Did one word launch Nato bombings to Serbia?

Former Italian FM Lamberto Dini says the 1999 NATO military intervention against Serbia could have been avoided. According to this, the 78 days of attacks would have been averted "if a single word had been removed from the agreement which was offered at the Rambouillet conference". The problem was one adjective and Serbia insisted that the word “military” be taken out of the agreement leaving only “international presence” in Kosovo, but the United States insisted that the NATO gets permission to enter the province, Dini said while addressing students at the Bocconi University in Milan. (Sources Tanjug and B92 Oct.28th2008)

Rambouillet

Rambouillet negotiations were the decisive moment to go either for peace or war in Kosovo. The Rambouillet Agreement - Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo - includes two parts – the political part and the implementation part. The later part has two appendix A and B. By the end of the first round of Rambouillet in February, the Serb side had agreed to the essentials of a political deal. Agence France Presse (2/20/99) quoted a U.S. official as saying that the "political part" of a peace accord "is almost not a problem, while the implementation part has been reconsidered many times." The situation was same to last days of peace.

If I remember right Serbs were accepting political part but not the Appendix B which in reality was giving NATO and the West unlimited access to move around the entire country – not only Kosovo province - , to use airwaves, and radiowaves etc like in occupied country. There is also some conspiracy theories about that negotiators were not even aware about Appendix B and when it came on table it was so designed that Serbs could only reject it. The idea with this was to show Serbs as the pro-war nation and to justify Nato aggressions with this cause.

Rambouillet agreement (draft) can be found from here .

Bombings

Dini said also that in the crisis that followed, Italy advocated that the bombing be limited strictly to military objectives, but that Pentagon wanted a blank permission for all targets, Italy's ANSA news agency has reported. Nato bombings hit in Serbia 33 hospitals and 480 education facilities as well one (China) embassy and a lot of civil infrastructure. Nato was bombing 78 days and one excuse to hit civilian targets was that bombings against military targets were so unsuccessful.

I could conclude that Rambouillet loaded the gun and firing started after - probably fabricated - Racak massacre. In Rambouillet Serbs were accepting UN peace presence, maybe the whole war could be avoided by selecting word peace instead military. But if there is no will and real motivations are hidden so maybe changing one word would not be enough.

More my articles about Balkans can be found from my Archive: Blog.

Kosovo separatists are dreaming to occupy the north Kosovo

Former Kosovo PM Agim Ceku told reporters on Sunday 26th Oct. 2008, that the government in Priština should declare the northern part of Kosovo "a zone of special interest". "If this part of Kosovo is declared a zone of special interest, that means presence of state officials of Kosovo must be secured there. Those officials would work there and be the state authority of Kosovo,..., such measures in the Serb-dominated north which rejects Priština's authority would be "temporary".

Ceku, who is the leader of the Social Democratic Party, said the Thaci government has no concrete plan to spread its authority in the north. For his part, Ceku did no rule out using force to achieve this. "Use of force is the task of every security organ. I would not say use of violence, but of force, if necessary. The functioning of the state and government in every part of the country is the task of institutions, which have their instruments and powers. Force is one of those powers," he elaborated.

Ceku's wish is of course easy to understand in dreamworld he is living in. The fact de jure however is that acording highest international law (UNSC 1244, UN Charter etc.) Kosovo still is under Serbia's sovereignty, International Court of Justice is giving its opinion about province's unilateral declaration of independence btw asked by UN General Assembly.

The fact on the ground is that northern part of Kosovo is integrated to Serbia like it allways has been, as well those parts south of Ibar river, which are not ethnically cleansed by Kosovo Albanians. If this self-declared quasi-independent puppet-state wants to start again some new conflict in Balkans lets hope that international community does not go to the same trap than before.

More articles about Balkan and Caucasus politics one may find from my Archive:Blog

Serbia jumped to top ranking of attractive emerging markets

Recently I wrote here an article named ”Competitiveness of Balkans” where I sited a comprehensive annual survey “Global Economic Competitiveness Report 2008-2009” published by the World Economic Forum. (Article and report can be found from here). The report has calculated sc. “Global Competitiveness Index Rankings” (GCI) 134 countries poled. Now I was reading a report of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP about a ranking of attractive emerging markets, which approach some Balkan countries from different angle.

PricewaterhouseCoopers – one of the leading global companies on its field of activities – published now the second year of its EM20 Index (‘the PwC EM20 Index’) generated by PwC’s innovative Risk & Reward Model. Report can be found from here.

PwC EM20

In order to be considered for inclusion in the PwC EM20 Index, countries needed to meet certain criteria associated with emerging market status. These were as follows:

• GDP per capita in 2007 less than $13,500 at market exchange rates;
• population greater than 5m people in 2007; and
• GDP at purchasing power parity in 2007 greater than $50m.

These criteria were set to identify countries with populations and resources of sufficient size to meet the needs of inward investors, while also having an appropriately low cost base. The criteria yielded a list of 50 countries.

Bulgaria and Serbia top three in Manufacturing index

The results for Bulgaria and Serbia – the second- and third-placed countries in the Manufacturing Index – illustrate the impact that significant changes in country risk premia can have on index rankings.

The two countries are similar in terms of wealth, population size and location –both being physically close to Germany. However, Serbia was placed 25th in 2004 whereas Bulgaria held the top ranking. At the time, Bulgaria was a candidate for membership of the European Union (which it joined in January 2007), while Serbia was emerging from a period of conflict and economic isolation. Thus Serbia’s move up the rankings to third place this year essentially reflects the fact that its political risk – an element contained within the country risk premium applied in the model – has more than halved over the intervening years. Another point to note is that Serbia’s corporation tax is set at a low level of 10%. For comparison, the corporation tax rate in Bulgaria is 15%.

Serbia jumped up 7^th in Services index

Serbia was ranked outside the top 20 in 2004, but achieved seventh place in 2008. Its improvement largely reflects increasing GDP per capita, although its country risk premium remains relatively high. The country risk premium reduction reflects the improvements in political and economic stability as the country moves towards EU admission.

Surprising Serbia

PricewaterhouseCooper analyses the factors for Serbia’s success and concludes following:

One country that features prominently in this year’s PwC EM20 Index, both in the Manufacturing and Services Indices, is Serbia. This may be surprising given that the country is only starting to appear on many investors’ radars as it recovers from the conflicts of the 1990s. Nonetheless, GDP has grown by 5.5% on average since 2000 and FDI (Foreign Direct Investments) is growing as the government opens up the economy and international buyers overhaul recently privatised Communist-era manufacturing facilities. The level of annual FDI inflows has grown steadily in recent years.

PwC continues, that “one of the drivers behind Serbia’s growing potential attractiveness to foreign investors is the falling risk of investing in the country. Political risk is considerably lower than at the start of the decade, while improved legal and financial institutional frameworks make capital invested in Serbia more secure. As a result, investors are willing to accept lower returns on their capital, making viable greater numbers of potential Serbian investment opportunities. Of course, Serbia still experiences some underlying political uncertainty, its accession to the EU is not imminent and further investment in infrastructure is necessary, but many international investors show confidence in the market’s potential.

Different aspects of different reports

While reading different reports it is reasonable also think a little bit which are the motivations behind their statements. EU for example is making regularly their reports about development in western Balkan countries. The point of view with these reports is, how non-member-states of EU are developing their institutions and practices towards better integration with EU practices. So these political reports are same time reflecting the values, priorities, top level statements and ideals of EU.

Whit business orientated reports the angle is different. Statements, ideals and other diplomatic small-talk is on background, the core of reports is the value for companies and potential investors. When users of political reports are playing in their virtual sandbox the business is playing with their own hard currency and when making decisions they must rely so much as possible to real facts.

Regarding Serbia last year has showed increasing trust by investors to this country. US Steel has put their money to metal processing, last Summer Fiat started to invest manufacturing of motor vehicles and Gazprom is investing oil and gas. In service sector Telekom Austria is coming to telecommunications, Merrill Lynch real estate business and News Corporation to media sector.

Political development and events are catching many headlines but real progress can be found from the ground. After many negative news and reports it is promising to see this Serbia's development gaining speed in real world.

More my articles about Balkan and Caucasus one may find from my Archives:Blog

500.000 bodies or sign!

Some of you may have been reading my earlier column "Do you hear Mr. Nobel rolling in his grave? on 12th Oct.2008. Now I was reading an shocking article "How the Nobel Peace Prize Was Won" by Gregory Elich at CounterPunch. Original article can be found from here.

One of the main points highlights Ahtisaari's mediator tactics when he is threatening President Milosevic that those whom Ahtisaari represented were willing to flatten Belgrade and to kill 500.000 people in a week unless President Milosevic does not sign his offer.

Sign or get 500.000 bodies!

“Ahtisaari opened the meeting by declaring, “We are not here to discuss or negotiate,” after which Chernomyrdin read aloud the text of the plan. Ahtisaari says that Milosevic asked about the possibility of modifying the plan, to which he replied, “No. This is the best that Viktor and I have managed to do. You have to agree to it in every part.” Ristic reports that as Milosevic listened to the reading of the text, he realized that the “Russians and the Europeans had put us in the hands of the British and the Americans.” Milosevic took the papers and asked, “What will happen if I do not sign?” In answer, “Ahtisaari made a gesture on the table,” and then moved aside the flower centerpiece. Then Ahtisaari said, “Belgrade will be like this table. We will immediately begin carpet-bombing Belgrade.” Repeating the gesture of sweeping the table, Ahtisaari threatened, “This is what we will do to Belgrade.” A moment of silence passed, and then he added, “There will be half a million dead within a week.” Chernomyrdin’s silence confirmed that the Russian government would do nothing to discourage carpet-bombing. The meaning was clear. To refuse the ultimatum would lead to the deaths of large numbers of civilians and total devastation. President Milosevic summoned the leaders of the parties in the governing coalition and explained the situation to them. “A few things are not logical, but the main thing is, we have no choice. I personally think we should accept…To reject the document means the destruction of our state and nation.”

True story

I originally found above mentioned article from a column by Dr. Jan Oberg, who is a Danish co-founder of Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research. He also checked from a Canadian lawyer Chistopher Black if the quotation was true. The lawyer confirmed that it was exactly the same what President Milosevic had earlier told him in his cell in the Hague.

Dr. Oberg published also 22nd Oct. 2008 an article which headline "Peace Laureate Ahtisaari endorsed terrorism" tells quite a lot about content. I really recommend you read this analytical article yourself. It can be found from here. If link does not open so copy/paste following address: http://www.transnational.org/Resources_Treasures/2008/Oberg_Ahtisaari_2.html

The bottom line

After reading articles mentioned above, having followed Kosovo conflict management on the ground as well from different reports and sources I would conclude, that

• methods to stop Nato bombings were not so sophisticated than maybe earlier assumed
• it is not anymore unclear, why Serbs had reservations for Ahtisaari and his impartiality as UN envoy/mediator
• it is easy to understand why there was not real negotiations - status talks - 2005-2006, why they failed and why the outcome - Ahtisaari plan/report - is what it is

The lesson learned could be that crisis management with using force to get imposed solutions without real negotiations between local stakeholders are not sustainable.

More my articles, documents and links about Balkan and Caucasus events one may find from my BalkanBlog.

balkan
ari rusila
Bookmark this on Delicious

High pressure to fabricate Racak reports

Forensic dentist Helena Ranta says that officials of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs had tried to influence the content of her reports in 2000, when Ranta was commissioned by the European Union to investigate the events of Racak in Kosovo. Ranta put forward her allegations on Wednesday October 15th at the publication of her biography in Helsinki.

More than 40 Albanians were killed in the village of Racak in January 1999. The investigation by Ranta’s working group was very charged from the beginning. It was commonly assumed that Serb forces had perpetrated a massacre, which helped persuade NATO to launch bombings of Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999.

According to Ranta, in the winter of 1999 William Walker, the head of the OSCE Kosovo monitoring mission, broke a pencil in two and threw the pieces at her when she was not willing to use language about the Serbs.sufficiently strong language about the Serbs. (Source HS 15/10/2008)

There is a widespread belief, that Walker's role in Racak was to assist the KLA in fabricating a Serb massacre that could be used as an excuse for military action. The theory was that the KLA had gathered their own dead after the battle, removed their uniforms, put them in civilian clothes, and then called in the observers.

Walker’s background

Walker was U.S. ambassador to El Salvador in November 1989 when six leading Jesuit priests, their housekeeper, and her daughter were dragged from their beds and murdered by the Salvadoran Army. The killings were carried out by the Atlacatl Battalion, which was recruited, trained, and deployed by the U.S. military, supposedly in order to improve the Salvadoran Army's human rights performance. The Atlacatl was responsible for the worst atrocities of the entire war.

Walker first emerged in the Iran-Contra Scandal as the right-hand man of Oliver North and Elliott Abrams in illegal arms shipments to the Contras out of Ilopango airbase in El Salvador. Before that, he was deputy chief of mission at the embassy in Honduras when U.S. authorities were recruiting officers from Somoza's deposed National Guard to establish the Contras, and forming military death squads that murdered hundreds of Honduran workers, labor organizers and students. Information about Mr. Walker’s background one may find e.g. from article “Meet Mister Massacre” by Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi here.

Some remarks

Biography of Mrs. Ranta is one more example about political aspect in modern time's information wars. Similar examples from last year are interview of former Haague Tribunal spokeswoman Florence Hartmann (see my article "Opening Bosnian X-files" 12th Aug.2008 from my BlogArchive ) - as well the book of her former boss del Ponte describing e.g. organ trafficking of Serb civils by Albanian mafia - are giving quite disgusting picture about “realpolitik” behind noble statements of international community.

With this kind of now public exposures I would like to draw quite clear conclusion which is that latest mid-90s the western powers had decided heir position against the Serbs.

First there was case of Srebrenica July 1995, which launched publicly US support to Bosnian Muslims with claims of massacre of 8000 civilians (later few thousand was found, some of them were died years before, some of those 8000 returned alive few years later etc).

Second they were silent about massive ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Krajina (more in my article "Operation Storm" 5th Aug.2008 here) .

Third there was Racak case which launched Nato bombings 1999.

The story - manipulation public by mainstream media with fabricated reports for political aims - continued later this decade in Iraq operation and partly Georgia case (stories started with Russian invasion 8th Aug.2008 when in reality Georgia made attack to civil targets 7th Aug.2008, also fabricated pictures of Reuters came soon pubic).

After all this it is hard to believe on the other hand to official reports of states/international organizations and on the other hand the neutral or investigative journalism in sc. free press. Especially alarming it is now to read reports about nuclear program of Iran - what is true and are big players again starting new unnecessary war with false evidence.

More my articles from Balkans and Caucasus one may find from my Archives:BalkanBlog.

Powerplay behind the newest Cold War

Georgia 08/08/08 is the date when headlines in Western mainstream media started to tell how big, bad aggressive Russia attacked to tiny, democratic, good Georgia. After that the West continued accusations about occupation a free sovereign state started rethink enforcing its frontlines around Russian border in new cold war era. Al this despite the fact, that day earlier 7^th August 2008 Georgia had started the moths before planned war against its separatist province (look my article “OSCE report fault Georgia - one trivial statement more from EU summit” 4^th Sept.2008 from my BlogArchive). All this despite he fact, that USA had already showed the way how to break international law e.g. by bombing Kosovo and orchestrating the quasi-independence of that separatist province.

While speaking about new confrontation between East and West the (mostly western) political commentators have used first nice, warm words like freedom, democracy, sovereignty, humanitarian catastrophe to justify their planned harder actions to response Russia’s aggression. However if we scrub the soft spoke for dummies – sorry for public – we can find the hard reality and bigger game behind recent headlines of Caucasus or Balkan events. I try next to highlight few aspects with this power play.

Pipes

First element I would like to mention is energy. Georgia is part of a NATO military alliance (GUAM) signed in April 1999 at the very outset of the war on Yugoslavia. It also has a bilateral military cooperation agreement with the US. These underlying military agreements have served to protect Anglo-American oil interests in the Caspian Sea basin as well as pipeline routes. (The alliance was initially entitled GUUAM, Uzbekistan subsequently withdrew and the name was changed to GUAM: Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and Moldova). More you may find from my article 9th Sep.2008 "War on Pipes: Transport corridors as core of US-Russia confrontation" where is write about GUUAM and SRS (Silk Road Strategy Act). Article one may find from my BlogArchive .

To reduce reliance on Persian Gulf oil, the Bush Administration has sought to strengthen relations with other non-OPEC, oil-rich countries. For example when (then) Defense Secretary Rumsfeld visited Kazakhstan, his main agenda was to promise security assistance for Kazakhstan's oil pipelines and facilities on the Caspian Sea, where an estimated 7-9 billion barrels of oil were recently discovered (the largest oil discovery anywhere in 30 years). Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey recently signed a U.S.-backed deal to build an oil pipeline to bring that oil to ports on the Mediterranean. The U.S. has military ties with each.

U.S. oil demand is huge and increasing. Today, the U.S. has less than 5 percent of the world's population, yet it consumes more than 25 percent of global oil production-about 20 million barrels per day (mbd). Oil is the dominant fuel in the U.S. energy market, meeting almost 40 percent of total U.S. energy needs. Most of this is consumed by the transportation sector. If current U.S. oil demand trends continue, by 2025, the US. will be consuming over 29 mbd. More larger and heavier cars and trucks- with bigger engines, driven more miles each year- will account for most of this growth.

All tolled, today, the world is consuming a little over 80 mbd (30 billion barrels per year). By 2030, global demand is expected to grow by 50 percent to 120 mbd (45 billion barrels per year).

After August events in Georgia everything did not happen according US plan. Russia could warm its relationship with Azerbaijan which was clearly to seen when Dick Cheney made his travel around Caucasia and came back empty hands. Also the situation in Ukraine developed away from US hopes.

Paul Goble concludes in his “Window on Eurasia” Sep. 5^th 2008 following: “With Iran’s declaration that it opposes the construction of any undersea pipelines in the Caspian on "ecological grounds" and thus will block any delimitation of the seabed that allows for them and Baku’s decision not to back the West’s push NABUCCO project, Moscow can claim its first major political victory from its invasion of Georgia.” (Source)

These actions mean that the Russian government will now have full and uncontested control over pipelines between the Caspian basin and the West which pass through Russian territory and will be able either directly or through its clients like the PKK to disrupt the only routes such as Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan that bypass the Russian Federation.

Military-industrial complex

Second let me mention "military-industrial complex". When Russia’s invading forces choked roads into Georgia with columns of armoured vehicles and struck targets from the air, it instantly bolstered the case being made by some that the Defence Department isn’t taking the threat from Russia and China seriously enough. It was said that "Christmas Comes Early For the Military Industrial Complex”.

The Military-industrial Complex has been one of the biggest players in US foreign policy since President Eisenhower. Details about Iraq killing Iranians with US-supplied chemical and biological weapons significantly deepens our understanding of the current hypocrisy. It began with "Iraq-gate" -- when US policy makers, financiers, arms-suppliers and makers, made massive profits from sales to Iraq of myriad chemical, biological, conventional weapons, and the equipment to make nuclear weapons. Reporter Russ Baker noted, for example, that, "on July 3, 1991, the Financial Times reported that a Florida company run by an Iraqi national had produced cyanide -- some of which went to Iraq for use in chemical weapons -- and had shipped it via a CIA contractor." This was just the tip of a mountain of scandals.

A PBS Frontline episode, "The Arming of Iraq" (1990) detailed much of the conventional and so-called "dual-use" weapons sold to Iraq. The public learned from other sources that at least since mid-1980s the US was selling chemical and biological material for weapons to Iraq and orchestrating private sales. These sales began soon after current Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad in 1985 and met with Saddam Hussein as a private businessman on behalf of the Reagan administration. In the last major battle of the Iran-Iraq war, some 65,000 Iranians were killed, many by gas.

Coming back to present days one could easily find out how the US government borrows heavily to cover its off-the-charts defence spending—$587 billion this year. Spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is from 2.9 - 5.0 bn$ per week or 280.000 - 500.000 $ per minute.

The five largest American Defence contractors are Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics. They are being followed by Honeywell, Halliburton, BAE Systems and thousands of smaller defence companies and subcontractors. Some, like Lockheed Martin in Bethesda (Maryland) and Raytheon in Waltham (Massachusetts) draw close to 100 percent of their business from defence contracts. Some others, like Honeywell in Morristown (New Jersey), have important consumer goods divisions. All, however, stand to profit when expenditures on weapons procurements increase. In fact, U.S. defence contractors have been enjoying big Pentagon budgets since March 2003, i.e. since the onset of the Iraq war. As a result, they have posted sizable increases in total shareholder returns, ranging from 68 percent (Northrop Grumman) to 164 percent (General Dynamics), from March '03 to September '06.

For war profiteers, soldiers returning maimed or in caskets, and an over $500 billion Pentagon budget paid for by the taxes of ordinary citizens, are externalities -- costs and consequences borne by others.

NATO became even more threatening to Russia because, at the same time, the alliance shifted its mission from defending the soil of member countries to offensive missions outside the treaty area - for example, bombing Bosnia, Kosovo, and Serbia.

The trend toward autocracy in Russia is maybe horrible for some Russian interest groups, but it is little threat to the United States. Even autocracies have legitimate security concerns, and Russia has been invaded several times through Eastern Europe, which is why the Russians are worried about a hostile alliance on its borders. Empirical evidence shows that authoritarian regimes aren't necessarily externally aggressive - for example, the dictators in Burma - and that democracies are no less belligerent than autocracies in their foreign policies. In fact, data show that the most aggressive nation on the planet after World War II has been the United States - not the Soviet Union - with more than 100 military or covert interventions in other countries.

If we make contrast to today’s’ financial turmoil one should remember following. Wall Street analysts concur that "war is good for business" particularly during a period of "economic slowdown". The top five U.S. defence contractors generated almost $129 billion in revenues and $8 billion in profits in 2006, double the revenue and profits in 2000 when George Bush became President. I bet that they want this to continue.

Lobbyists

Third there are lobbyists. Their business turnover is minimal compared two above mentioned elements but they are important glue between business and public affairs. Lobbyists can channel business money as donations or bribes to political figures or parties who then can facilitate the needs of donors.

In Georgia case most famous is Randy Scheuneman. Top McCain foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheuneman, was paid $200,000 recently by Georgia for consulting services, about one day before McCain issued a policy statement backing and emboldening the Republic of Georgia in its grab for disputed regions. And it now appears that McCain may have signalled that the US would essentially have Georgia's back if it tried to assert possession of the territories. Since 2004 Scheuneman got $900.000 from Georgia. Recently US promised over 1 bn$ taxpayers money to Georgia - god investment I must say, for Georgians.

In the mid-1990s at the stint of the Clinton administration the United States launched the process of involving “former Soviet satellite nations” into both the European Union and NATO with an eye at securing a more efficient control over their political activities. The rapid expansion of the North Atlantic alliance was a part of the strategy of a “new American age” worked out by R.Cheney and his team. In 1996, Bruce Jackson, one of Cheney’s close friends and a top manager of the military-industrial corporation “Lockheed–Martin” took the reins of the influential lobbyist organisation “American Committee on NATO Expansion”. Bruce Jackson was appointed as head of the US Committee on NATO by President Clinton and put in charge of integrating the Eastern European countries into NATO in spite of assurances that had been given to Soviet leader Mikhael Gorbachev that this would not be done. This integration involved selling US weapons systems to these countries so that they would be compatible with ours.

Lobbying can have also win-win effect to players. E.g. Bruce Jackson founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in 2002, a few months after retiring from Lockheed Martin. One can image, as the war in Iraq grinds on at a cost of some $250-400 million per day, and another contractor-heavy organization, the Iran Policy Committee, calls for a pre-emptive strike against Iran, how US Foreign politics is guided.

The New Defence Agenda (NDA) is part of Brussels growing military-industrial complex. Set up in 2003, it is funded by arms producers Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems in order to promote higher European military spending. Others arms industry lobby groups include the European Association of Aerospace Industries (AECMA) and the European Defence Industries Group (EDIG). The arms industry is also using the Lisbon Agenda and competitiveness to argue their case for increasing the EU?s current defence spending of about 3 percent of GDP to the US level of 6 percent.

New and Old Europe

Discussing about transatlantic relationship with Russia I can see a triangle drama with "western" camp. US has found stalwart allies from "New Europe" Polish-Lithuanian tandem as its spearhead, who are serving as America's watchmen on Europe's periphery as well cannon fodder in demanding theatres. The tandem with some wingmen (Estonia, Latvia) have their role in expanding Western military ties to East Europe and checking Russia's energy grip on Europe.

We have "Old Europe" like Germany, Italy some cases Spain and France also, who are more interesting about strategic political and business partnership with Russia. Old Europe countries are also developing bilateral cooperation with Russia when they see its advantages.

While some "New Europe" countries still have some post-Soviet trauma, US is tied to her self-caused conflicts and "Old Europe" is wondering how the Union will look in future, it is demanding task to find a common approach to relationship with Russia. While Russia also considers its options I can only hope that some neutral forum for dialogue could be found.

Yes I hope that one or more forums can accommodate different dialogs. Europe schizophrenia will be cured either in some common forum or with two rail development where new and old Europe maybe are going with different speeds and maybe also different directions - the trauma symptoms maybe are similar in new and old Europe countries but the cause/motivations differ. Post-Soviet new ones maybe have more emotional cause for their actions, US maybe have more economical priorities as well some old EU states.

More articles about Balkan and Caucasus one may find form my BalkanBlog

Do you hear Mr. Nobel rolling in his grave?

The criteria for Nobel peace prize outlined in Alfred Nobel's will 1895 was “to contribute to fraternity in the world, to reduce armies and to establish peace congresses”. The choice of Martti Ahtisaari as this years winner undervalues - again – those original ideas. Ahtisaari got the prize probably about his actions as mediator in Namibia, Aceh and Kosovo. Namibia went according UN peace plan, Aceh was acceptable compromise and Kosovo everything else.

Norwegian founder of peace studies, Johan Galtung, has criticized heavily Ahtisaari's way to handle peace processes. Galtung claims that "Ahtisaari does not solve conflicts but drives through a short-term solutions that please western countries". He further says that Ahtisaari "let's EU to abuse himself". According to Galtung Ahtisaari does not hesitate to favour solutions that bypass United Nations and international law.

With Kosovo case would see three serious – intentional or unintentional – mistakes of Ahtisaari with negotiation process lead by him namely implementation, attitude and outcome.

• The implementation of Kosovo negotiations already started wrong while Ahtisaari accepted limitations made by Contact Group, which created limitation of discussion option and image about solution tacitly predetermined from the start. This failure is clear when compared sc. Troika Talks, which were open-ended in principle and showed a lot of alternative solutions for Kosovo status.
• The attitude of Ahtisaari did not help neither success of his negotiation process. He drew precedented criticism from Serbian politicians for allegedly saying that “Serbs are guilty as people” and implying that they would have to pay for it, possibly by losing Kosovo which is seeking independence. Before Ahtisaari this kind of attitude in collective guild of the nations were made by Hitler. One can understand anger of Serbs who few years earlier had overthrow their undemocratic leader.
• The outcome of process was wretched. It was claimed solution was the only possible – it wasn’t, alternative solutions came during Troika talks. There was no need to continue negotiations – it was because there wasn’t an agreement between Belgrade and Pristina. Solution was described “unique case” and no precedent – false again at least if one asks from some thousand separatist movements on globe. Solution was intended to provide stability to whole region – it created only one frozen conflict and puppet state more.

One could say that Ahtisaari has more acted as spokesperson of US State Department and Nato than unbiased mediator. Besides Kosovo Ahtisaari also supported US propaganda about Iraq. Like in Kosovo one reason for attack was “humanitarian intervention” while in reality most of civil casualties were made when Saddam was an ally of USA. Like in Kosovo the attack to Iraq was made without UNSC approval against international law.

Meanwhile, the Swedish institute TFF (Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research) called the decision "scandalous". Ahtisaari is a man who by his "mediations" fully endorses the "peace" brought about by militarist means and international law violations - rather than following the UN norm of "peace by peaceful means.", TFF said.

P.S: My headline is a little bit provocative - Mr Nobel was cremated.

More about Kosovo case in my BlogArchive

UN is sending Kosovo case to ICJ

The UN General Assembly is backing Serbia’s draft to request an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) about the legality of the unilaterally declared independence of Kosovo. October 8th UNGA, by a recorded vote of 77 in favour to 6 against (Albania, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 74 abstentions, adopted a resolution drafted by Serbia.


The resolution

In initiating the resolution, Serbia had responded to Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence on 17 February with “maximal restraint”, said Serbian Minister for Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremi?, as he introduced the text. The resolution was asking the 192-member Assembly to convey its request to the Court--the United Nations’ highest judicial body--for an advisory opinion, in line with its powers under the Organization’s Charter. Sending the question to the Court “would prevent the Kosovo crisis from serving as a deeply problematic precedent in any part of the globe where secessionist ambitions are harboured”, he explained. An advisory opinion would provide politically neutral and judicially authoritative guidance to many countries still deliberating how to approach such unilateral declarations. “Support of this resolution would reaffirm a fundamental principal: the right of any Member State […] to pose a simple, basic question--on a matter it considers vitally important, to the international court,” he said, adding that a vote against the text would deny the right of any country–-now or in the future-–to seek judicial recourse through the United Nations system. “The question posed is amply clear and refrains from taking political positions on the Kosovo issue.”


The vote

With that, the draft received support from a geographic mix of countries, including Europe, Africa, South America and the Caribbean and the Middle East, with delegates backing the measure out of respect for international law, the United Nations Charter, States’ right to request an advisory opinion-–particularly on sovereignty matters-–and the Court’s position as the appropriate judicial body for ruling on such highly complex matters. Algeria’s representative also underscored that the draft contained no political or controversial elements.

Six country voted against (Albania, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), 77 favoured the draft and 74 countries abstained. The European Union member countries did not have a united stand on the issue, with Slovakia, Greece, Cyprus, Spain and Romania voted in favour, while the rest abstained.


The conclusions

My conclusions about the vote, procedure and discussions in UN General Assembly are following:

• The Spanish representative really hit the nail on the head when he said that “his government considered the respect of international law was a principle which must be applied to all fields of international relations”. He added that “it at the same time highlights the importance of the functioning of the UN institutions”. So the big question is to restore some authority of UN as the main forum of international relations and to recognise ICJ’s role as highest judicial body of UN.
• The US vote against resolution was not surprise. USA has always during modern times been against International Court forbidding e.g. hearings of its war crimes there. USA has also frequently broke international law and underestimated UN/UNSC when needed for own tactical reasons.
• The European Union showed again that its speech about common ESDP, foreign policy etc.are fairy tales useful only for statements and real politic is something else. Those EU member states who have not made Kosovo recognition were also in this UN vote favour to ask ICJ ruling.
• The amount of abstained votes shows that in principle ICJ is respected because many countries were afraid how to act if ICJ rules their hesitated actions (recognition of Kosovo independence) wrong.
• The timing of this resolution is right. Even all those who supported Kosovo independence said that Kosovo was unique case and not precedent thousands of ethnical or separatist movements around the world made other conclusion – Kosovo really opened the “Pandora box”. To limit the degree of damage it is time to restore international forums and law.
  

Source of UNGA meeting and vote: UN News Service/GA/10764/8th October 2008; more about Kosovo case in my BlogArchive

AriRusila's Blogarchive
balkan
ari rusila
Bookmark this on Delicious

Kosovo play continues at international stages

Coming week will be show again one significant step in international politics and especially in Western Balkans. 1st at its plenary session called for 8th October, the 192-member UN General Assembly is to debate Serbia’s draft resolution calling for an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s unilaterally declared independence. 2nd EU tries again find some common position about Kosovo case and the forecast is that EU member-states will probably abstain from the vote at the UN. 3rd Portugal, Macedonia (FYR) and Montenegro are under huge pressure to recognize Kosovo independence.

UDI and ICJ in UN

Serbia has filed a draft resolution in which it asks from the UN General Assembly to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on the legality of the unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) of Kosovo. Belgrade has proclaimed two objectives with this initiative. The first, immediate goal is to have the ICJ provide its stand on the UDI and to stop the recognition of Pristina’s act by UN members. The second, mid-term objective is to have Belgrade and Pristina go back to the negotiating table on the status question.

Last week a trial vote revealed 120 of the 192 members gave their backing to Serbia's request to refer the matter to the ICJ, reported the German daily Handelsblatt.

Why they say “no” to Kosovo’s secession

Nearly 50 countries has recognized Kosovo but over 140 not. Some of them have also stated that so far they will not make recognition at least before some conditions – like e.g. independence after Belgrade/Pristina deal – are reached. Below one may look reasons why some countries are not pro-UDI of Kosovo:

• Algeria

“There are international laws and they must be respected.” Mourad Medelci, Foreign Minister

• Angola

“We express solidarity with Serbia in regard to the preservation of the sovereignty and integrity of the country, which includes Kosovo.” Eduardo Dos Santos, President

• Argentina

“If we were to recognize Kosovo, which has declared its independence unilaterally, without an agreement with Serbia, we would set a dangerous precedent that would seriously threaten our chances of a political settlement in the case of the Falkland Islands.” Jorge Taiana, Foreign Minister

• Azerbaijan

“We view this illegal act as being in contradiction with international law. Azerbaijan retreated its troops from Kfor in reaction, and opposed support for Kosovo’s secession at the OIC summit.” Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan

• Brazil

“The Brazilian government will recognize the independence of Kosovo only if Serbia does. A peaceful solution must be sought through dialogue and negotiations, under the auspices of the UN and the legal framework of the UN Security Council resolution 1244.” Celso Amorim, Foreign Minister

• China

“The unilateral move taken by Kosovo will lead to a series of consequences. China is deeply worried about its severe and negative impact on peace and stability of the Balkan region… and calls to continue negotiations for a proper resolution within the framework of the international law.” Chinese Foreign Ministry

• Cyprus

“Cyprus will never recognize a unilateral declaration of independence outside the UN framework, and in particular by side-stepping the Security Council.” Foreign Ministry Statement

• Georgia

“Tbilisi will not recognize Kosovo’s independence. I think everyone in Georgia, regardless of political orientation, is unanimous on this.” Davit Bakradze, Foreign Minister

• Greece

“Greece is in favor of achieving consensual and mutually-acceptable solutions based on respect of international law.” Yannis Valinakis, Dep. Foreign Minister

• India

“It has been India’s consistent position that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected by all states.” Indian Foreign Ministry

• Indonesia

“Indonesia does not see Kosovo as a religious, but as an ethnic and political problem as well as a question of respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity of a UN member.” Hassan Wirajuda, Foreign Minister

• Iran

“After considering the region’s issues and conditions, Iran decided not to recognize the independence of Kosovo.” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President

• Israel

“Israel will not recognize Kosovo’s independence, in part because of the possibility of Palestinians using recognition of Kosovo to justify their own unilateral declaration of independence.” Israeli Foreign Ministry

• Kazakhstan

“The Kosovo issue should be solved peacefully in accordance with UN principles on national sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Kazakh Foreign Ministry

• Libya

“Libya strongly supports the position of Serbia regarding Kosovo, despite the pressure from the European Union and some Islamic states… Libya considers Pristina’s unilateral declaration of independence illegal.” Libyan Foreign Ministry

• New Zealand

“It has never been the New Zealand government’s position to recognize in such circumstances.” Prime Minister Helen Clark

• Romania

A joint session of Parliament voted not to recognize Kosovo’s independence by 357 to 27.

• Russia

“Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is a terrible precedent that breaks up the entire system of international relations that have taken centuries to evolve, and undoubtedly, it may entail a whole chain of unpredictable consequences to other regions in the world.” Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister

• Slovakia

“I do not exclude the possibility that Slovakia will never recognize Kosovo. Kosovo is not some independent territory, it is an integral part of Serbia where Serbs, and members of the Albanian ethic minority live”. Robert Fico, Prime Minister

• South Africa

South Africa calls for further negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo. Foreign Ministry

• Spain

“The Government of Spain will not recognize the unilateral act proclaimed by the assembly of Kosovo … We will not recognize because we consider this does not respect international law”. Miguel Angel Moratinos, Spanish Foreign Minister

• Sri Lanka

“The act could set an unmanageable precedent in the conduct of international relations, the established global order of sovereign states and could thus pose a grave threat to international peace and security”. Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry

• Vietnam

“Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence is not a correct implementation of UN SC resolution 1244 and it will complicate the situation in Kosovo and the Balkan region.” Le Loung Minh, Ambassador to the UN

(Source: Kosovo Compromise newsletter 04 Aug.2008)

Days after next week

If UN assembly decides to approve Serbia’s draft and an opinion will be asked from ICJ the answer from there can take even few years. If EU will abstain from the vote it again shows the weakness of EU common foreign policy; if member-states are voting against draft EU continues to underrate international law and UN authority. Anyway the situation on the ground will remain tense or frozen. In Kosovo ICO/ICR, EULEX, UNMIK/UN, KFOR/Nato, OSCE etc. will twist arm who has more or less international authority/executive power, Pristina government and Serbian parallel structures are making the same at local level. The fast way out would be direct negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina without preconditions to find sustainable compromise solution.

More about Kosovo case in my BlogArchive

Dividing Kosovo - a pragmatic solution to frozen conflict

Earlier this week Serbian President Boris Tadic stated, that he would not rule out partitioning Kosovo if all other options on Kosovo’s final status have been exhausted. "Intellectuals in Serbia and the international public are debating the issue of a partition and this is one of the options that have been emphasized all these years in searching for a solution to Kosovo's future status. I can only think about this when all other possibilities have been exhausted” Tadi? told a news conference. (B92, 1/10/2008)

Partition

Although Tadic did not specify where the line of partition would run, it is most likely to include the municipalities of Zvecan, Leposavic and Zubin Potok as well as the northern half of the flashpoint town of Mitrovica. This area in northern Kosovo is overwhelming ethnic Serb and Pristina’s influence holds little weight here.

However just half of the 100,000 Serbs living in Kosovo actually live in northern areas while the rest are in isolated enclaves that dot the former province. One should also remember that about 100,000 - 206,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) from Kosovo is living in Serbia.

Kosovo Serbs pro and against

Senior Kosovo Serb politicians claimed President Boris Tadic’s declaration had sent a negative message to Serbs living in the enclaves that are spread out across Kosovo.

Meanwhile the Vice president of the Serb National Council, moderate politician Rada Trajkovic claimed the partition of Kosovo would complete the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo. (BIRN/Balkan Insight Daily 2/10/2008)

On the other hand a deputy for KiM in Serbia Parliament Stojanka Petkovic believes that partition could be a solution. ‘The project of multiethnic Kosovo has failed since it turned out that the Serbs and Albanians cannot live together’, Petkovic says. (Blic 3/10/2008)

Partition as pragmatic solution

Personally I came early 2001 to same conclusion than Ms. Petkovic above and since then considered partition as best possible outcome on the ground. I justify my point e.g. with following arguments:

• If negotiated and accepted by Belgrade and Pristina partition deal is according international law, not against it like forced, imposed solutions
• The deal can serve as positive precedent for similar cases in international politics
• Both parties can focus their energy to improve economy and living conditions of their citizens without never-ending dispute over Kosovo status
• North can be integrated directly to Serbia without need to make creative solutions for parallel structures; South can concentrate its development needs without endless dispute about authority in North
• EU and US can focus their actions in Kosovo to capacity building and economical development instead of using huge military/police presence to keep there some order

One big topic of course is the question about enclave Serbs and historical heritage. While agreeing about partition one tacit condition for Kosovo republic should be implementation of self-governance and cultural heritage clauses of Ahtisaari plan.

EU should also implement/finance a sufficient housing program in Serbia to solve its refugee/IDP question. Enclave Serbs could through this housing program find a good alternative to enclave live. The Balkan history is full of examples about more or less voluntary migration of peoples/nations around the region, a housing program could this time make it moderate or at least tolerable.

Bottom line

I know that my point of view is not according some top level ideals about modern multi-ethnic societies and it can violate some persons’ human rights e.g. freedom to choose fixed abode. However partition can be a practical, pragmatic and realistic solution to end a frozen conflict. It can be sustainable base from where both parties can focus to improve their daily live. Who knows maybe after some peaceful period borders start melt down, interaction between individuals from different ethnic groups’ spreads and multi-ethnic region is ordinary routine.

More about Balkan politics in my BalkanBlog