, and then to send to as many people as you can, and for them to send it to others.
The opinions in this comment are based on facts, logic, and a correct understanding of Human Nature and Human Behaviour.
We have seen how Britain and America have cunningly held onto their Global Hegemony, even though it against the interests of the European Union, who are supposed to be their friends and partners.
This is the way that Britain and America treat what really are the closest that could be considered to friends and partners, even though they are only Puppets of Britain and America.
This was done with slowing down the European Integration Process using Kosovo, so that Britain did not have to use Euros, so that they can Secretly Print Pounds and convert them on the Black Market to Clean Euros.
The Kosovo matter has also impoverished the Balkans, and impoverished Continental Europe, and Anglo-America has been very cunning to use the Kosovo matter to hold onto their Global Hegemony for as long as possible.
At the same time, they want to create a Temporary Anglophile and temporary NATOphile segment of Europe against European Interests, and at the cost of European Interests.
We have seen the Criminal extent to which Britain and America have gone in order to achieve their Evil Conspiratorial Plan.
Britain, America, and the Nazis of Europe will need to tear up the United Nations Charter in order to achieve their Evil Goal, because the Kosovo Albanians do not want Proper Negotiations.
It could be that some European Union Countries think that an Arbitrary Imposed Autonomy on the Kosovo Albanians is the Solution to their steadfast refusal at Proper Negotiations, even though a United Nations General Assembly Unanimous Passed a Resolution for Proper Negotiations.
It would not surprise many of us, if many of the European Politicians have been Puppetized because of their Lust for MONEY by the Overly Represented Zionist Influence in Britain and America.
We all know that some British and American Citizens with Wealth and Power in Britain and America want to Rule the World, and they need a way to Puppetize their European and Anglo-American Puppet Politicians.
Please do not even bother to suggest that reporting on facts and on what other informed people have to say about certain Jews makes me Anti-Semetic or anti any Race, because intelligent people will ignore such nonsense.
People are People, and Human Nature is Human Nature, and there is not even one Race of Humans that is totally pure.
A corrupt Business Environment can be compared to a septic tank where the Solids always Rise to the Top.
Russia did the right thing by cleaning up Corruption in the Business Community of Russia to protect the Fine Reputation of the Honest Businesspeople.
If Russia did not clean up the corruption of Business Practice, then Britain and America by means of their Puppets, the Nazis of Europe, would have secretly and privately have said to investors of non-Anglo-American countries that Russia has not cleaned up its Business Corruption.
Britain and America by means of their Puppets, the Nazis of Europe, would have asked other countries not invest there, because Britain and America want to make the Good Profits in the now Clean Russian Business Environment.
It could be that the Jew Mikhail Khodorkovsky was planning to Paedophile Blackmail the Russian Politicians like he and his Jewish Friends may have done with the Drunkard Boris Yeltsin.
It could be that the Jew Mikhail Khodorkovsky was Paedophile Blackmailing Boris Yeltsin because he and his Jewish Friends may have Filmed Boris Yeltsin unknowingly committing Paedophilia while he was in one of his daily Drunken Stupors, in order to become the Jewish Dictator of Russia.
We continue to hear criticism of how a Convicted Criminal should be declared to be pure, and how the Richest Person in a Country should also be its Dictator in order to perfectly reflect the Dictatorship in America.
I used the term Dictator rather than Ruler, because if Mikhail Khodorkovsky had become President of Russia, then Russia would have been a Jewish Oligarchic Dictatorship.
We know that this is what some American Politicians who could be Paedophile Puppetized falsely claim is a proper Democracy.
The following is what I found on the Internet, and unless the CIA or Mossad change the Internet location, the rest of the Article can be found at http://www.sunray22b.net/oliga….
Oligarchs.
Oligarchs are the hard faced men who did well out of the collapse of the Soviet empire after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. The Wikipedia’s article, Russian oligarchs tells us that they are hated in Russia but manages not to let us know that there is very good reason and that six out of the seven are Jews. Given that they made off with some 85% of Russia’s assets you can see why there is no love lost there. The one who is not a Jew may well be Alexander Lebedev. He was KGB which is a good sign. Russians can be thieves too.
The Jews – Where Are They Now 1?
The link is http://www.exile.ru/2007-May-1…, but it says; Link is missing, We’ve updated our site, but you can still find what you’re looking for here: http://old.exile.ru/2007-May-1…. But we recommend you stick around and use version 2.0 of the eXile site.
Of the seven oligarchs who controlled more than 50% of Russia’s economy during the 1990s, six were Jews: Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky, Alexander Smolensky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Mikhail Friedman, and Vitaly Malkin. Berezovsky also controlled the state television station and several newspapers, while Gusinsky’s media empire controlled NTV, Russia’s only national independent TV station, as well as major radio and print outlets.The main stream media – well just big enough – tells the truth for once. It does not say which one was not a Jew.
The Jews – Where Are They Now 2?
http://www.exile.ru/articles/d...
When the Tsar’s secret police wrote and distributed The Protocols of the Elders of Zion around the turn of the 20th-century, they essentially invented modern anti-Semitism.
Ninety years later, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, a funny thing happened: Russia’s media and finance was overwhelmingly controlled by Jews. Paranoia and fiction became reality. Of the seven oligarchs who controlled more than 50% of Russia’s economy during the 1990s, six were Jews: Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky, Alexander Smolensky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Mikhail Friedman [ Mikhail Fridman ], and Vitaly Malkin. Berezovsky also controlled the state television station and several newspapers, while Gusinsky’s media empire controlled NTV, Russia’s only national independent TV station, as well as major radio and print outlets.
This is from The eXile free tabloid newspaper which is based on Moscow and seems quite sensible, albeit informal. It is an update of their other article on the same theme.
We all know that some Anglo-American Citizens with power in Anglo-American Countries who want to Rule the World will need a way to Blackmail their Puppets.
MONEY alone could not be the method, because after a person has millions or billions, then they can retire and enjoy the reluctant kindnesses of the Dictators of America.
Death threats alone could not be the method, because anyone can find refuge in another Country to escape being executed by Anglo-America.
It is only logical that filmed Paedophilia is the only way to make sure that the Blackmailed Puppet remains a Puppet, and keeps the Secret Conspiracies a Secret.
We all know that America has no problem with giving their puppets the red carpet treatment, even if they are War Criminals.
However, even Mighty America, or any other country could not find an excuse for protecting a Paedophile from being extradited to another country to answer the Allegations.
We continue to hear criticism of how a Convicted Criminal should be declared to be pure, and how the Richest Person in a Country should also be its Dictator in order to perfectly reflect the American Model of ‘Democracy’.
I used the term Dictator rather than Ruler, because if Mikhail Khodorkovsky had become President of Russia, then Russia would have been a Jewish Oligarchic Dictatorship.
We know that this is what America thinks is a perfect Democracy, because many America Citizens think that America is a Dictatorship.
Even many America Loyal and Patriotic American Citizens think that America is not a Democracy, but an Evil Dictatorship.
There are many people who want an Eastern European Summit Conference of Experts to begin discussing how to best handle this matter of Paedophile Puppetship that is a product of Human Lust for MONEY.
Many People think that there is even a possibility that Paedophiles who wish to be Secret Paedophiles all their lives will be Puppets for the Overly Represented Jewish Influence in Britain and America.
It is a necessary Human Right for those Politicians and other Influential People who have been Paedophile Puppetized by Britain and America to have a Country of Refuge.
Such a Country of Refuge would need to be a non-Puppetized Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council, like Russia or China.
It is an Enlightened and Modernized Policy to allow a place of Refuge for those People in the World who have been Paedophile Puppetized by Britain and America.
Those who have been Paedophile Puppetized by Zionist Dominated Britain and America will need a Spandau Type Prison for their Protection and their Rehabilitation.
We, the people of Democracyland, whose national borders are defined by the United Nations Charter and International Law are committed to the Highest form of Democracy known to Mankind.
Democracyland will be a true Democracy, it will have 100% Public Funding for Elections; it will have no military alliances; it will be 100% against racism; it will have no genetically modified crops; it will plant many trees; and it will have 100% recycling.
No, Toni, you obviously have no concept of what genocide means. Your claiming to know using example just shows your ignorance. And I won’t even attempt to counter a statement that has no basis in fact and gives no evidence, but even it that were true, which it is not, your example does not constitute genocide.
Genocide was committed by Hitler with whom the Kosovo Albanians sided. It is a travesty to accuse Serbs, of all people, who lost massive numbers in fighting Hitler’s fascists.
Alberti, you are, as they say “full of it!” There were approximately 10,000 people killed — in total — in the Kosovo war, and slightly less than half were Albanian. That means that, since Albanians were in the majority (due to massive illegal immigration and equally massive birth rates), the brunt of the war was suffered by the Serbs who had a much higher loss of life in relation to their population. Check…your…facts. Not everyone who is on the internet is a gullible American or Brit.
Mr. Galluci, so what you are saying, in effect, is that even though Kosovo is a criminal pseudo-independent pseudo-state that was formed by murderous thugs who ripped out and sold to the highest bidder the vital organs of Serbs, Roma and others, who have maintained a thriving heroin trade, a thriving sex-slave trade, who launder money….nevertheless, this horror show of a state, completely dependent on the west holding it up, has to go forward?! So, umpteen wrongs make a right. No wonder the world’s a total mess. Let’s not pretend anymore to be a lawful, civilized society, shall we?
I hate to tell you, but Serbia will not recognize Kosovo — not even with that American puppet Tadic in charge. And the EU should take a flying jump off a high cliff. Serbia doesn’t need it. Enough carrots and sticks. You supported the wrong side, Mr. Gallucci, and you know it — therein lies your real conflict.
Criminal Kosovo – America’s Gift to Europe
http://www.nspm.rs/nspm-in-english/criminal-kosovo-americas-gift-to-europe.html
Gerard Galluci lists various things that are wrong with post-1999 Kosovo, and with its unilateral declaration of independence. But, then goes on to say that Kosovo’s independence must be accepted as ‘fact’. Who’s fact? USA-NATO’s fact? Anyone who cares to know,knows that their selfish needs for one more huge military base propelled USA-NATO to bomb Serbia and steal away Serbia’s province of Kosovo in 1999. The plans for Camp Bondsteel were in place before 1999. So, as long as Camp Bondsteel is there, USA-NATO (and apparently Mr. Galluci) will continue to turn a blind eye to ‘the mess that is Kosovo’.
KaraTurkic,
you post a article by the senile Diana Johnstone, that even denied the Srebrenica massacre and the Serbian rape /concentration camps, and see her article as proof? I know Slobo and the church conditioned you to be gullible idiots, but WTF?
To the poster that went in his anti-semitic and conspiracy theory tirade: read about the Tuscon shooting and go seek help. That’s how it starts.
Albanian Alberti matches the title of Galluci’s piece, i.e. ‘a mess’. Alberti could have known better than attacking Diana Johnstone for telling the truth. But, he didn’t. Obviously the truth hurts.
By the way, who was it that attacked Fort Hood last year. By any chance, Albanians? How’s that for biting the hand that feeds you!
Albanians always bite the hand that feeds them. The U.S.’s turn will come.
Dear Sir. I have met you many times in Kosovo during your tour although we have never spoken directly. I have always agreed with your statements up to 99% and I am continuing to do so. Kosovo, a failed saga have become a nightmare saga. I have daily contact with high level diplomats around the globe in my profession. Honestly, very few believe today that Kosovo will be anything than a failed, problematic piece of land with no one by the steering wheel. Also, after the recent “developments”, organ harvesting, witnesses and the failed voting procedure (which was not better handled than any country in deep Africa) I have seen the support declining very fast. On the other side of the coin, Serbia has finally understood how to handle this mess. When I visit Kosovo from time to time, it seems like the Eulex, ICO (Feith) and also OSCE lately have had it up to the throat with the Albanians. Do you agree Sir? It will be a interresting decade to come.
The use of a copy and paste re-hashed propaganda piece titled “Six pivotal themes in Serbian propaganda” debunked piece by pivotal piece.
1.All nations in the Balkans constructed themselves as collective victims from one perceived or real oppressor, Croats, Albanians, Bosnians, Slovenians, Bulgarians, Romanians alike. The difference between them and the Serbs was the overwhelming and disproportionate Serb victims throughout history. One needs only to Google Jasenovac to to gain a real understanding of the term genocide.
2.The crimes the Ustasa committed should be viewed as inhumane those barbaric crimes even made their German Nazi superiors ill. Notations in SS officer memoirs and addresses to Hitler himself of the inhumane brutality towards the Serbian civilian populace attest to why any the Serbian national group would feel that way. Unlike the German reconciliation with the Jews, the Croatian nation refuses to face up to the past deeds their forefathers committed, instead relying on propaganda pieces to diminish and even wash their hands of these crimes. Tudjman, Croatia’s first president authored a typical example of this denial in his book, claiming it was Jews in concentration camps that are really to blame for the killings. Croatia’s second President Mesic claimed Croatia has nothing to apologise for in WW2 as Croatia won WW2 twice, once with the Nazis and later by changing hats and sitting at the table with the Communists. Coupled with growing far right wing movements in Croatia that rehabilitated and likened themselves to the Ustasa movement, the recipe of Croatian Nationalism at the expense of peaceful negotiations and stripping of minority rights could only lead to the view that Croats were going to embark on inhumane activities even before a shot was fired. Today 400,000 Serbs have been ethnically cleansed from Croatia and 35,000 young Serbs had to convert to Catholicism to gain equal opportunity for employment. Croats like some Osijek police forces who tried to arrest these right wing paramilitaries were viewed with respect by Serbs and traitors by the Croatian independence movement. Albanians like those involved in the COE organ harvesting report and the horrors they perpetrated could not be viewed by any sane person regardless of ethnicity of nothing less than a cannibalistic heathen. Over 100,000 Albanians living in multi cultural Belgrade were never politically harassed during conflict which shows contradictions and flaws in “pivotal point no2” as well. Today a total of 200,000 Serbs have been ethnically cleansed from Kosovo.
3. Axis forces which includes Croatian Ustasa, Bosnian and Albanian SS Divisions need to be treated beneath contempt and suppressed as is done with tough German law prohibiting any revival of any Nazi movements. Seeing events of a whole football stadium of 60,000 Croatian youths sieg-heiling in the new millennium attest to failure of the Western view and policies regarding the Balkans and the success of hired propaganda companies of ill repute in covering up the ugly truth.
4. Germany’s premature and illegal recognition of Slovenian and Croatian independence (breaking a UN charter the Helsinki final act) deliberately destroyed any peaceful resolution to avoid war and bloodshed. The Illegal and immoral Croatian constitution to strip Serb minority rights also destroyed any chance of peace and actually incited war. The Vatican rat lines attest to the conspiracy of aiding the Ustasa who destroyed Yugoslavia and so many Yugoslavian/Serian lives in WW2. Slovenians fired the first shots in the Balkan conflict with the aim of creating unrest and destroying Yugoslavia. The US President Ronald Reagan signed NSDD 133 in 1984 which supported secessionist paramilitary units responsible for many human rights abuses and war crimes, a continuation of tough restrictions on Yugoslavian exports and banning vital credit funds to Yugoslavia or it’s industry whilst charging compound interest on money owed setting up economic collapse. Damm this isn’t conspiracy or propaganda but fact. Fundamental observation of international law who should that be directed at?
5. Serbs were entitled to their lands which they fought for, Greater Serbia was the propaganda vessel set up by Croatian intelligence services and then rehashed by Bosnian and Albanian independence movements to the point it is generally viewed as outdated with little supporting evidence of the claim. The claim of Greater Serbia was even dropped by Hague prosecutors who harshly persecuted Serbs citing that Serbs remaining in other FRY republics wished to remain in Yugoslavia as many plebiscites attest to. This was a legal right afforded to them under the Yugoslav constitution and internationally was legally recognised through the Helsinki final act.
6. Never did I hear that by being Serbian that you should be considered “Superhuman”,
though many poems and stories help build good character amongst youth. Stories choosing Good over Evil can even be found in the good book and resisting and fighting empires bent on the destruction of the Serbian nation are facts that can be found in any 101 Balkan history lesson. In the US, the story of Lincoln as a boy running miles to return a dime to it’s rightful owner serves just as the Serbian stories to shape honest character in it’s younger generations and it’s guiding path towards being honest brave men. Well I fell for it and my wife loves me for it. It is a sense of worth that pains all those with a desire to conquer and subjugate Serbs.
Dear Gerard
It is very strange that after ten years the world learns what is happening in Kosovo. I worked in the period 2000 – 2002 in Gnjilane for the American UMCOR, close to Bondsteel with Albanian, Serb and Roma groups and we all knew that time that Thaci was corrupt and conducting illegal activities. Even the Albanians complained about it. It was time no secret that his sister was married to the biggest maffia boss in the Balkan. The problem was that nobody wanted to know, especially not the Americans. I saw with my own eyes the drugs smuggled and women trafficked by the KLA and at that time we were running shelter programmes for these women to keep them out the hands of the KLA. I often had personally the militia of the KLA coming to my office asking why I was ‘helping’ the Serbs in Easter Kosovo. The only thing what we were doing was trying to reconcile the Serbs and Albanians in the South East of Kosovo.
I strongly hope that the EC will not welcome this maffia state in its midst unless things change there for the better.
Yours
Johannes Schot