Almost absurd for Serbia to still have the slightest expectation to keep Kosovo. But if Serbia insists on keeping Kosovo, it should call on Serbs in Kosovo to participate in Kosovo elections and then call on Kosovars to participate in wider country elections. That would be turning the table around. Nice idea, but I m not betting on it.
PR, poisonuos gases in schools? Very waek one I would say. Nobody died. Some Albanain kids claimed to be sick just to recover and go home shortly after. Cause was never determined.
PR.
I don't think that our views are all that much different. You just had to read my comment more carefully.
But, let me quickly mention several of the points that you made before you "lost your nervs".
You said "I pains me to see how still some people stubbornly chose not to see some things that have happened in the past, and give conspiracy theories and blame the other side."
I share in your pain here.
1) You say "Albanians had a different status in Kosovo, than Serbs did in Croatia. I don’t need to go into the 1974 constitution to explain that."
That is your explanation? That status of the Albanians was different then status of Serbs? But, why it was different?
It's like saying that genders are not equal, because status of men is regulated differently then status of women? How does that explain inequality?
I would not argue with anyone fine constitutional points about 1974 (although Alabanians with minority status in Yugoslavia, should not have more rights then Serbs with constituing nation status, but oh, well).
The point is:
-no decision could have been passed in republic of Serbia (not only in Kosovo) withouth agreement of Albanians.
-no decision passed in republic of Croatia required any approval from Serbs.
In your view, who was the one that should have started the riots in 1980, and be unsatisfied with their position?
In your view PR.
"And the violence was benevolent from the Serbian side as well in 1981, with hundreds killed on the streets arbitrarily. You fail to mention that, so your arguments are one sided. "
Okey, I'll give you that one.
One thing just crossed my mind here.
When ethnic violance by one ethnic group is answered by ethnic violance by the other, shouldn't this be called "revange attacks", or something? This is how it was called in June 1999, wasn't it?
2) I personally dislike Milosevic very much? I just used a quote from one of his speeches to make a point.
Then again, you should make a statement here.
Do you agree, or disagree that Serbia should be equal to all other former Yugoslavian republics, and Serbs to other former Yugoslavian people?
Forget Milosevic, and give us your own oppinion.
By the way, I have to make another point here. Lately, I see many Albanians talking about Kosovo being a colony of Serbia.
" I 1989, they feared of losing their privileged status of colonizers forever."
Please, enlighten us all here. Give us one example of in constitution, in status of the Serbs, etc. in which Serbs were priviledged over Albanians. Is it in Yu-constitution, some Serbian laws or Kosovar laws maybe?
If you can't find any examples, you should be wondering why is it that you felt that they were priviledged, and who was it that convicted you that they were.
"And they played victims. I can’t believe Sreten or anybody still falls with this “victim” stuff"
Are you still falling for victim stuff yourself?
Perhaps, you should check those laws, and you will easily see that they were not privilidged, nor you were the victim.
On "colony". Status of Kosovo was not status of colony. There are many differences, some of them are obvious when it comes to citizents rights.
For example when Hong Kong was to be handed back to China at the end of the last century, tens of thousands applied for British visa fearing Chinese rule. The problem was: there were not British citizents, nor was Hong Kong part of Great Britain. Hong Kong was a British colony.
At its peak British Empire encompassed territory 80 times larger then UK. Nevertheless, populations of those many lands were not British citizents.
One could go on and on with this, but time for me is short right now.
The point, Kosovo was not a colony, but part of Yugoslavia. There is a big diffference. To compare Kosovo's position to any colony in the world is just plain funny.
I hope that that's not something that your kids are learning in your schools today. I agree that nobody should stop you from teaching your children wrong, you would of course, called it "Forced history curricula".
But, you should look at what you have been teaching your children before autonomy was abolished.
Geography books in Albanian, tought kids that they live in "country of Kosovo". Pehaps, wishful thinking, but it was simply wrong. They lived in Yugoslavia. Same goes for "Kosovo colony". There is not a single characteristic of colony, but..
I'm pretty sure that very soon in Kosovo's "unforced history curricula" you will start to teach that Albanians in Kosovo until 1999 were slaves whom Serbs traded on the public markets. Not true, but...
Now, to return to the main problem.
You appearantly think that problems that began in 1980 were totally justified.
To justify that we should accept that giving the right of veto to a minority is unsatisfying level of minority rights.
Therefore, Albanian ethnic upheaval was only logical. They had no rights.
Let's just now imagine independant Kosovo. All of Kosovo.
Serbs would be now a minority in Kosovo. Giving them right to stop ANY decision, not only in the North, but all over Kosovo from being inplemented is already established as "unsatisfactory" to the minority (Serbs in this case).
When you were in possession of the same right in Serbia it was "unsatisfactory" and you were "oppressed". I'm sure that you are prepared to give Serbs in Kosovo more right on the top of this, so they wouldn't be "oppressed" as you were in Serbia.
Well, Belgrade has no say in how things are run in Pristina now. There is your chance. Show us what treatment and legal position of minorities should be "satisfactory".
What Mongomery said about it?
"it is important to acknowledge that the Serbian experience in the Kosovo Assembly has been an extremely negative one. "
"Despite having a healthy number of deputies, they have no power whatsoever; the Albanian majority routinely ignores them; no Albanian Party has ever once been willing on any issue to join with the Serbs in any vote against other Albanian parties;"
They have no power whatsoever?
Well, there is your chance, teach us all how to treat minority fairly, as Serbs were not capable of doing this. Give them now right to prevent any decision made in Kosovo Assembly from being implemented, etc. And as this is "unsatisfactory" and "oppression" then give them all the other rights on the top of it to make it satisfactory.
If not, I have to tell you to stop "playing the victim of oppression".
3) "Forced history curricula, open chauvinism by teachers, parents and Serbian Children towards their Albanian counterparts, spontaneous using of poisonous gas against Albanian children, all these factors forced Kosovo Albanians to boycott the system.
"spontaneous using of poisonous gas against Albanian children"
If you have followed the trial of Milosevic to any degree, you would have catch testimony of several prominent experts who testified that "genetical biological weapon" is matter of science-fiction. It doesn't exits.
Poisonous gasses targeting only Albanian children, while all the Serbian and other children (Roma, Turkish, etc.) in the school were left untouched isn't something that could have been possibly done by the leading experts in biological weapons on the planet. It turned out to be a hoax that played well before TV cameras of Western crews, who were eager to show "poisoned Albanian children". The whole thing was organized by several members of the party lead by late PropaGhandi-Ibrahim Rugova.
Not only that weapon that can target only certain ethic group doesn't exist today, there is not even a weapon that can attack only certain race (blacks, whites, etc.).
Here, I'll have to use your words.
"I pains me to see how still some people stubbornly chose not to see some things that have happened in the past, and give conspiracy theories and blame the other side."
"Forced history curricula" some would call "correct history curricula". etc.
This should be established based on historical facts, and I would leave it to experts. Lately, I've seen many writtings here by Albanians that were far from being based on anything. There was someone posing as member of Kosova's Academy of Arts and Science that claimed that there was never more then 10% of non-Albanians in Kosovo, etc.
The others claimed that Nis was Albanian city until they were expelled by Serbs at the end of 19th century.
Now, Nis is not very far from Kosovo. Americans probably never heard of Cele-Kula (Scull tower) built out of heads of defenders of Nis against Turkish invasion in 1809. Defenders were led by Vojvoda Sindelic.
Since, this is beginning of 19th century, according to those posters Nis was still Albanian city (until the end of that century).
Are they trying to say that Sindelic was Albanian? And that tower was built with Albanian heads?
As I said Nis is not very far from Kosovo. I refuse to believe that most of you never heard of this tower.
The only other possibility (however scary it may seem) is that Albanians simply choose to believe every word they've been told.
Being able to think for yourself is a great thing.
Well, let's just take all of this for face value.
So, you decided to boycott schools in Albanian language because of it. Okey, things were not perfect. But, the fact remains that there were schools in Albanian language. Not so when it comes to Serbs in Croatia. (Raskovic asked only for "cultural autonomy" and because of it was quickly labeled in some Western press).
Or Koha Ditore, for example, the most popular newspaper in Kosovo. Was it established in 1999 after NATO entrance? No. What was the most popular newspaper in Kosovo before 1999? Koha Ditore.
Then it was owned by Veton Surroi, and today by his sister, that's the only difference.
By the way this particular family doesn't go well to show "suffering of Albanians for 50 years before 1999". Wasn't their father Yugoslavian ambassador to several countries?
Anyway, there were Albanian papers in Kosovo, too. Right?
Well, there were non such Serbian papers in Croatia after July 24th 1990.
Now, try to think about it for yourself and tell us who was in the worst situation?
Okey, Albanians had "forced history curricula", but nevertheless Albanian laguange schools open.
Serb children in Croatia were not allowed to mutter even a single word in their language while in the school, let alone to write word in Cyrillic.
What else.
There was no Cyrillic in Croatia. Period. No papers. No Serbian writters in school curricula. etc.
Koha Ditore was published in Albanian. It was always pro-independance, and always critical of Serbian government.
True?
I can grant you that this was oppression. Here. But, what is greater oppression?
One should be able to look beyond only himself / herself and to realise that others have right too.
"This system was never democratic, never actually allowed us to have a say over the ways of how schools are meant to me run".
This is exactly what I asked you to do. But, don't forget that others have children too. Don't you think that Serbs in Croatia should have been allowed to have a say over the ways of how schools for their children are run?
Ceku didn't think so. Or Rahim Ademi. Or several other prominent Albanians.
Appearantly they don't think that such things should be given to Serb children. It should only be for Albanian children.
That is exactly what I meant when I said that I would be willing to accept ANY solution that doesn't come from supremacy point of view. In which some children are entitled to something while others were not.
You didn't say anything along that line. I haven't see any suggestions.
I guess you've lost your nerves before that.
This in the end is a core of the problems in the Balkans. Various powers come and go. Turkey, Germany, etc.
They promote their agendas. As long as we don't accept each others as equalls we are not going to break out of this cycle of violance. Few decades down the road there will be other powers.
One should never ask for something that he or she is not willing to give to the others.
Another interesting perspective from a former diplomat. Unfortunately in democracies it is politicians who actually make the policies.
It has been abundantly clear for years how the situation in Kosovo will be resolved. The final solution will not be fair or even strictly legal, but that has nothing to do with it.
The loser, as in all the previous regional conflicts, is a section of the local community which is later pretty much ignored by the same politicians who stirred up the trouble in the first place.
In Serbia the Kosovo situation is currently just about politicians avoiding blame and responsibility. It has nothing to do with helping people.
Kosovo is a tragic situation that does not have any happy solution.
Are all those Serbs claiming that Kosovo will always be theirs going to give major financial support to re-house the next flood of refugees? I very much doubt it. Just look around at what has happened to many of the refugees from Croatia and Bosnia.
True patriots would support their brothers and sisters who have fallen victim to the catastrophic mistakes of both local and Western politicians. I see very little of this generosity, just an eagerness to keep alive the next political folly.
Lets just comments on Sreten’s “dissertation” here:
1) Yet, in 1980, Albanians demanded seccession from Republic of Serbia and establishment of Republic of Kosovo. They demonstrated, rioted and perpertrated acts of violance against members of local Serb communities throughout the 80's. We can't see such right given to Serbs in Croatia, for example. – Albanians had a different status in Kosovo, than Serbs did in Croatia. I don’t need to go into the 1974 constitution to explain that. And the violence was benevolent from the Serbian side as well in 1981, with hundreds killed on the streets arbitrarily. You fail to mention that, so your arguments are one sided.
2) Wasn't it Milosevic who said (back in 1990) that he is willing to accept any solution for Yugoslavia, that will treat Serbia EQUALLY to other republics, and Serbs EQUALLY to other nations in Yugoslavia? – Milosevic speeches were really great. He always made the local Serbian audiences feel like victims, he promised local Kosovo Serbs in 1989 that they “will never be beaten again”, even though the apartheid mentioned by some other commentator was the state of Albanians, not the other way around. Those “poor” Serbs attending the rally in Fushe Kosove, were part of the regime, many working hand in hand with police. I 1989, they feared of losing their privileged status of colonizers forever. They feared of the vengeance of all the Albanians they did something terrible. And they played victims. I can’t believe Sreten or anybody still falls with this “victim” stuff, after 4 initiated wars by 90’s Belgrade regime. I have never seen more aggressive victims in my life.
3) Sure, some may say here that Serbia closed Albanian language schools in Kosovo, too. But, you choose to boycott them for political reasons. This right was never taken away from you. – Forced history curricula, open chauvinism by teachers, parents and Serbian Children towards their Albanian counterparts, spontaneous using of poisonous gas against Albanian children, all these factors forced Kosovo Albanians to boycott the system. This system was never democratic, never actually allowed us to have a say over the ways of how schools are meant to me run.
I could go over and over arguments of Sreten. However, I have lost my nerves. I pains me to see how still some people stubbornly chose not to see some things that have happened in the past, and give conspiracy theories and blame the other side. I am not saying things are perfect here in Kosovo, far from it, but to have somebody embellish whatever happened 50 years before 1999, is an insult to every Albanian family that suffered during this period. I invite Sreten to come to Kosovo, and listen to people’s stories of their sufferings. They wont be lies, I assure you.
The situation on the ground is that people have been through so much trouble before, they can’t take it anymore. They don’t want ot be ruled by Belgrade. And some members of thisd forum, talk about international legal statute and other global issues. The truth is in the ground, within Kosova families. Ask 100 of them if they want to live under Belgrade, and why they (don’t) want to live, and you will know why Kosovo will never be a part of Serbia. Not anymore.
"Before going into the reasons why this is a mistake, it is important to acknowledge that the Serbian experience in the Kosovo Assembly has been an extremely negative one.
Despite having a healthy number of deputies, they have no power whatsoever; the Albanian majority routinely ignores them; no Albanian Party has ever once been willing on any issue to join with the Serbs in any vote against other Albanian parties; and their very participation in the process has been ill used by the International Community to demonstrate that "progress" has been made. It has been a façade and nothing more.
This is another case of "chickens coming home to roost." The Serbs see very clearly what the experience has been in the Kosovo Assembly. UNMIK routinely ignored Kosovo Albanian actions in Parliament, which harmed inter-ethnic relations and at times even violated Parliamentary procedures.
This helped to convince the Serbs that they could not trust the word of the International Community in Kosovo and if they needed it, yet more confirmation of the adversarial nature of their relationship with Kosovo Albanians. Far more vigorous action by UNMIK and the rest of the International Community over the past eight years in this regard may have made a difference. "
This summarise the reasons for this boycott.
I disagree with the last sentence.
UNIMIK have shown a lot of vigorous actions. All of them in support of KLA. They even allowed them to kill most highly ranked member's of Rugova's party. Not to mention that their presence on KLA members parties. (Petersen on Haradinaj's brother's wedding for example). It was always to show to whom their support goes.
"Both the Bosniaks in Bosnia and the Kosovo Albanians have consistently shown an awareness and respect for the goals and positions of the international community, even if they planned quietly and deliberately to circumvent them.
The Serbs, in contrast, seem to take delight in openly challenging the International Community and have paid a heavy price as a result. "
--------------
You said it all here. The reason why Serbia has been shrinking for the past 20 years, and why it will continue to shrink. What's even more mind-boggling that during these 20 years ordinary Serbs haven't learned a thing and will continue to support people like Kostunica with their confrontational politics with the West, which will only continue to damage Serbia's chances and inevitabely clear a path for Kosovo's independence. Ironically it is Kostunica more than Ceku, Thaci or any other Albanian leader, who will contribute the most to a "Greater Albania", just like Milosevic's actions helped contribute in this nationalistic Albanian goal.
Mr. Montgomery, your vision rest on the assumption that the Ahtisaari plan would work. I doubt that and it is my impression that the Serb government doesn't believe that either.
Kosovo's Serbs have been cleansed from all its cities except Northern Mitrovica. As access to urban services is essential for the survival of the Serb community and nearby cities in Serbia are far away it would be rather disastrous for the Serb community if Northern Mitrovica was cleansed too. Yet that seems nearly inevitable under the Ahtisaari plan. Sooner or later it means that the Kosovo government will be free to implement "refugee returns" (of Albanians of course) and implement other measures that will lead to an increase in the number of Albanians living in and travelling to it. The experience in Kosovo's other cities leave little doubt that soon the Serbs will come under pressure and start to leave.
On the countryside in Kosovo the situation is just a little better. Serbs are mostly living in Serb-only villages. In the few mixed places that are still there the tendency is for Serbs to leave. Due to unsafety to work on the land and regular thefts and vandalism many Serbs have become quite empoverished. Add to this Albanian hostility and occasional violence like recently in Klokot. In this situation many Serbs stay in the hope that the situation will dramatically improve. Ahtisaari's autonomy will improve this situation but is doubtful whether it will be enough.
A third factor is the attitude of the Kosovo government. Seeing their actions I cannot evade the feeling that they aim for a Serb-free Kosovo. I expect that we will keep seeing measures that aim at pressuring Serbs to leave. Even the Serb majority areas will not be safe. Leposavic may seem a Serb bastion, but that may change fast when Albanians soldiers are stationed there and start to settle there with their families. And even even if the privatised Brezovica ski resort is not bought by Albanians but by a really international company this company may soon find it less trouble to employ Albanians than Serbs - endangering the economic viability of Strpce.
The Ahtisaari plan means that some Albanians will have to live in Serb majority municipalities. But the fact that they don't like that does not mean that the Ahtisaari plan will work.
Ahtisaari foresees a review after some time. But I suspect that the result will be very similar to the Kai Eide report: the human rights objectives have not been achieved but there is no alternative for going on with independence.
If you share my vision that the Ahtisaari plan makes it sure that Kosovo will be Serb-free in a decade than the attitude of Serbia's government becomes much more logical. They have nothing to win with signing it. And a unilateral independence may give them an excuse to annexate Kosovo's north tip - saving at least some of Kosovo's Serbs. This would put the US for the choice to start a war in favor of ethnic cleansing.
Ahtisaari could easily have avoided this scenario by proposing strong territorial autonomy for Kosovo's north tip. But that would have blocked the possibility to Albanize the area and as a consequence Kosovo's government resisted it. And Ahtisaari followed.
Dino, I want to react to your version of Yugoslav history.
In 1985 Gorbachev came to power and democratic thought came to Yugoslavia too.
In Serbia this meant that people started to ask questions. Why were more Serbs leaving Croatia than going there despite the attractive labor market? What was true of the frightening stories of Serbs who had left Kosovo? Is a state structure that is designed to keep the Serbs under control fair or does it make them second rate citizens?
This first got form in the report of the Serb Academy of Sciences in 1987, but that was only ridiculed by the majority of the republics as nationalism (a death sin in Yugoslavia). Croatia and Slovenia were very probably aware that already in 1989 American diplomats were discussing their independence as an option. So they didn't do any consession and blocked national elections for Yugoslavia. The result was that Milosevic tried other means to correct what he saw as injustices.
I think you are naive to see Croatia, Bosnia etc in 1990 as passive victims at the mercy of Milosevic. They played an (undemocratic) power game and were convinced that they could win.
Milosevic did a lot of things wrong. But he started from a much more realistic point of view than you seem to acknowledge.
Someone suggested it recently, and I have to agree.
You should get some former Russian ambassador to Yugoslavia to write an oppinion here. I think that B92 has lack of non-Western oppinions. There is however, abundance of people presenting Western point of view.
1. Which country has become independent with the UN blessing? The 1244 is a provisory resolution, the Int. Law is not the Holy Bible (which has many contradictory versions, as you may know), things are determined by the reality on ground, and, every good lawyer you would link every law to the reality. There are at last some cases of law exception, i.e. cases in which a given law cannot be applied. Ask a lawyer to explain that.
2.My positive stance doesn't mean that Serbs and Albanians will live together in a free democratic Serbia. That's a fairy tale in the Serbian political reality of 2007 (as many comments coming from both sides clearly show). If it were possible no doubt that the Kosovo problem would have been just another of the many quiet national problems in Europe, which just exist without that many pay special attention to that. My positive stance means: Serbs and Albanians will have to live side by side in their (hopefully) democratic small states as normal neighbours. Why do you not live together with your neighbours in a common superdemocratic European State? (Btw you rejected the European Constitution for your national interests, isn't it?)
My remark implies that the Serbian opinion understand and elaborate what has happened in the last century (not only the '90s) and that medieval sagas about holy lands are to be left where they belong: in the Middle Ages. That seems to be unfortunately not much a rational issue, but much more a hard job for a tough psychanalist. And that the Albanians will have to make their painful concessions (i.e. stick to Ahtisaari's plan and maybe more concessions, as the friendship treaty with those which haven't shown a single sign of repention and reflection, against their will and their national interests).
That's why this article misses NOTHING. Hope you will understand this time why Kosovo cannot remain apart of Serbia. Many Serbs understand it clearly, although they aren't loud, for clear reasons.
I think that Mr. Montgomery is pointing out to several correct observations.
Willie Garvin's comment is right on the spot, too.
I very much disagree with Dino's comment.
"Problems in 90’s started in Belgrade under Milosevic. US certainly did not force Milosevic to cut autonomy to both Kosovo and Vojvodina enabling him with Montenegro to have 4 of the 8 votes in the Yugoslav presidency. Therefore Croatia, Bosnia etc became mercy to Serbia. What do u think they were going to do? Sit back? Milosevic started the problem and that’s what lead to breakup of Yugoslavia."
Dino, wasn't it Serbia that proposed changes in how federal parliament MP were to be ELECTED?
The proposition was "one person-one vote". Isn't this democratic principle that exists in many countries? Take US for example. Do heavily populated California, and scarscly populated Alaska elect same number of Congressman? This was flatly rejected by Slovenia to name the one. They wanted to keep the system in which they had just as many MP's as Serbia.
Wasn't it true that Serbia offered its support for constitutional changes tailored after any other democratic country, including those multi-ethnic, multi-cultural like UK or Belgium? Was this accepted? No. Slovenia and Croatia wanted Confederation. The difference between Federation and Confederation is enormous. Federation is "State Union" while Confederation is "Union of the states" where each unit's laws are above federal laws. Is this how it works in the States? Can any state pass the laws contradictory to laws of the US? No. Last time it was tried by Southeren states it lead to North-South war, something that, should same standards apply, could no longer be considered civil war, but rather Northern aggression against the Southeren states. Some other country? No.
So, instead of accepting the constitutional changes to reflect those in ANY other country, they proposed model for Yugoslavia that does not exist anywhere in the world. There is no working confederation in the world. Last one was Scandinavian, where Sweden and Norway eventually parted.
There is such model now (EU), but it's arguable if it's working or not, and current state of affairs is taken by many to be just a phase toward establishment of firmer union, and adoption of European Constitution in all the member countries.
How is it then that Serbia destroyed Yugoslavia?
It would be beneficial to try and see things from another angle here.
Let me explain what the real ethnic problems are in former Yugoslavia, Dino.
"Also, an interesting note, in former Yugoslav constitution, Serbia’s policies had to get approval of Kosovo before it could be implemented otherwise it couldn’t. As a minimum, Kosovo will need that and it strikes me as amazing that serbs would rather have that than Kosovo independence."
Yes, it's true. Serbia had to get approval of both provinces (Vojvodina and Kosovo) for its policies. Menaing, without approval of Kosovo Albanians no law could apply in Serbia.
Thank you for mentioning this as it will help me greatly to make my point.
Without argument, this is a great right given to any minirity anywhere.
Yet, in 1980, Albanians demanded seccession from Republic of Serbia and establishment of Republic of Kosovo. They demonstrated, rioted and perpertrated acts of violance against members of local Serb communities throughout the 80's.
We can't see such right given to Serbs in Croatia, for example.
Were they able to block any decision made by Croatian parliament? Of course not.
Who had more right then, in your oppinion, Albanian in Serbia, or Serbian in Croatia or in Bosnia?
Compare it for yourself, and disregard that Serbs were constituing nation (and the largest one in Yugoslavia) while Albanians were minority.
You say that "As a minimum, Kosovo will need that and it strikes me as amazing that serbs would rather have that than Kosovo independence."
In your words this would be the minimum that minority should have. I suppouse not to feel discriminated against.
Let's just take their claim about discrimination at the face value here, and take it as fact that they were discriminated against in Yugoslavia, and that they didn't have sufficient rights, etc.
If we accept that, then obviously, to have a right to block any law is not enough rights for a minority. So, should Kosovo really become independant, just to give Serbs right to veto any decision is not enough, but additional rights should be given to them, in order not to have discrimination against them.
Agree?
Wasn't it Milosevic who said (back in 1990) that he is willing to accept any solution for Yugoslavia, that will treat Serbia EQUALLY to other republics, and Serbs EQUALLY to other nations in Yugoslavia?
And what is wrong with that?
Let's imagine that it's year 1990 again and nobody died yet.
I would be perfectly fine with Albanians, Bosniaks, Croats and Slovenians finding a solution for Yu-crisis, as long as Serbs are equal to other ethnic groups and Serbia equal to other republics.
EQUALITY, as principle established in French Revolution is a paramount that is missing here.
The only other view of the world is the view of SUPREMACY.
So, I as a Serb would be willing to support any solution that is not comming from the later point of view, in which Albanians are entitled to something as supreme beings, while Serbs as inferior are not. Or that Bosnia has to keep its integrity because its supremacy over Serbia that doesn't. etc.
Problem with supremacy view is that it's not shared by the opposite side.
When one looks at the German contribution to world arts, literature, classical music and philosophy, and compare it to British, it could even agree with WW2 German claims of their supremacy.
The problem is, Winston Churchill and the Brits didn't share this view, and did not see themselves as inferior.
So, do you think that Albanians should give Serbs more rights in Kosovo, then they had in Yugoslavia?
Or Croatia. They claimed that they were terribly oppressed in Yugoslavia.
Constitutional amendments in Croatia passed on July 24th 1990 specified Croatian to be the only official language in Croatia, among other things.
Children were failing the grade in the school for the use of single "Serbian" word.
I can't remember that Croats were not allowed to write Roman letters or to use "Croatian" worlds.
After claiming to be "oppressed" in Yugoslavia, shouldn't they allow MORE rights, not LESS, and then exclaim: "These are the rights that we didn't have in Yugoslavia, and that's why we were oppressed!".
Sure, some may say here that Serbia closed Albanian language schools in Kosovo, too. But, you choose to boycott them for political reasons. This right was never taken away from you.
On could go on, and on.
When Serbs claimed their right to stay in Yugoslavia, panel of legal experts (all from the West) was quickly formed lead by British jurist Robert Badinter.
Badinter's commision reached the decision that Yugoslavia is "dissolved" and that ONLY REPUBLICS of former Yugoslavia are legal successors of it, and that unlike Yugoslavia, its republics cannot be taken apart. This decision was much critisized, as it did not take into account Helsinki Final Act, Motevideo Agreement and even Yugoslavian Cosntitution?!
Nevertheless, there is such decision. Republics, not provinces, not regions, ethnich groups, municipalities, etc.
What we are seeing now is a push for Kosovo independance. In spite of the decision of your own legal experts.
So, republics could be divisable after all?
But, not Bosnia, etc. Only Serbia.
I could comment on many things here, but this is getting too long anyway, so I'll stick to the basic.
"If Belgrade had been clever, it would have put forward a comprehensive, moderate alternative for the International Community to consider. It, for example, should have fully embraced the specific points of the Ahtisaari Plan dealing with decentralization in particular."
"The Kosovo Albanians have been spared from implementing the recommendations of the Ahtisaari Plan, which would have been extremely painful for them. "
No, it wouldn't. They wouldn't implement it, and you wouldn't make them. Simple as that.
It was consider equally "paintful" for Kosovo Albanians to implement some standards before there is even talk of status of Kosovo. So they didn't, and now we are talking about status. It would only be taken as Belgrade's quiet acceptance of Ahtisaari Plan.
Another "façade", while none of it would be implemented, anyway.
"It could have had a firm policy of rejecting any decision on future status for a two-year period .."
On this one I agree with Willie Garvin again.
" If both Belgrade and Pristina follow the intl. community's demands, Kosovo will be independent within 2 years. The process will simply become irreversable. How does this further Serbian aims?"
Or do you want us to believe that EU will do something if Albanians don't make any progress on implementation?
As in case of "standards before status", they will simply move on to the next step, independance.
For the decision not to participate in this "façade" elections you say that "Serbs are doing everything possible to demonstrate that they cannot coexist with the Kosovo Albanians and will not work with them."
I've never heard you saying that "Albanians are doing everything possible to demonstrate that they cannot coexist with the Serbs and will not work with them." because they do not participate in Serbian elections.
This is preciselly what I was talking about in my respons to Dino.
Kosovo Albanians are "willing" (at least verbally) to coexist and work with the Serbs, but only in Kosovo, not in Serbia.
Same goes for Croatians, but only in Croatia, not in Yugoslavia.
The most illustrative example of this was Alija Izetbegovic. When he rejected Belgrade Initiative that was giving Bosnian Muslims veto right on federal level, he did so on the grounds that "he believed that time of ethnic deals is over" and endorsed "civil society" and "country of citizents" (as opposed to ethnic groups) as his favorite model.
When Karadzic agreed and endorsed re-modelling of Yugoslavia as country of citizents, Izetbegovic quickly rejected this, saying that Muslims could never accept to be overvoted by others (despite of the veto right?!). He explained that when he mentioned civil society, he was talking about Bosnia only.
I suppouse, civil society is only acceptable in the situation where Muslims could overvote Serbs, not the other way around.
For the ending.
"With every step down this road: bashing NATO, boycotting Kosovo elections, delaying Presidential elections and local elections in Serbia solely due to the Kosovo question, Serbia continues to distance itself from the West. One wonders just how far this will go. "
I agree with this completelly. Distancing exists, and gap will widen further. How far this will go? It's hard to say, but my impression is that it will go very far. In fact it's not very far from point of no return right now. Or perhaps, it's already late and process is not reversable? Popular oppinions have changed dramatically over the last few years.
Sometimes I think that despite of fairly strong EU sentiment in Serbia, the best we can now hope for is to have a good neighborlly relationship with EU.
Most people that I talked to are supporters of EU integrations for Serbia, but line have been drawn now, and not at any cost.
You simply can't expect Serbia to be second class republic among ex-Yu republics, and Serbs to be second class people, and to still want to join.
This is a paramount now.
They want to be treated like anyone else, and they want Serbia to be treated as Croatia did, etc.
That's the way that things should have been from the beginning. West choose to "approach each case as unique" and to find "unique" solutions for each republic.
Sure, you can do that. Serbia can't stop you.
But, I know for sure that many of my friends would drop their pro-EU views, and that in many ways this would be definit parting between Serbia and EU.
Oh, well, perhaps in few decades there would be another chance.
Serbian participation in Kosova election will not legalize the process of moving toward independence.
Whether Serbes in Kosova vote or not that is irrelevant to that process. The Serbs now have won the rights to have a permanent number of seats in Kosova's parliament (more than what corresponds to their perecentage in Kosova).
Whether the Serbs take advantage of their rights or not, this is their choice. Frankly, I don't care. People can also choose to jump from the bridge and kill themselves.
If you think the Sebs will prevent Kosova's independence by not voting in these elections you are being wrong and ridiculous.
I am not saying that indipendence is guaranteed at this point. Not at all. However, when it comes to elections that part is done. The Serbs have the right to vote and an assured part in the parliament. Whether they take advantage of this is merely a detail. They don't today, they will tomorrow, whether Kosova becomes independent or not.
If you look through the piles of public statements by various parties in the Euro-Atlantic community, you will come across a recurring theme: the demand that Serbia leave the past behind and move forward into the future. On face value, it's a reasonable demand with which I have great sympathy.
Now, I deliberately wrote of 6 years ago, since that was a defining moment. Or at least it should have been, but was subsequently stiffled. During September and October 2001, the people of Serbia turned their back on Milosevic, socialism, communism, and the past. Great things should have come out of this for the future security and prosperity of the western Balkan region. The Euro-Atlantic community got just what it had asked for.
Except they didn't. The Euro-Atlantic community didn't want Serbia to put the past behind it, it wanted Serbia to openly repent and be punished for the past.
Nationalism is growing once more in Serbia because the Euro-Atlantic community is not allowing Serbia to forget the past. So once again, ordinary Serbs are turning to the past for inspiration. It is the Euro-Atlantic community that is failing to put the past behind itself and move forward. It is the Euro-Atlantic community that is preaching how the future must be based upon historic events. Of course, they simply take a single point in history that supports their policy goals - just like the Serbs are doing once again.
And that is also exactly what you are doing Dino. You are conveniently cherry-picking one point in time to support your opinion and basing all of your analysis around that single reference point. Very dangerous indeed.
If the 'final status' of Kosovo is going to be based around what is 'best' for the future of the region, then let's stop bringing selective recollections of the past into the equation at every possible moment when it suits our own ends!
Montgomery says the Albanians and Bosniaks believe in the international community, this is a pseudonim for THE US, strange how Albanians can have thier own state cleansed for them by Nato bombing and the Serbs and Croats of Bosnia have to live with the remnants of occupation.
Chris,
Its very easy to blame US for all of the problems. Problems in 90’s started in Belgrade under Milosevic. US certainly did not force Milosevic to cut autonomy to both Kosovo and Vojvodina enabling him with Montenegro to have 4 of the 8 votes in the Yugoslav presidency. Therefore Croatia, Bosnia etc became mercy to Serbia. What do u think they were going to do? Sit back? Milosevic started the problem and that’s what lead to breakup of Yugoslavia. In fact it’s the west’s “meddling” that lead to democracy across former Yugoslav countries. Had they stayed out, the whole region would still be at war. A lot of serbs say that other countries should have stayed out, but Serbia is only one of 6 states and 2 autonomous provinces who think so. So does that make everyone else wrong? Isnt Russia meddling in the politics in Serbia? Georgia? Ukraine? Ah yes, its convenient to not mention that.
Willie Gavin,
You say “To bring these thoughts to a close, I'm very much of the opinion that Serbia's continued obstinacy is very much a product of international - in particular US - attitudes over the past 6 years. years. Had the US not promised Pristina independence, had the int. community not used the stick so often and the carrot so infrequently, we would not be in this position at all.”. Do you forget why the situation is the way it is? You cant simply ignore what has happened in the decade before the 6 years you mention. Unfortunately it isnt convenient to forget that. International community is using the stick because Serbia still has not come to grips with its actions in 90’s. Its involved because if it were to leave Kosovo and Serbia, mayhem would result and violence would come from both sides and it is the international community who would have to pick up pieces in any case in the end. Its unrealistic for 6 million people to tell 2 million people what to do after so much history. Many serbs still regard Kosovars as second class citizens who should be driven to Albania, including the 30% of members of parliament who belong to Radicals party. At the end of the day, Serbia isnt mature enough to deal with its own problems without international community. Nor based on recent history is it trusted not to use military as a stick to solve its problems.
Also, an interesting note, in former Yugoslav constitution, Serbia’s policies had to get approval of Kosovo before it could be implemented otherwise it couldn’t. As a minimum, Kosovo will need that and it strikes me as amazing that serbs would rather have that than Kosovo independence. I don’t think serbs realise what they would get themselves into if Kosovo was re-integrated. As for voting in Kosovo elections, Kosovo serbs are part of Kosovo and even if Kosovo was part of Serbia, Kosovo Serbs would still only be able to vote for Kosovo assembly. As it stands now, they have no representation. This boycotting is political ploy to create chaos. It’s a pity that people from Serbia and Kosovo wont be able to move on for many decades, no matter what happens and for what?
I am very sorry but it misses the point that splitting off Kosovo from Serbia will be against international law. It is against 1244. And there is no UNSC.
How can you say: misses nothing?
At least you take a positive stance. That's OK. Serbs and Albanians, live together is a free democratic Serbia. And join EU asap! Good luck!!
Kosovo Serbs should absolutely take no part in this UNMIK run sham of Kosovo elections. Taking part would only legitimize the apartheid and total lack of human rights for minorities in Kosovo. Serbs, who have to live behind barbed wire, who have been subjected to a pogrom in 2004 and saw their ancient churches burned to the ground, and who need military escorts just to move from point A to point B, should vote in Serbian elections only. It took 500 years to rid Serbian land of the Turks, and we can wait however long it takes for UNMIK to leave our soil.
Perfect analysis, misses really NOTHING, totally realistic. Just an addition: the solution for Kosovo should have come much, much earlier. AND, (hoping to be wrong): with Kostunica as real winner out of the game of Kosovo's independence, the next Dindic will appear in 2100. Schadenfreude? No reason for that, with our (diaspora) neighbours dreaming the revenge in 500 years, while being sure that in 500 years no one of us will be there to watch the game, and much probably there will be neither Serbia or Albania (and much of the rest in 500 years, with Sahara reaching Central Europe by then, or much earlier). A tough job for a tough psychanalist would be the bottom line.
The US administration, of which Montgomery was an employee, created a disaster in the Balkans from 1990 to the present time. Like Iraq, it represents dimlomacy at its most incompetent level, and has academics and analysts form around the world looking on in disbelief. All the bloodshed in the 1990s, and all the crises now about Kosovo stem from incompetent US meddling. Montgomery is not qualified to talk about Balkan issues as long as he persists in denying US complicity in the problem.
This article misses the fact that Kosovo is a part of Serbia and of course Serbs in Kosovo should participate in Serbian elections. Serbs voting in Kosovo elections and not Serbian elections endorses the independence of Kosovo.
A very thoughtful piece Mr Montgomery. I hope you have the time and opportunity to read this comment and ponder my points.
First, in regards to whether to participate in local (UNMIK approved) elections or not. The Kosovo Serbs (and to a lesser degree Belgrade) are in a lose-lose situation. If they take part, and attend parliament, they legitimise the entire process and once more provide the intl. community with the apparent 'proof' that Kosovo is moving in the right direction. As you point out, political integration and inclusiveness is an illusion. Just why should Kosovo Serbs continue to provide the basis for this illusion to continue when it will simply lead to even stronger calls for independence. You provide the 'lose' tale if they choose to boycott. It seems the Serbs are simply resorting to plan A: with backs to the wall, be bloodyminded. If the intl. community had not backed them into this corner, there would be far more freedom to negotiate.
Second, the tactic of agreeing to international demands but covertly working to implement different policies (al la Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians) only works if there is a second party being overtly obstructive. If both Belgrade and Pristina follow the intl. community's demands, Kosovo will be independent within 2 years. The process will simply become irreversable. How does this further Serbian aims? Can you actually see Washington doing a policy u-turn on the basis that the Kosovo Albanians have subsequently become more 'difficult' that the Serbs?
And finally, Serbia is a pretty democratic state when considering the ability of the citizenry to elect and dismiss their politicians. All political parties and leaders have to follow popular policies as the opposite will be political suicide. Kostunica may not be playing the high-risk strategy you propose. He may well be simply applying policies aimed to attract some of the wavering SRS supporters, rather than pushing them in the other direction. I have no doubt that Tadic is doing this too. DS support has dropped alarmingly since the election, and even the slightest pro-independence stance will cause an electoral catastrophy.
To bring these thoughts to a close, I'm very much of the opinion that Serbia's continued obstinacy is very much a product of international - in particular US - attitudes over the past 6 years. Had the US not promised Pristina independence, had the int. community not used the stick so often and the carrot so infrequently, we would not be in this position at all. Just think of what the current negotiating position of Pristina is (Ceku: I'm going to London to negotiate as a sovereign state with another sovereign state), and consider how it would have been if the US had resolutely refused to countenance any talk of independence.
The US administration, of which Montgomery was an employee, created a disaster in the Balkans from 1990 to the present time. Like Iraq, it represents dimlomacy at its most incompetent level, and has academics and analysts form around the world looking on in disbelief. All the bloodshed in the 1990s, and all the crises now about Kosovo stem from incompetent US meddling. Montgomery is not qualified to talk about Balkan issues as long as he persists in denying US complicity in the problem.
A very thoughtful piece Mr Montgomery. I hope you have the time and opportunity to read this comment and ponder my points.
First, in regards to whether to participate in local (UNMIK approved) elections or not. The Kosovo Serbs (and to a lesser degree Belgrade) are in a lose-lose situation. If they take part, and attend parliament, they legitimise the entire process and once more provide the intl. community with the apparent 'proof' that Kosovo is moving in the right direction. As you point out, political integration and inclusiveness is an illusion. Just why should Kosovo Serbs continue to provide the basis for this illusion to continue when it will simply lead to even stronger calls for independence. You provide the 'lose' tale if they choose to boycott. It seems the Serbs are simply resorting to plan A: with backs to the wall, be bloodyminded. If the intl. community had not backed them into this corner, there would be far more freedom to negotiate.
Second, the tactic of agreeing to international demands but covertly working to implement different policies (al la Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians) only works if there is a second party being overtly obstructive. If both Belgrade and Pristina follow the intl. community's demands, Kosovo will be independent within 2 years. The process will simply become irreversable. How does this further Serbian aims? Can you actually see Washington doing a policy u-turn on the basis that the Kosovo Albanians have subsequently become more 'difficult' that the Serbs?
And finally, Serbia is a pretty democratic state when considering the ability of the citizenry to elect and dismiss their politicians. All political parties and leaders have to follow popular policies as the opposite will be political suicide. Kostunica may not be playing the high-risk strategy you propose. He may well be simply applying policies aimed to attract some of the wavering SRS supporters, rather than pushing them in the other direction. I have no doubt that Tadic is doing this too. DS support has dropped alarmingly since the election, and even the slightest pro-independence stance will cause an electoral catastrophy.
To bring these thoughts to a close, I'm very much of the opinion that Serbia's continued obstinacy is very much a product of international - in particular US - attitudes over the past 6 years. Had the US not promised Pristina independence, had the int. community not used the stick so often and the carrot so infrequently, we would not be in this position at all. Just think of what the current negotiating position of Pristina is (Ceku: I'm going to London to negotiate as a sovereign state with another sovereign state), and consider how it would have been if the US had resolutely refused to countenance any talk of independence.
Kosovo Serbs should absolutely take no part in this UNMIK run sham of Kosovo elections. Taking part would only legitimize the apartheid and total lack of human rights for minorities in Kosovo. Serbs, who have to live behind barbed wire, who have been subjected to a pogrom in 2004 and saw their ancient churches burned to the ground, and who need military escorts just to move from point A to point B, should vote in Serbian elections only. It took 500 years to rid Serbian land of the Turks, and we can wait however long it takes for UNMIK to leave our soil.
This article misses the fact that Kosovo is a part of Serbia and of course Serbs in Kosovo should participate in Serbian elections. Serbs voting in Kosovo elections and not Serbian elections endorses the independence of Kosovo.
I think that Mr. Montgomery is pointing out to several correct observations.
Willie Garvin's comment is right on the spot, too.
I very much disagree with Dino's comment.
"Problems in 90’s started in Belgrade under Milosevic. US certainly did not force Milosevic to cut autonomy to both Kosovo and Vojvodina enabling him with Montenegro to have 4 of the 8 votes in the Yugoslav presidency. Therefore Croatia, Bosnia etc became mercy to Serbia. What do u think they were going to do? Sit back? Milosevic started the problem and that’s what lead to breakup of Yugoslavia."
Dino, wasn't it Serbia that proposed changes in how federal parliament MP were to be ELECTED?
The proposition was "one person-one vote". Isn't this democratic principle that exists in many countries? Take US for example. Do heavily populated California, and scarscly populated Alaska elect same number of Congressman? This was flatly rejected by Slovenia to name the one. They wanted to keep the system in which they had just as many MP's as Serbia.
Wasn't it true that Serbia offered its support for constitutional changes tailored after any other democratic country, including those multi-ethnic, multi-cultural like UK or Belgium? Was this accepted? No. Slovenia and Croatia wanted Confederation. The difference between Federation and Confederation is enormous. Federation is "State Union" while Confederation is "Union of the states" where each unit's laws are above federal laws. Is this how it works in the States? Can any state pass the laws contradictory to laws of the US? No. Last time it was tried by Southeren states it lead to North-South war, something that, should same standards apply, could no longer be considered civil war, but rather Northern aggression against the Southeren states. Some other country? No.
So, instead of accepting the constitutional changes to reflect those in ANY other country, they proposed model for Yugoslavia that does not exist anywhere in the world. There is no working confederation in the world. Last one was Scandinavian, where Sweden and Norway eventually parted.
There is such model now (EU), but it's arguable if it's working or not, and current state of affairs is taken by many to be just a phase toward establishment of firmer union, and adoption of European Constitution in all the member countries.
How is it then that Serbia destroyed Yugoslavia?
It would be beneficial to try and see things from another angle here.
Let me explain what the real ethnic problems are in former Yugoslavia, Dino.
"Also, an interesting note, in former Yugoslav constitution, Serbia’s policies had to get approval of Kosovo before it could be implemented otherwise it couldn’t. As a minimum, Kosovo will need that and it strikes me as amazing that serbs would rather have that than Kosovo independence."
Yes, it's true. Serbia had to get approval of both provinces (Vojvodina and Kosovo) for its policies. Menaing, without approval of Kosovo Albanians no law could apply in Serbia.
Thank you for mentioning this as it will help me greatly to make my point.
Without argument, this is a great right given to any minirity anywhere.
Yet, in 1980, Albanians demanded seccession from Republic of Serbia and establishment of Republic of Kosovo. They demonstrated, rioted and perpertrated acts of violance against members of local Serb communities throughout the 80's.
We can't see such right given to Serbs in Croatia, for example.
Were they able to block any decision made by Croatian parliament? Of course not.
Who had more right then, in your oppinion, Albanian in Serbia, or Serbian in Croatia or in Bosnia?
Compare it for yourself, and disregard that Serbs were constituing nation (and the largest one in Yugoslavia) while Albanians were minority.
You say that "As a minimum, Kosovo will need that and it strikes me as amazing that serbs would rather have that than Kosovo independence."
In your words this would be the minimum that minority should have. I suppouse not to feel discriminated against.
Let's just take their claim about discrimination at the face value here, and take it as fact that they were discriminated against in Yugoslavia, and that they didn't have sufficient rights, etc.
If we accept that, then obviously, to have a right to block any law is not enough rights for a minority. So, should Kosovo really become independant, just to give Serbs right to veto any decision is not enough, but additional rights should be given to them, in order not to have discrimination against them.
Agree?
Wasn't it Milosevic who said (back in 1990) that he is willing to accept any solution for Yugoslavia, that will treat Serbia EQUALLY to other republics, and Serbs EQUALLY to other nations in Yugoslavia?
And what is wrong with that?
Let's imagine that it's year 1990 again and nobody died yet.
I would be perfectly fine with Albanians, Bosniaks, Croats and Slovenians finding a solution for Yu-crisis, as long as Serbs are equal to other ethnic groups and Serbia equal to other republics.
EQUALITY, as principle established in French Revolution is a paramount that is missing here.
The only other view of the world is the view of SUPREMACY.
So, I as a Serb would be willing to support any solution that is not comming from the later point of view, in which Albanians are entitled to something as supreme beings, while Serbs as inferior are not. Or that Bosnia has to keep its integrity because its supremacy over Serbia that doesn't. etc.
Problem with supremacy view is that it's not shared by the opposite side.
When one looks at the German contribution to world arts, literature, classical music and philosophy, and compare it to British, it could even agree with WW2 German claims of their supremacy.
The problem is, Winston Churchill and the Brits didn't share this view, and did not see themselves as inferior.
So, do you think that Albanians should give Serbs more rights in Kosovo, then they had in Yugoslavia?
Or Croatia. They claimed that they were terribly oppressed in Yugoslavia.
Constitutional amendments in Croatia passed on July 24th 1990 specified Croatian to be the only official language in Croatia, among other things.
Children were failing the grade in the school for the use of single "Serbian" word.
I can't remember that Croats were not allowed to write Roman letters or to use "Croatian" worlds.
After claiming to be "oppressed" in Yugoslavia, shouldn't they allow MORE rights, not LESS, and then exclaim: "These are the rights that we didn't have in Yugoslavia, and that's why we were oppressed!".
Sure, some may say here that Serbia closed Albanian language schools in Kosovo, too. But, you choose to boycott them for political reasons. This right was never taken away from you.
On could go on, and on.
When Serbs claimed their right to stay in Yugoslavia, panel of legal experts (all from the West) was quickly formed lead by British jurist Robert Badinter.
Badinter's commision reached the decision that Yugoslavia is "dissolved" and that ONLY REPUBLICS of former Yugoslavia are legal successors of it, and that unlike Yugoslavia, its republics cannot be taken apart. This decision was much critisized, as it did not take into account Helsinki Final Act, Motevideo Agreement and even Yugoslavian Cosntitution?!
Nevertheless, there is such decision. Republics, not provinces, not regions, ethnich groups, municipalities, etc.
What we are seeing now is a push for Kosovo independance. In spite of the decision of your own legal experts.
So, republics could be divisable after all?
But, not Bosnia, etc. Only Serbia.
I could comment on many things here, but this is getting too long anyway, so I'll stick to the basic.
"If Belgrade had been clever, it would have put forward a comprehensive, moderate alternative for the International Community to consider. It, for example, should have fully embraced the specific points of the Ahtisaari Plan dealing with decentralization in particular."
"The Kosovo Albanians have been spared from implementing the recommendations of the Ahtisaari Plan, which would have been extremely painful for them. "
No, it wouldn't. They wouldn't implement it, and you wouldn't make them. Simple as that.
It was consider equally "paintful" for Kosovo Albanians to implement some standards before there is even talk of status of Kosovo. So they didn't, and now we are talking about status. It would only be taken as Belgrade's quiet acceptance of Ahtisaari Plan.
Another "façade", while none of it would be implemented, anyway.
"It could have had a firm policy of rejecting any decision on future status for a two-year period .."
On this one I agree with Willie Garvin again.
" If both Belgrade and Pristina follow the intl. community's demands, Kosovo will be independent within 2 years. The process will simply become irreversable. How does this further Serbian aims?"
Or do you want us to believe that EU will do something if Albanians don't make any progress on implementation?
As in case of "standards before status", they will simply move on to the next step, independance.
For the decision not to participate in this "façade" elections you say that "Serbs are doing everything possible to demonstrate that they cannot coexist with the Kosovo Albanians and will not work with them."
I've never heard you saying that "Albanians are doing everything possible to demonstrate that they cannot coexist with the Serbs and will not work with them." because they do not participate in Serbian elections.
This is preciselly what I was talking about in my respons to Dino.
Kosovo Albanians are "willing" (at least verbally) to coexist and work with the Serbs, but only in Kosovo, not in Serbia.
Same goes for Croatians, but only in Croatia, not in Yugoslavia.
The most illustrative example of this was Alija Izetbegovic. When he rejected Belgrade Initiative that was giving Bosnian Muslims veto right on federal level, he did so on the grounds that "he believed that time of ethnic deals is over" and endorsed "civil society" and "country of citizents" (as opposed to ethnic groups) as his favorite model.
When Karadzic agreed and endorsed re-modelling of Yugoslavia as country of citizents, Izetbegovic quickly rejected this, saying that Muslims could never accept to be overvoted by others (despite of the veto right?!). He explained that when he mentioned civil society, he was talking about Bosnia only.
I suppouse, civil society is only acceptable in the situation where Muslims could overvote Serbs, not the other way around.
For the ending.
"With every step down this road: bashing NATO, boycotting Kosovo elections, delaying Presidential elections and local elections in Serbia solely due to the Kosovo question, Serbia continues to distance itself from the West. One wonders just how far this will go. "
I agree with this completelly. Distancing exists, and gap will widen further. How far this will go? It's hard to say, but my impression is that it will go very far. In fact it's not very far from point of no return right now. Or perhaps, it's already late and process is not reversable? Popular oppinions have changed dramatically over the last few years.
Sometimes I think that despite of fairly strong EU sentiment in Serbia, the best we can now hope for is to have a good neighborlly relationship with EU.
Most people that I talked to are supporters of EU integrations for Serbia, but line have been drawn now, and not at any cost.
You simply can't expect Serbia to be second class republic among ex-Yu republics, and Serbs to be second class people, and to still want to join.
This is a paramount now.
They want to be treated like anyone else, and they want Serbia to be treated as Croatia did, etc.
That's the way that things should have been from the beginning. West choose to "approach each case as unique" and to find "unique" solutions for each republic.
Sure, you can do that. Serbia can't stop you.
But, I know for sure that many of my friends would drop their pro-EU views, and that in many ways this would be definit parting between Serbia and EU.
Oh, well, perhaps in few decades there would be another chance.
Perfect analysis, misses really NOTHING, totally realistic. Just an addition: the solution for Kosovo should have come much, much earlier. AND, (hoping to be wrong): with Kostunica as real winner out of the game of Kosovo's independence, the next Dindic will appear in 2100. Schadenfreude? No reason for that, with our (diaspora) neighbours dreaming the revenge in 500 years, while being sure that in 500 years no one of us will be there to watch the game, and much probably there will be neither Serbia or Albania (and much of the rest in 500 years, with Sahara reaching Central Europe by then, or much earlier). A tough job for a tough psychanalist would be the bottom line.
If you look through the piles of public statements by various parties in the Euro-Atlantic community, you will come across a recurring theme: the demand that Serbia leave the past behind and move forward into the future. On face value, it's a reasonable demand with which I have great sympathy.
Now, I deliberately wrote of 6 years ago, since that was a defining moment. Or at least it should have been, but was subsequently stiffled. During September and October 2001, the people of Serbia turned their back on Milosevic, socialism, communism, and the past. Great things should have come out of this for the future security and prosperity of the western Balkan region. The Euro-Atlantic community got just what it had asked for.
Except they didn't. The Euro-Atlantic community didn't want Serbia to put the past behind it, it wanted Serbia to openly repent and be punished for the past.
Nationalism is growing once more in Serbia because the Euro-Atlantic community is not allowing Serbia to forget the past. So once again, ordinary Serbs are turning to the past for inspiration. It is the Euro-Atlantic community that is failing to put the past behind itself and move forward. It is the Euro-Atlantic community that is preaching how the future must be based upon historic events. Of course, they simply take a single point in history that supports their policy goals - just like the Serbs are doing once again.
And that is also exactly what you are doing Dino. You are conveniently cherry-picking one point in time to support your opinion and basing all of your analysis around that single reference point. Very dangerous indeed.
If the 'final status' of Kosovo is going to be based around what is 'best' for the future of the region, then let's stop bringing selective recollections of the past into the equation at every possible moment when it suits our own ends!
Dino, I want to react to your version of Yugoslav history.
In 1985 Gorbachev came to power and democratic thought came to Yugoslavia too.
In Serbia this meant that people started to ask questions. Why were more Serbs leaving Croatia than going there despite the attractive labor market? What was true of the frightening stories of Serbs who had left Kosovo? Is a state structure that is designed to keep the Serbs under control fair or does it make them second rate citizens?
This first got form in the report of the Serb Academy of Sciences in 1987, but that was only ridiculed by the majority of the republics as nationalism (a death sin in Yugoslavia). Croatia and Slovenia were very probably aware that already in 1989 American diplomats were discussing their independence as an option. So they didn't do any consession and blocked national elections for Yugoslavia. The result was that Milosevic tried other means to correct what he saw as injustices.
I think you are naive to see Croatia, Bosnia etc in 1990 as passive victims at the mercy of Milosevic. They played an (undemocratic) power game and were convinced that they could win.
Milosevic did a lot of things wrong. But he started from a much more realistic point of view than you seem to acknowledge.
I am very sorry but it misses the point that splitting off Kosovo from Serbia will be against international law. It is against 1244. And there is no UNSC.
How can you say: misses nothing?
At least you take a positive stance. That's OK. Serbs and Albanians, live together is a free democratic Serbia. And join EU asap! Good luck!!
Chris,
Its very easy to blame US for all of the problems. Problems in 90’s started in Belgrade under Milosevic. US certainly did not force Milosevic to cut autonomy to both Kosovo and Vojvodina enabling him with Montenegro to have 4 of the 8 votes in the Yugoslav presidency. Therefore Croatia, Bosnia etc became mercy to Serbia. What do u think they were going to do? Sit back? Milosevic started the problem and that’s what lead to breakup of Yugoslavia. In fact it’s the west’s “meddling” that lead to democracy across former Yugoslav countries. Had they stayed out, the whole region would still be at war. A lot of serbs say that other countries should have stayed out, but Serbia is only one of 6 states and 2 autonomous provinces who think so. So does that make everyone else wrong? Isnt Russia meddling in the politics in Serbia? Georgia? Ukraine? Ah yes, its convenient to not mention that.
Willie Gavin,
You say “To bring these thoughts to a close, I'm very much of the opinion that Serbia's continued obstinacy is very much a product of international - in particular US - attitudes over the past 6 years. years. Had the US not promised Pristina independence, had the int. community not used the stick so often and the carrot so infrequently, we would not be in this position at all.”. Do you forget why the situation is the way it is? You cant simply ignore what has happened in the decade before the 6 years you mention. Unfortunately it isnt convenient to forget that. International community is using the stick because Serbia still has not come to grips with its actions in 90’s. Its involved because if it were to leave Kosovo and Serbia, mayhem would result and violence would come from both sides and it is the international community who would have to pick up pieces in any case in the end. Its unrealistic for 6 million people to tell 2 million people what to do after so much history. Many serbs still regard Kosovars as second class citizens who should be driven to Albania, including the 30% of members of parliament who belong to Radicals party. At the end of the day, Serbia isnt mature enough to deal with its own problems without international community. Nor based on recent history is it trusted not to use military as a stick to solve its problems.
Also, an interesting note, in former Yugoslav constitution, Serbia’s policies had to get approval of Kosovo before it could be implemented otherwise it couldn’t. As a minimum, Kosovo will need that and it strikes me as amazing that serbs would rather have that than Kosovo independence. I don’t think serbs realise what they would get themselves into if Kosovo was re-integrated. As for voting in Kosovo elections, Kosovo serbs are part of Kosovo and even if Kosovo was part of Serbia, Kosovo Serbs would still only be able to vote for Kosovo assembly. As it stands now, they have no representation. This boycotting is political ploy to create chaos. It’s a pity that people from Serbia and Kosovo wont be able to move on for many decades, no matter what happens and for what?
Montgomery says the Albanians and Bosniaks believe in the international community, this is a pseudonim for THE US, strange how Albanians can have thier own state cleansed for them by Nato bombing and the Serbs and Croats of Bosnia have to live with the remnants of occupation.
Serbian participation in Kosova election will not legalize the process of moving toward independence.
Whether Serbes in Kosova vote or not that is irrelevant to that process. The Serbs now have won the rights to have a permanent number of seats in Kosova's parliament (more than what corresponds to their perecentage in Kosova).
Whether the Serbs take advantage of their rights or not, this is their choice. Frankly, I don't care. People can also choose to jump from the bridge and kill themselves.
If you think the Sebs will prevent Kosova's independence by not voting in these elections you are being wrong and ridiculous.
I am not saying that indipendence is guaranteed at this point. Not at all. However, when it comes to elections that part is done. The Serbs have the right to vote and an assured part in the parliament. Whether they take advantage of this is merely a detail. They don't today, they will tomorrow, whether Kosova becomes independent or not.
"Both the Bosniaks in Bosnia and the Kosovo Albanians have consistently shown an awareness and respect for the goals and positions of the international community, even if they planned quietly and deliberately to circumvent them.
The Serbs, in contrast, seem to take delight in openly challenging the International Community and have paid a heavy price as a result. "
--------------
You said it all here. The reason why Serbia has been shrinking for the past 20 years, and why it will continue to shrink. What's even more mind-boggling that during these 20 years ordinary Serbs haven't learned a thing and will continue to support people like Kostunica with their confrontational politics with the West, which will only continue to damage Serbia's chances and inevitabely clear a path for Kosovo's independence. Ironically it is Kostunica more than Ceku, Thaci or any other Albanian leader, who will contribute the most to a "Greater Albania", just like Milosevic's actions helped contribute in this nationalistic Albanian goal.
Lets just comments on Sreten’s “dissertation” here:
1) Yet, in 1980, Albanians demanded seccession from Republic of Serbia and establishment of Republic of Kosovo. They demonstrated, rioted and perpertrated acts of violance against members of local Serb communities throughout the 80's. We can't see such right given to Serbs in Croatia, for example. – Albanians had a different status in Kosovo, than Serbs did in Croatia. I don’t need to go into the 1974 constitution to explain that. And the violence was benevolent from the Serbian side as well in 1981, with hundreds killed on the streets arbitrarily. You fail to mention that, so your arguments are one sided.
2) Wasn't it Milosevic who said (back in 1990) that he is willing to accept any solution for Yugoslavia, that will treat Serbia EQUALLY to other republics, and Serbs EQUALLY to other nations in Yugoslavia? – Milosevic speeches were really great. He always made the local Serbian audiences feel like victims, he promised local Kosovo Serbs in 1989 that they “will never be beaten again”, even though the apartheid mentioned by some other commentator was the state of Albanians, not the other way around. Those “poor” Serbs attending the rally in Fushe Kosove, were part of the regime, many working hand in hand with police. I 1989, they feared of losing their privileged status of colonizers forever. They feared of the vengeance of all the Albanians they did something terrible. And they played victims. I can’t believe Sreten or anybody still falls with this “victim” stuff, after 4 initiated wars by 90’s Belgrade regime. I have never seen more aggressive victims in my life.
3) Sure, some may say here that Serbia closed Albanian language schools in Kosovo, too. But, you choose to boycott them for political reasons. This right was never taken away from you. – Forced history curricula, open chauvinism by teachers, parents and Serbian Children towards their Albanian counterparts, spontaneous using of poisonous gas against Albanian children, all these factors forced Kosovo Albanians to boycott the system. This system was never democratic, never actually allowed us to have a say over the ways of how schools are meant to me run.
I could go over and over arguments of Sreten. However, I have lost my nerves. I pains me to see how still some people stubbornly chose not to see some things that have happened in the past, and give conspiracy theories and blame the other side. I am not saying things are perfect here in Kosovo, far from it, but to have somebody embellish whatever happened 50 years before 1999, is an insult to every Albanian family that suffered during this period. I invite Sreten to come to Kosovo, and listen to people’s stories of their sufferings. They wont be lies, I assure you.
The situation on the ground is that people have been through so much trouble before, they can’t take it anymore. They don’t want ot be ruled by Belgrade. And some members of thisd forum, talk about international legal statute and other global issues. The truth is in the ground, within Kosova families. Ask 100 of them if they want to live under Belgrade, and why they (don’t) want to live, and you will know why Kosovo will never be a part of Serbia. Not anymore.
Another interesting perspective from a former diplomat. Unfortunately in democracies it is politicians who actually make the policies.
It has been abundantly clear for years how the situation in Kosovo will be resolved. The final solution will not be fair or even strictly legal, but that has nothing to do with it.
The loser, as in all the previous regional conflicts, is a section of the local community which is later pretty much ignored by the same politicians who stirred up the trouble in the first place.
In Serbia the Kosovo situation is currently just about politicians avoiding blame and responsibility. It has nothing to do with helping people.
Kosovo is a tragic situation that does not have any happy solution.
Are all those Serbs claiming that Kosovo will always be theirs going to give major financial support to re-house the next flood of refugees? I very much doubt it. Just look around at what has happened to many of the refugees from Croatia and Bosnia.
True patriots would support their brothers and sisters who have fallen victim to the catastrophic mistakes of both local and Western politicians. I see very little of this generosity, just an eagerness to keep alive the next political folly.
PR.
I don't think that our views are all that much different. You just had to read my comment more carefully.
But, let me quickly mention several of the points that you made before you "lost your nervs".
You said "I pains me to see how still some people stubbornly chose not to see some things that have happened in the past, and give conspiracy theories and blame the other side."
I share in your pain here.
1) You say "Albanians had a different status in Kosovo, than Serbs did in Croatia. I don’t need to go into the 1974 constitution to explain that."
That is your explanation? That status of the Albanians was different then status of Serbs? But, why it was different?
It's like saying that genders are not equal, because status of men is regulated differently then status of women? How does that explain inequality?
I would not argue with anyone fine constitutional points about 1974 (although Alabanians with minority status in Yugoslavia, should not have more rights then Serbs with constituing nation status, but oh, well).
The point is:
-no decision could have been passed in republic of Serbia (not only in Kosovo) withouth agreement of Albanians.
-no decision passed in republic of Croatia required any approval from Serbs.
In your view, who was the one that should have started the riots in 1980, and be unsatisfied with their position?
In your view PR.
"And the violence was benevolent from the Serbian side as well in 1981, with hundreds killed on the streets arbitrarily. You fail to mention that, so your arguments are one sided. "
Okey, I'll give you that one.
One thing just crossed my mind here.
When ethnic violance by one ethnic group is answered by ethnic violance by the other, shouldn't this be called "revange attacks", or something? This is how it was called in June 1999, wasn't it?
2) I personally dislike Milosevic very much? I just used a quote from one of his speeches to make a point.
Then again, you should make a statement here.
Do you agree, or disagree that Serbia should be equal to all other former Yugoslavian republics, and Serbs to other former Yugoslavian people?
Forget Milosevic, and give us your own oppinion.
By the way, I have to make another point here. Lately, I see many Albanians talking about Kosovo being a colony of Serbia.
" I 1989, they feared of losing their privileged status of colonizers forever."
Please, enlighten us all here. Give us one example of in constitution, in status of the Serbs, etc. in which Serbs were priviledged over Albanians. Is it in Yu-constitution, some Serbian laws or Kosovar laws maybe?
If you can't find any examples, you should be wondering why is it that you felt that they were priviledged, and who was it that convicted you that they were.
"And they played victims. I can’t believe Sreten or anybody still falls with this “victim” stuff"
Are you still falling for victim stuff yourself?
Perhaps, you should check those laws, and you will easily see that they were not privilidged, nor you were the victim.
On "colony". Status of Kosovo was not status of colony. There are many differences, some of them are obvious when it comes to citizents rights.
For example when Hong Kong was to be handed back to China at the end of the last century, tens of thousands applied for British visa fearing Chinese rule. The problem was: there were not British citizents, nor was Hong Kong part of Great Britain. Hong Kong was a British colony.
At its peak British Empire encompassed territory 80 times larger then UK. Nevertheless, populations of those many lands were not British citizents.
One could go on and on with this, but time for me is short right now.
The point, Kosovo was not a colony, but part of Yugoslavia. There is a big diffference. To compare Kosovo's position to any colony in the world is just plain funny.
I hope that that's not something that your kids are learning in your schools today. I agree that nobody should stop you from teaching your children wrong, you would of course, called it "Forced history curricula".
But, you should look at what you have been teaching your children before autonomy was abolished.
Geography books in Albanian, tought kids that they live in "country of Kosovo". Pehaps, wishful thinking, but it was simply wrong. They lived in Yugoslavia. Same goes for "Kosovo colony". There is not a single characteristic of colony, but..
I'm pretty sure that very soon in Kosovo's "unforced history curricula" you will start to teach that Albanians in Kosovo until 1999 were slaves whom Serbs traded on the public markets. Not true, but...
Now, to return to the main problem.
You appearantly think that problems that began in 1980 were totally justified.
To justify that we should accept that giving the right of veto to a minority is unsatisfying level of minority rights.
Therefore, Albanian ethnic upheaval was only logical. They had no rights.
Let's just now imagine independant Kosovo. All of Kosovo.
Serbs would be now a minority in Kosovo. Giving them right to stop ANY decision, not only in the North, but all over Kosovo from being inplemented is already established as "unsatisfactory" to the minority (Serbs in this case).
When you were in possession of the same right in Serbia it was "unsatisfactory" and you were "oppressed". I'm sure that you are prepared to give Serbs in Kosovo more right on the top of this, so they wouldn't be "oppressed" as you were in Serbia.
Well, Belgrade has no say in how things are run in Pristina now. There is your chance. Show us what treatment and legal position of minorities should be "satisfactory".
What Mongomery said about it?
"it is important to acknowledge that the Serbian experience in the Kosovo Assembly has been an extremely negative one. "
"Despite having a healthy number of deputies, they have no power whatsoever; the Albanian majority routinely ignores them; no Albanian Party has ever once been willing on any issue to join with the Serbs in any vote against other Albanian parties;"
They have no power whatsoever?
Well, there is your chance, teach us all how to treat minority fairly, as Serbs were not capable of doing this. Give them now right to prevent any decision made in Kosovo Assembly from being implemented, etc. And as this is "unsatisfactory" and "oppression" then give them all the other rights on the top of it to make it satisfactory.
If not, I have to tell you to stop "playing the victim of oppression".
3) "Forced history curricula, open chauvinism by teachers, parents and Serbian Children towards their Albanian counterparts, spontaneous using of poisonous gas against Albanian children, all these factors forced Kosovo Albanians to boycott the system.
"spontaneous using of poisonous gas against Albanian children"
If you have followed the trial of Milosevic to any degree, you would have catch testimony of several prominent experts who testified that "genetical biological weapon" is matter of science-fiction. It doesn't exits.
Poisonous gasses targeting only Albanian children, while all the Serbian and other children (Roma, Turkish, etc.) in the school were left untouched isn't something that could have been possibly done by the leading experts in biological weapons on the planet. It turned out to be a hoax that played well before TV cameras of Western crews, who were eager to show "poisoned Albanian children". The whole thing was organized by several members of the party lead by late PropaGhandi-Ibrahim Rugova.
Not only that weapon that can target only certain ethic group doesn't exist today, there is not even a weapon that can attack only certain race (blacks, whites, etc.).
Here, I'll have to use your words.
"I pains me to see how still some people stubbornly chose not to see some things that have happened in the past, and give conspiracy theories and blame the other side."
"Forced history curricula" some would call "correct history curricula". etc.
This should be established based on historical facts, and I would leave it to experts. Lately, I've seen many writtings here by Albanians that were far from being based on anything. There was someone posing as member of Kosova's Academy of Arts and Science that claimed that there was never more then 10% of non-Albanians in Kosovo, etc.
The others claimed that Nis was Albanian city until they were expelled by Serbs at the end of 19th century.
Now, Nis is not very far from Kosovo. Americans probably never heard of Cele-Kula (Scull tower) built out of heads of defenders of Nis against Turkish invasion in 1809. Defenders were led by Vojvoda Sindelic.
Since, this is beginning of 19th century, according to those posters Nis was still Albanian city (until the end of that century).
Are they trying to say that Sindelic was Albanian? And that tower was built with Albanian heads?
As I said Nis is not very far from Kosovo. I refuse to believe that most of you never heard of this tower.
The only other possibility (however scary it may seem) is that Albanians simply choose to believe every word they've been told.
Being able to think for yourself is a great thing.
Well, let's just take all of this for face value.
So, you decided to boycott schools in Albanian language because of it. Okey, things were not perfect. But, the fact remains that there were schools in Albanian language. Not so when it comes to Serbs in Croatia. (Raskovic asked only for "cultural autonomy" and because of it was quickly labeled in some Western press).
Or Koha Ditore, for example, the most popular newspaper in Kosovo. Was it established in 1999 after NATO entrance? No. What was the most popular newspaper in Kosovo before 1999? Koha Ditore.
Then it was owned by Veton Surroi, and today by his sister, that's the only difference.
By the way this particular family doesn't go well to show "suffering of Albanians for 50 years before 1999". Wasn't their father Yugoslavian ambassador to several countries?
Anyway, there were Albanian papers in Kosovo, too. Right?
Well, there were non such Serbian papers in Croatia after July 24th 1990.
Now, try to think about it for yourself and tell us who was in the worst situation?
Okey, Albanians had "forced history curricula", but nevertheless Albanian laguange schools open.
Serb children in Croatia were not allowed to mutter even a single word in their language while in the school, let alone to write word in Cyrillic.
What else.
There was no Cyrillic in Croatia. Period. No papers. No Serbian writters in school curricula. etc.
Koha Ditore was published in Albanian. It was always pro-independance, and always critical of Serbian government.
True?
I can grant you that this was oppression. Here. But, what is greater oppression?
One should be able to look beyond only himself / herself and to realise that others have right too.
"This system was never democratic, never actually allowed us to have a say over the ways of how schools are meant to me run".
This is exactly what I asked you to do. But, don't forget that others have children too. Don't you think that Serbs in Croatia should have been allowed to have a say over the ways of how schools for their children are run?
Ceku didn't think so. Or Rahim Ademi. Or several other prominent Albanians.
Appearantly they don't think that such things should be given to Serb children. It should only be for Albanian children.
That is exactly what I meant when I said that I would be willing to accept ANY solution that doesn't come from supremacy point of view. In which some children are entitled to something while others were not.
You didn't say anything along that line. I haven't see any suggestions.
I guess you've lost your nerves before that.
This in the end is a core of the problems in the Balkans. Various powers come and go. Turkey, Germany, etc.
They promote their agendas. As long as we don't accept each others as equalls we are not going to break out of this cycle of violance. Few decades down the road there will be other powers.
One should never ask for something that he or she is not willing to give to the others.
1. Which country has become independent with the UN blessing? The 1244 is a provisory resolution, the Int. Law is not the Holy Bible (which has many contradictory versions, as you may know), things are determined by the reality on ground, and, every good lawyer you would link every law to the reality. There are at last some cases of law exception, i.e. cases in which a given law cannot be applied. Ask a lawyer to explain that.
2.My positive stance doesn't mean that Serbs and Albanians will live together in a free democratic Serbia. That's a fairy tale in the Serbian political reality of 2007 (as many comments coming from both sides clearly show). If it were possible no doubt that the Kosovo problem would have been just another of the many quiet national problems in Europe, which just exist without that many pay special attention to that. My positive stance means: Serbs and Albanians will have to live side by side in their (hopefully) democratic small states as normal neighbours. Why do you not live together with your neighbours in a common superdemocratic European State? (Btw you rejected the European Constitution for your national interests, isn't it?)
My remark implies that the Serbian opinion understand and elaborate what has happened in the last century (not only the '90s) and that medieval sagas about holy lands are to be left where they belong: in the Middle Ages. That seems to be unfortunately not much a rational issue, but much more a hard job for a tough psychanalist. And that the Albanians will have to make their painful concessions (i.e. stick to Ahtisaari's plan and maybe more concessions, as the friendship treaty with those which haven't shown a single sign of repention and reflection, against their will and their national interests).
That's why this article misses NOTHING. Hope you will understand this time why Kosovo cannot remain apart of Serbia. Many Serbs understand it clearly, although they aren't loud, for clear reasons.
Someone suggested it recently, and I have to agree.
You should get some former Russian ambassador to Yugoslavia to write an oppinion here. I think that B92 has lack of non-Western oppinions. There is however, abundance of people presenting Western point of view.
Mr. Montgomery, your vision rest on the assumption that the Ahtisaari plan would work. I doubt that and it is my impression that the Serb government doesn't believe that either.
Kosovo's Serbs have been cleansed from all its cities except Northern Mitrovica. As access to urban services is essential for the survival of the Serb community and nearby cities in Serbia are far away it would be rather disastrous for the Serb community if Northern Mitrovica was cleansed too. Yet that seems nearly inevitable under the Ahtisaari plan. Sooner or later it means that the Kosovo government will be free to implement "refugee returns" (of Albanians of course) and implement other measures that will lead to an increase in the number of Albanians living in and travelling to it. The experience in Kosovo's other cities leave little doubt that soon the Serbs will come under pressure and start to leave.
On the countryside in Kosovo the situation is just a little better. Serbs are mostly living in Serb-only villages. In the few mixed places that are still there the tendency is for Serbs to leave. Due to unsafety to work on the land and regular thefts and vandalism many Serbs have become quite empoverished. Add to this Albanian hostility and occasional violence like recently in Klokot. In this situation many Serbs stay in the hope that the situation will dramatically improve. Ahtisaari's autonomy will improve this situation but is doubtful whether it will be enough.
A third factor is the attitude of the Kosovo government. Seeing their actions I cannot evade the feeling that they aim for a Serb-free Kosovo. I expect that we will keep seeing measures that aim at pressuring Serbs to leave. Even the Serb majority areas will not be safe. Leposavic may seem a Serb bastion, but that may change fast when Albanians soldiers are stationed there and start to settle there with their families. And even even if the privatised Brezovica ski resort is not bought by Albanians but by a really international company this company may soon find it less trouble to employ Albanians than Serbs - endangering the economic viability of Strpce.
The Ahtisaari plan means that some Albanians will have to live in Serb majority municipalities. But the fact that they don't like that does not mean that the Ahtisaari plan will work.
Ahtisaari foresees a review after some time. But I suspect that the result will be very similar to the Kai Eide report: the human rights objectives have not been achieved but there is no alternative for going on with independence.
If you share my vision that the Ahtisaari plan makes it sure that Kosovo will be Serb-free in a decade than the attitude of Serbia's government becomes much more logical. They have nothing to win with signing it. And a unilateral independence may give them an excuse to annexate Kosovo's north tip - saving at least some of Kosovo's Serbs. This would put the US for the choice to start a war in favor of ethnic cleansing.
Ahtisaari could easily have avoided this scenario by proposing strong territorial autonomy for Kosovo's north tip. But that would have blocked the possibility to Albanize the area and as a consequence Kosovo's government resisted it. And Ahtisaari followed.
"Before going into the reasons why this is a mistake, it is important to acknowledge that the Serbian experience in the Kosovo Assembly has been an extremely negative one.
Despite having a healthy number of deputies, they have no power whatsoever; the Albanian majority routinely ignores them; no Albanian Party has ever once been willing on any issue to join with the Serbs in any vote against other Albanian parties; and their very participation in the process has been ill used by the International Community to demonstrate that "progress" has been made. It has been a façade and nothing more.
This is another case of "chickens coming home to roost." The Serbs see very clearly what the experience has been in the Kosovo Assembly. UNMIK routinely ignored Kosovo Albanian actions in Parliament, which harmed inter-ethnic relations and at times even violated Parliamentary procedures.
This helped to convince the Serbs that they could not trust the word of the International Community in Kosovo and if they needed it, yet more confirmation of the adversarial nature of their relationship with Kosovo Albanians. Far more vigorous action by UNMIK and the rest of the International Community over the past eight years in this regard may have made a difference. "
This summarise the reasons for this boycott.
I disagree with the last sentence.
UNIMIK have shown a lot of vigorous actions. All of them in support of KLA. They even allowed them to kill most highly ranked member's of Rugova's party. Not to mention that their presence on KLA members parties. (Petersen on Haradinaj's brother's wedding for example). It was always to show to whom their support goes.
Almost absurd for Serbia to still have the slightest expectation to keep Kosovo. But if Serbia insists on keeping Kosovo, it should call on Serbs in Kosovo to participate in Kosovo elections and then call on Kosovars to participate in wider country elections. That would be turning the table around. Nice idea, but I m not betting on it.
PR, poisonuos gases in schools? Very waek one I would say. Nobody died. Some Albanain kids claimed to be sick just to recover and go home shortly after. Cause was never determined.
Perfect analysis, misses really NOTHING, totally realistic. Just an addition: the solution for Kosovo should have come much, much earlier. AND, (hoping to be wrong): with Kostunica as real winner out of the game of Kosovo's independence, the next Dindic will appear in 2100. Schadenfreude? No reason for that, with our (diaspora) neighbours dreaming the revenge in 500 years, while being sure that in 500 years no one of us will be there to watch the game, and much probably there will be neither Serbia or Albania (and much of the rest in 500 years, with Sahara reaching Central Europe by then, or much earlier). A tough job for a tough psychanalist would be the bottom line.
The US administration, of which Montgomery was an employee, created a disaster in the Balkans from 1990 to the present time. Like Iraq, it represents dimlomacy at its most incompetent level, and has academics and analysts form around the world looking on in disbelief. All the bloodshed in the 1990s, and all the crises now about Kosovo stem from incompetent US meddling. Montgomery is not qualified to talk about Balkan issues as long as he persists in denying US complicity in the problem.
A very thoughtful piece Mr Montgomery. I hope you have the time and opportunity to read this comment and ponder my points.
First, in regards to whether to participate in local (UNMIK approved) elections or not. The Kosovo Serbs (and to a lesser degree Belgrade) are in a lose-lose situation. If they take part, and attend parliament, they legitimise the entire process and once more provide the intl. community with the apparent 'proof' that Kosovo is moving in the right direction. As you point out, political integration and inclusiveness is an illusion. Just why should Kosovo Serbs continue to provide the basis for this illusion to continue when it will simply lead to even stronger calls for independence. You provide the 'lose' tale if they choose to boycott. It seems the Serbs are simply resorting to plan A: with backs to the wall, be bloodyminded. If the intl. community had not backed them into this corner, there would be far more freedom to negotiate.
Second, the tactic of agreeing to international demands but covertly working to implement different policies (al la Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians) only works if there is a second party being overtly obstructive. If both Belgrade and Pristina follow the intl. community's demands, Kosovo will be independent within 2 years. The process will simply become irreversable. How does this further Serbian aims? Can you actually see Washington doing a policy u-turn on the basis that the Kosovo Albanians have subsequently become more 'difficult' that the Serbs?
And finally, Serbia is a pretty democratic state when considering the ability of the citizenry to elect and dismiss their politicians. All political parties and leaders have to follow popular policies as the opposite will be political suicide. Kostunica may not be playing the high-risk strategy you propose. He may well be simply applying policies aimed to attract some of the wavering SRS supporters, rather than pushing them in the other direction. I have no doubt that Tadic is doing this too. DS support has dropped alarmingly since the election, and even the slightest pro-independence stance will cause an electoral catastrophy.
To bring these thoughts to a close, I'm very much of the opinion that Serbia's continued obstinacy is very much a product of international - in particular US - attitudes over the past 6 years. Had the US not promised Pristina independence, had the int. community not used the stick so often and the carrot so infrequently, we would not be in this position at all. Just think of what the current negotiating position of Pristina is (Ceku: I'm going to London to negotiate as a sovereign state with another sovereign state), and consider how it would have been if the US had resolutely refused to countenance any talk of independence.
This article misses the fact that Kosovo is a part of Serbia and of course Serbs in Kosovo should participate in Serbian elections. Serbs voting in Kosovo elections and not Serbian elections endorses the independence of Kosovo.
Kosovo Serbs should absolutely take no part in this UNMIK run sham of Kosovo elections. Taking part would only legitimize the apartheid and total lack of human rights for minorities in Kosovo. Serbs, who have to live behind barbed wire, who have been subjected to a pogrom in 2004 and saw their ancient churches burned to the ground, and who need military escorts just to move from point A to point B, should vote in Serbian elections only. It took 500 years to rid Serbian land of the Turks, and we can wait however long it takes for UNMIK to leave our soil.
Chris,
Its very easy to blame US for all of the problems. Problems in 90’s started in Belgrade under Milosevic. US certainly did not force Milosevic to cut autonomy to both Kosovo and Vojvodina enabling him with Montenegro to have 4 of the 8 votes in the Yugoslav presidency. Therefore Croatia, Bosnia etc became mercy to Serbia. What do u think they were going to do? Sit back? Milosevic started the problem and that’s what lead to breakup of Yugoslavia. In fact it’s the west’s “meddling” that lead to democracy across former Yugoslav countries. Had they stayed out, the whole region would still be at war. A lot of serbs say that other countries should have stayed out, but Serbia is only one of 6 states and 2 autonomous provinces who think so. So does that make everyone else wrong? Isnt Russia meddling in the politics in Serbia? Georgia? Ukraine? Ah yes, its convenient to not mention that.
Willie Gavin,
You say “To bring these thoughts to a close, I'm very much of the opinion that Serbia's continued obstinacy is very much a product of international - in particular US - attitudes over the past 6 years. years. Had the US not promised Pristina independence, had the int. community not used the stick so often and the carrot so infrequently, we would not be in this position at all.”. Do you forget why the situation is the way it is? You cant simply ignore what has happened in the decade before the 6 years you mention. Unfortunately it isnt convenient to forget that. International community is using the stick because Serbia still has not come to grips with its actions in 90’s. Its involved because if it were to leave Kosovo and Serbia, mayhem would result and violence would come from both sides and it is the international community who would have to pick up pieces in any case in the end. Its unrealistic for 6 million people to tell 2 million people what to do after so much history. Many serbs still regard Kosovars as second class citizens who should be driven to Albania, including the 30% of members of parliament who belong to Radicals party. At the end of the day, Serbia isnt mature enough to deal with its own problems without international community. Nor based on recent history is it trusted not to use military as a stick to solve its problems.
Also, an interesting note, in former Yugoslav constitution, Serbia’s policies had to get approval of Kosovo before it could be implemented otherwise it couldn’t. As a minimum, Kosovo will need that and it strikes me as amazing that serbs would rather have that than Kosovo independence. I don’t think serbs realise what they would get themselves into if Kosovo was re-integrated. As for voting in Kosovo elections, Kosovo serbs are part of Kosovo and even if Kosovo was part of Serbia, Kosovo Serbs would still only be able to vote for Kosovo assembly. As it stands now, they have no representation. This boycotting is political ploy to create chaos. It’s a pity that people from Serbia and Kosovo wont be able to move on for many decades, no matter what happens and for what?
1. Which country has become independent with the UN blessing? The 1244 is a provisory resolution, the Int. Law is not the Holy Bible (which has many contradictory versions, as you may know), things are determined by the reality on ground, and, every good lawyer you would link every law to the reality. There are at last some cases of law exception, i.e. cases in which a given law cannot be applied. Ask a lawyer to explain that.
2.My positive stance doesn't mean that Serbs and Albanians will live together in a free democratic Serbia. That's a fairy tale in the Serbian political reality of 2007 (as many comments coming from both sides clearly show). If it were possible no doubt that the Kosovo problem would have been just another of the many quiet national problems in Europe, which just exist without that many pay special attention to that. My positive stance means: Serbs and Albanians will have to live side by side in their (hopefully) democratic small states as normal neighbours. Why do you not live together with your neighbours in a common superdemocratic European State? (Btw you rejected the European Constitution for your national interests, isn't it?)
My remark implies that the Serbian opinion understand and elaborate what has happened in the last century (not only the '90s) and that medieval sagas about holy lands are to be left where they belong: in the Middle Ages. That seems to be unfortunately not much a rational issue, but much more a hard job for a tough psychanalist. And that the Albanians will have to make their painful concessions (i.e. stick to Ahtisaari's plan and maybe more concessions, as the friendship treaty with those which haven't shown a single sign of repention and reflection, against their will and their national interests).
That's why this article misses NOTHING. Hope you will understand this time why Kosovo cannot remain apart of Serbia. Many Serbs understand it clearly, although they aren't loud, for clear reasons.
I am very sorry but it misses the point that splitting off Kosovo from Serbia will be against international law. It is against 1244. And there is no UNSC.
How can you say: misses nothing?
At least you take a positive stance. That's OK. Serbs and Albanians, live together is a free democratic Serbia. And join EU asap! Good luck!!
Dino, I want to react to your version of Yugoslav history.
In 1985 Gorbachev came to power and democratic thought came to Yugoslavia too.
In Serbia this meant that people started to ask questions. Why were more Serbs leaving Croatia than going there despite the attractive labor market? What was true of the frightening stories of Serbs who had left Kosovo? Is a state structure that is designed to keep the Serbs under control fair or does it make them second rate citizens?
This first got form in the report of the Serb Academy of Sciences in 1987, but that was only ridiculed by the majority of the republics as nationalism (a death sin in Yugoslavia). Croatia and Slovenia were very probably aware that already in 1989 American diplomats were discussing their independence as an option. So they didn't do any consession and blocked national elections for Yugoslavia. The result was that Milosevic tried other means to correct what he saw as injustices.
I think you are naive to see Croatia, Bosnia etc in 1990 as passive victims at the mercy of Milosevic. They played an (undemocratic) power game and were convinced that they could win.
Milosevic did a lot of things wrong. But he started from a much more realistic point of view than you seem to acknowledge.
Mr. Montgomery, your vision rest on the assumption that the Ahtisaari plan would work. I doubt that and it is my impression that the Serb government doesn't believe that either.
Kosovo's Serbs have been cleansed from all its cities except Northern Mitrovica. As access to urban services is essential for the survival of the Serb community and nearby cities in Serbia are far away it would be rather disastrous for the Serb community if Northern Mitrovica was cleansed too. Yet that seems nearly inevitable under the Ahtisaari plan. Sooner or later it means that the Kosovo government will be free to implement "refugee returns" (of Albanians of course) and implement other measures that will lead to an increase in the number of Albanians living in and travelling to it. The experience in Kosovo's other cities leave little doubt that soon the Serbs will come under pressure and start to leave.
On the countryside in Kosovo the situation is just a little better. Serbs are mostly living in Serb-only villages. In the few mixed places that are still there the tendency is for Serbs to leave. Due to unsafety to work on the land and regular thefts and vandalism many Serbs have become quite empoverished. Add to this Albanian hostility and occasional violence like recently in Klokot. In this situation many Serbs stay in the hope that the situation will dramatically improve. Ahtisaari's autonomy will improve this situation but is doubtful whether it will be enough.
A third factor is the attitude of the Kosovo government. Seeing their actions I cannot evade the feeling that they aim for a Serb-free Kosovo. I expect that we will keep seeing measures that aim at pressuring Serbs to leave. Even the Serb majority areas will not be safe. Leposavic may seem a Serb bastion, but that may change fast when Albanians soldiers are stationed there and start to settle there with their families. And even even if the privatised Brezovica ski resort is not bought by Albanians but by a really international company this company may soon find it less trouble to employ Albanians than Serbs - endangering the economic viability of Strpce.
The Ahtisaari plan means that some Albanians will have to live in Serb majority municipalities. But the fact that they don't like that does not mean that the Ahtisaari plan will work.
Ahtisaari foresees a review after some time. But I suspect that the result will be very similar to the Kai Eide report: the human rights objectives have not been achieved but there is no alternative for going on with independence.
If you share my vision that the Ahtisaari plan makes it sure that Kosovo will be Serb-free in a decade than the attitude of Serbia's government becomes much more logical. They have nothing to win with signing it. And a unilateral independence may give them an excuse to annexate Kosovo's north tip - saving at least some of Kosovo's Serbs. This would put the US for the choice to start a war in favor of ethnic cleansing.
Ahtisaari could easily have avoided this scenario by proposing strong territorial autonomy for Kosovo's north tip. But that would have blocked the possibility to Albanize the area and as a consequence Kosovo's government resisted it. And Ahtisaari followed.
"Before going into the reasons why this is a mistake, it is important to acknowledge that the Serbian experience in the Kosovo Assembly has been an extremely negative one.
Despite having a healthy number of deputies, they have no power whatsoever; the Albanian majority routinely ignores them; no Albanian Party has ever once been willing on any issue to join with the Serbs in any vote against other Albanian parties; and their very participation in the process has been ill used by the International Community to demonstrate that "progress" has been made. It has been a façade and nothing more.
This is another case of "chickens coming home to roost." The Serbs see very clearly what the experience has been in the Kosovo Assembly. UNMIK routinely ignored Kosovo Albanian actions in Parliament, which harmed inter-ethnic relations and at times even violated Parliamentary procedures.
This helped to convince the Serbs that they could not trust the word of the International Community in Kosovo and if they needed it, yet more confirmation of the adversarial nature of their relationship with Kosovo Albanians. Far more vigorous action by UNMIK and the rest of the International Community over the past eight years in this regard may have made a difference. "
This summarise the reasons for this boycott.
I disagree with the last sentence.
UNIMIK have shown a lot of vigorous actions. All of them in support of KLA. They even allowed them to kill most highly ranked member's of Rugova's party. Not to mention that their presence on KLA members parties. (Petersen on Haradinaj's brother's wedding for example). It was always to show to whom their support goes.
PR.
I don't think that our views are all that much different. You just had to read my comment more carefully.
But, let me quickly mention several of the points that you made before you "lost your nervs".
You said "I pains me to see how still some people stubbornly chose not to see some things that have happened in the past, and give conspiracy theories and blame the other side."
I share in your pain here.
1) You say "Albanians had a different status in Kosovo, than Serbs did in Croatia. I don’t need to go into the 1974 constitution to explain that."
That is your explanation? That status of the Albanians was different then status of Serbs? But, why it was different?
It's like saying that genders are not equal, because status of men is regulated differently then status of women? How does that explain inequality?
I would not argue with anyone fine constitutional points about 1974 (although Alabanians with minority status in Yugoslavia, should not have more rights then Serbs with constituing nation status, but oh, well).
The point is:
-no decision could have been passed in republic of Serbia (not only in Kosovo) withouth agreement of Albanians.
-no decision passed in republic of Croatia required any approval from Serbs.
In your view, who was the one that should have started the riots in 1980, and be unsatisfied with their position?
In your view PR.
"And the violence was benevolent from the Serbian side as well in 1981, with hundreds killed on the streets arbitrarily. You fail to mention that, so your arguments are one sided. "
Okey, I'll give you that one.
One thing just crossed my mind here.
When ethnic violance by one ethnic group is answered by ethnic violance by the other, shouldn't this be called "revange attacks", or something? This is how it was called in June 1999, wasn't it?
2) I personally dislike Milosevic very much? I just used a quote from one of his speeches to make a point.
Then again, you should make a statement here.
Do you agree, or disagree that Serbia should be equal to all other former Yugoslavian republics, and Serbs to other former Yugoslavian people?
Forget Milosevic, and give us your own oppinion.
By the way, I have to make another point here. Lately, I see many Albanians talking about Kosovo being a colony of Serbia.
" I 1989, they feared of losing their privileged status of colonizers forever."
Please, enlighten us all here. Give us one example of in constitution, in status of the Serbs, etc. in which Serbs were priviledged over Albanians. Is it in Yu-constitution, some Serbian laws or Kosovar laws maybe?
If you can't find any examples, you should be wondering why is it that you felt that they were priviledged, and who was it that convicted you that they were.
"And they played victims. I can’t believe Sreten or anybody still falls with this “victim” stuff"
Are you still falling for victim stuff yourself?
Perhaps, you should check those laws, and you will easily see that they were not privilidged, nor you were the victim.
On "colony". Status of Kosovo was not status of colony. There are many differences, some of them are obvious when it comes to citizents rights.
For example when Hong Kong was to be handed back to China at the end of the last century, tens of thousands applied for British visa fearing Chinese rule. The problem was: there were not British citizents, nor was Hong Kong part of Great Britain. Hong Kong was a British colony.
At its peak British Empire encompassed territory 80 times larger then UK. Nevertheless, populations of those many lands were not British citizents.
One could go on and on with this, but time for me is short right now.
The point, Kosovo was not a colony, but part of Yugoslavia. There is a big diffference. To compare Kosovo's position to any colony in the world is just plain funny.
I hope that that's not something that your kids are learning in your schools today. I agree that nobody should stop you from teaching your children wrong, you would of course, called it "Forced history curricula".
But, you should look at what you have been teaching your children before autonomy was abolished.
Geography books in Albanian, tought kids that they live in "country of Kosovo". Pehaps, wishful thinking, but it was simply wrong. They lived in Yugoslavia. Same goes for "Kosovo colony". There is not a single characteristic of colony, but..
I'm pretty sure that very soon in Kosovo's "unforced history curricula" you will start to teach that Albanians in Kosovo until 1999 were slaves whom Serbs traded on the public markets. Not true, but...
Now, to return to the main problem.
You appearantly think that problems that began in 1980 were totally justified.
To justify that we should accept that giving the right of veto to a minority is unsatisfying level of minority rights.
Therefore, Albanian ethnic upheaval was only logical. They had no rights.
Let's just now imagine independant Kosovo. All of Kosovo.
Serbs would be now a minority in Kosovo. Giving them right to stop ANY decision, not only in the North, but all over Kosovo from being inplemented is already established as "unsatisfactory" to the minority (Serbs in this case).
When you were in possession of the same right in Serbia it was "unsatisfactory" and you were "oppressed". I'm sure that you are prepared to give Serbs in Kosovo more right on the top of this, so they wouldn't be "oppressed" as you were in Serbia.
Well, Belgrade has no say in how things are run in Pristina now. There is your chance. Show us what treatment and legal position of minorities should be "satisfactory".
What Mongomery said about it?
"it is important to acknowledge that the Serbian experience in the Kosovo Assembly has been an extremely negative one. "
"Despite having a healthy number of deputies, they have no power whatsoever; the Albanian majority routinely ignores them; no Albanian Party has ever once been willing on any issue to join with the Serbs in any vote against other Albanian parties;"
They have no power whatsoever?
Well, there is your chance, teach us all how to treat minority fairly, as Serbs were not capable of doing this. Give them now right to prevent any decision made in Kosovo Assembly from being implemented, etc. And as this is "unsatisfactory" and "oppression" then give them all the other rights on the top of it to make it satisfactory.
If not, I have to tell you to stop "playing the victim of oppression".
3) "Forced history curricula, open chauvinism by teachers, parents and Serbian Children towards their Albanian counterparts, spontaneous using of poisonous gas against Albanian children, all these factors forced Kosovo Albanians to boycott the system.
"spontaneous using of poisonous gas against Albanian children"
If you have followed the trial of Milosevic to any degree, you would have catch testimony of several prominent experts who testified that "genetical biological weapon" is matter of science-fiction. It doesn't exits.
Poisonous gasses targeting only Albanian children, while all the Serbian and other children (Roma, Turkish, etc.) in the school were left untouched isn't something that could have been possibly done by the leading experts in biological weapons on the planet. It turned out to be a hoax that played well before TV cameras of Western crews, who were eager to show "poisoned Albanian children". The whole thing was organized by several members of the party lead by late PropaGhandi-Ibrahim Rugova.
Not only that weapon that can target only certain ethic group doesn't exist today, there is not even a weapon that can attack only certain race (blacks, whites, etc.).
Here, I'll have to use your words.
"I pains me to see how still some people stubbornly chose not to see some things that have happened in the past, and give conspiracy theories and blame the other side."
"Forced history curricula" some would call "correct history curricula". etc.
This should be established based on historical facts, and I would leave it to experts. Lately, I've seen many writtings here by Albanians that were far from being based on anything. There was someone posing as member of Kosova's Academy of Arts and Science that claimed that there was never more then 10% of non-Albanians in Kosovo, etc.
The others claimed that Nis was Albanian city until they were expelled by Serbs at the end of 19th century.
Now, Nis is not very far from Kosovo. Americans probably never heard of Cele-Kula (Scull tower) built out of heads of defenders of Nis against Turkish invasion in 1809. Defenders were led by Vojvoda Sindelic.
Since, this is beginning of 19th century, according to those posters Nis was still Albanian city (until the end of that century).
Are they trying to say that Sindelic was Albanian? And that tower was built with Albanian heads?
As I said Nis is not very far from Kosovo. I refuse to believe that most of you never heard of this tower.
The only other possibility (however scary it may seem) is that Albanians simply choose to believe every word they've been told.
Being able to think for yourself is a great thing.
Well, let's just take all of this for face value.
So, you decided to boycott schools in Albanian language because of it. Okey, things were not perfect. But, the fact remains that there were schools in Albanian language. Not so when it comes to Serbs in Croatia. (Raskovic asked only for "cultural autonomy" and because of it was quickly labeled in some Western press).
Or Koha Ditore, for example, the most popular newspaper in Kosovo. Was it established in 1999 after NATO entrance? No. What was the most popular newspaper in Kosovo before 1999? Koha Ditore.
Then it was owned by Veton Surroi, and today by his sister, that's the only difference.
By the way this particular family doesn't go well to show "suffering of Albanians for 50 years before 1999". Wasn't their father Yugoslavian ambassador to several countries?
Anyway, there were Albanian papers in Kosovo, too. Right?
Well, there were non such Serbian papers in Croatia after July 24th 1990.
Now, try to think about it for yourself and tell us who was in the worst situation?
Okey, Albanians had "forced history curricula", but nevertheless Albanian laguange schools open.
Serb children in Croatia were not allowed to mutter even a single word in their language while in the school, let alone to write word in Cyrillic.
What else.
There was no Cyrillic in Croatia. Period. No papers. No Serbian writters in school curricula. etc.
Koha Ditore was published in Albanian. It was always pro-independance, and always critical of Serbian government.
True?
I can grant you that this was oppression. Here. But, what is greater oppression?
One should be able to look beyond only himself / herself and to realise that others have right too.
"This system was never democratic, never actually allowed us to have a say over the ways of how schools are meant to me run".
This is exactly what I asked you to do. But, don't forget that others have children too. Don't you think that Serbs in Croatia should have been allowed to have a say over the ways of how schools for their children are run?
Ceku didn't think so. Or Rahim Ademi. Or several other prominent Albanians.
Appearantly they don't think that such things should be given to Serb children. It should only be for Albanian children.
That is exactly what I meant when I said that I would be willing to accept ANY solution that doesn't come from supremacy point of view. In which some children are entitled to something while others were not.
You didn't say anything along that line. I haven't see any suggestions.
I guess you've lost your nerves before that.
This in the end is a core of the problems in the Balkans. Various powers come and go. Turkey, Germany, etc.
They promote their agendas. As long as we don't accept each others as equalls we are not going to break out of this cycle of violance. Few decades down the road there will be other powers.
One should never ask for something that he or she is not willing to give to the others.
PR, poisonuos gases in schools? Very waek one I would say. Nobody died. Some Albanain kids claimed to be sick just to recover and go home shortly after. Cause was never determined.
Montgomery says the Albanians and Bosniaks believe in the international community, this is a pseudonim for THE US, strange how Albanians can have thier own state cleansed for them by Nato bombing and the Serbs and Croats of Bosnia have to live with the remnants of occupation.
Serbian participation in Kosova election will not legalize the process of moving toward independence.
Whether Serbes in Kosova vote or not that is irrelevant to that process. The Serbs now have won the rights to have a permanent number of seats in Kosova's parliament (more than what corresponds to their perecentage in Kosova).
Whether the Serbs take advantage of their rights or not, this is their choice. Frankly, I don't care. People can also choose to jump from the bridge and kill themselves.
If you think the Sebs will prevent Kosova's independence by not voting in these elections you are being wrong and ridiculous.
I am not saying that indipendence is guaranteed at this point. Not at all. However, when it comes to elections that part is done. The Serbs have the right to vote and an assured part in the parliament. Whether they take advantage of this is merely a detail. They don't today, they will tomorrow, whether Kosova becomes independent or not.
If you look through the piles of public statements by various parties in the Euro-Atlantic community, you will come across a recurring theme: the demand that Serbia leave the past behind and move forward into the future. On face value, it's a reasonable demand with which I have great sympathy.
Now, I deliberately wrote of 6 years ago, since that was a defining moment. Or at least it should have been, but was subsequently stiffled. During September and October 2001, the people of Serbia turned their back on Milosevic, socialism, communism, and the past. Great things should have come out of this for the future security and prosperity of the western Balkan region. The Euro-Atlantic community got just what it had asked for.
Except they didn't. The Euro-Atlantic community didn't want Serbia to put the past behind it, it wanted Serbia to openly repent and be punished for the past.
Nationalism is growing once more in Serbia because the Euro-Atlantic community is not allowing Serbia to forget the past. So once again, ordinary Serbs are turning to the past for inspiration. It is the Euro-Atlantic community that is failing to put the past behind itself and move forward. It is the Euro-Atlantic community that is preaching how the future must be based upon historic events. Of course, they simply take a single point in history that supports their policy goals - just like the Serbs are doing once again.
And that is also exactly what you are doing Dino. You are conveniently cherry-picking one point in time to support your opinion and basing all of your analysis around that single reference point. Very dangerous indeed.
If the 'final status' of Kosovo is going to be based around what is 'best' for the future of the region, then let's stop bringing selective recollections of the past into the equation at every possible moment when it suits our own ends!
I think that Mr. Montgomery is pointing out to several correct observations.
Willie Garvin's comment is right on the spot, too.
I very much disagree with Dino's comment.
"Problems in 90’s started in Belgrade under Milosevic. US certainly did not force Milosevic to cut autonomy to both Kosovo and Vojvodina enabling him with Montenegro to have 4 of the 8 votes in the Yugoslav presidency. Therefore Croatia, Bosnia etc became mercy to Serbia. What do u think they were going to do? Sit back? Milosevic started the problem and that’s what lead to breakup of Yugoslavia."
Dino, wasn't it Serbia that proposed changes in how federal parliament MP were to be ELECTED?
The proposition was "one person-one vote". Isn't this democratic principle that exists in many countries? Take US for example. Do heavily populated California, and scarscly populated Alaska elect same number of Congressman? This was flatly rejected by Slovenia to name the one. They wanted to keep the system in which they had just as many MP's as Serbia.
Wasn't it true that Serbia offered its support for constitutional changes tailored after any other democratic country, including those multi-ethnic, multi-cultural like UK or Belgium? Was this accepted? No. Slovenia and Croatia wanted Confederation. The difference between Federation and Confederation is enormous. Federation is "State Union" while Confederation is "Union of the states" where each unit's laws are above federal laws. Is this how it works in the States? Can any state pass the laws contradictory to laws of the US? No. Last time it was tried by Southeren states it lead to North-South war, something that, should same standards apply, could no longer be considered civil war, but rather Northern aggression against the Southeren states. Some other country? No.
So, instead of accepting the constitutional changes to reflect those in ANY other country, they proposed model for Yugoslavia that does not exist anywhere in the world. There is no working confederation in the world. Last one was Scandinavian, where Sweden and Norway eventually parted.
There is such model now (EU), but it's arguable if it's working or not, and current state of affairs is taken by many to be just a phase toward establishment of firmer union, and adoption of European Constitution in all the member countries.
How is it then that Serbia destroyed Yugoslavia?
It would be beneficial to try and see things from another angle here.
Let me explain what the real ethnic problems are in former Yugoslavia, Dino.
"Also, an interesting note, in former Yugoslav constitution, Serbia’s policies had to get approval of Kosovo before it could be implemented otherwise it couldn’t. As a minimum, Kosovo will need that and it strikes me as amazing that serbs would rather have that than Kosovo independence."
Yes, it's true. Serbia had to get approval of both provinces (Vojvodina and Kosovo) for its policies. Menaing, without approval of Kosovo Albanians no law could apply in Serbia.
Thank you for mentioning this as it will help me greatly to make my point.
Without argument, this is a great right given to any minirity anywhere.
Yet, in 1980, Albanians demanded seccession from Republic of Serbia and establishment of Republic of Kosovo. They demonstrated, rioted and perpertrated acts of violance against members of local Serb communities throughout the 80's.
We can't see such right given to Serbs in Croatia, for example.
Were they able to block any decision made by Croatian parliament? Of course not.
Who had more right then, in your oppinion, Albanian in Serbia, or Serbian in Croatia or in Bosnia?
Compare it for yourself, and disregard that Serbs were constituing nation (and the largest one in Yugoslavia) while Albanians were minority.
You say that "As a minimum, Kosovo will need that and it strikes me as amazing that serbs would rather have that than Kosovo independence."
In your words this would be the minimum that minority should have. I suppouse not to feel discriminated against.
Let's just take their claim about discrimination at the face value here, and take it as fact that they were discriminated against in Yugoslavia, and that they didn't have sufficient rights, etc.
If we accept that, then obviously, to have a right to block any law is not enough rights for a minority. So, should Kosovo really become independant, just to give Serbs right to veto any decision is not enough, but additional rights should be given to them, in order not to have discrimination against them.
Agree?
Wasn't it Milosevic who said (back in 1990) that he is willing to accept any solution for Yugoslavia, that will treat Serbia EQUALLY to other republics, and Serbs EQUALLY to other nations in Yugoslavia?
And what is wrong with that?
Let's imagine that it's year 1990 again and nobody died yet.
I would be perfectly fine with Albanians, Bosniaks, Croats and Slovenians finding a solution for Yu-crisis, as long as Serbs are equal to other ethnic groups and Serbia equal to other republics.
EQUALITY, as principle established in French Revolution is a paramount that is missing here.
The only other view of the world is the view of SUPREMACY.
So, I as a Serb would be willing to support any solution that is not comming from the later point of view, in which Albanians are entitled to something as supreme beings, while Serbs as inferior are not. Or that Bosnia has to keep its integrity because its supremacy over Serbia that doesn't. etc.
Problem with supremacy view is that it's not shared by the opposite side.
When one looks at the German contribution to world arts, literature, classical music and philosophy, and compare it to British, it could even agree with WW2 German claims of their supremacy.
The problem is, Winston Churchill and the Brits didn't share this view, and did not see themselves as inferior.
So, do you think that Albanians should give Serbs more rights in Kosovo, then they had in Yugoslavia?
Or Croatia. They claimed that they were terribly oppressed in Yugoslavia.
Constitutional amendments in Croatia passed on July 24th 1990 specified Croatian to be the only official language in Croatia, among other things.
Children were failing the grade in the school for the use of single "Serbian" word.
I can't remember that Croats were not allowed to write Roman letters or to use "Croatian" worlds.
After claiming to be "oppressed" in Yugoslavia, shouldn't they allow MORE rights, not LESS, and then exclaim: "These are the rights that we didn't have in Yugoslavia, and that's why we were oppressed!".
Sure, some may say here that Serbia closed Albanian language schools in Kosovo, too. But, you choose to boycott them for political reasons. This right was never taken away from you.
On could go on, and on.
When Serbs claimed their right to stay in Yugoslavia, panel of legal experts (all from the West) was quickly formed lead by British jurist Robert Badinter.
Badinter's commision reached the decision that Yugoslavia is "dissolved" and that ONLY REPUBLICS of former Yugoslavia are legal successors of it, and that unlike Yugoslavia, its republics cannot be taken apart. This decision was much critisized, as it did not take into account Helsinki Final Act, Motevideo Agreement and even Yugoslavian Cosntitution?!
Nevertheless, there is such decision. Republics, not provinces, not regions, ethnich groups, municipalities, etc.
What we are seeing now is a push for Kosovo independance. In spite of the decision of your own legal experts.
So, republics could be divisable after all?
But, not Bosnia, etc. Only Serbia.
I could comment on many things here, but this is getting too long anyway, so I'll stick to the basic.
"If Belgrade had been clever, it would have put forward a comprehensive, moderate alternative for the International Community to consider. It, for example, should have fully embraced the specific points of the Ahtisaari Plan dealing with decentralization in particular."
"The Kosovo Albanians have been spared from implementing the recommendations of the Ahtisaari Plan, which would have been extremely painful for them. "
No, it wouldn't. They wouldn't implement it, and you wouldn't make them. Simple as that.
It was consider equally "paintful" for Kosovo Albanians to implement some standards before there is even talk of status of Kosovo. So they didn't, and now we are talking about status. It would only be taken as Belgrade's quiet acceptance of Ahtisaari Plan.
Another "façade", while none of it would be implemented, anyway.
"It could have had a firm policy of rejecting any decision on future status for a two-year period .."
On this one I agree with Willie Garvin again.
" If both Belgrade and Pristina follow the intl. community's demands, Kosovo will be independent within 2 years. The process will simply become irreversable. How does this further Serbian aims?"
Or do you want us to believe that EU will do something if Albanians don't make any progress on implementation?
As in case of "standards before status", they will simply move on to the next step, independance.
For the decision not to participate in this "façade" elections you say that "Serbs are doing everything possible to demonstrate that they cannot coexist with the Kosovo Albanians and will not work with them."
I've never heard you saying that "Albanians are doing everything possible to demonstrate that they cannot coexist with the Serbs and will not work with them." because they do not participate in Serbian elections.
This is preciselly what I was talking about in my respons to Dino.
Kosovo Albanians are "willing" (at least verbally) to coexist and work with the Serbs, but only in Kosovo, not in Serbia.
Same goes for Croatians, but only in Croatia, not in Yugoslavia.
The most illustrative example of this was Alija Izetbegovic. When he rejected Belgrade Initiative that was giving Bosnian Muslims veto right on federal level, he did so on the grounds that "he believed that time of ethnic deals is over" and endorsed "civil society" and "country of citizents" (as opposed to ethnic groups) as his favorite model.
When Karadzic agreed and endorsed re-modelling of Yugoslavia as country of citizents, Izetbegovic quickly rejected this, saying that Muslims could never accept to be overvoted by others (despite of the veto right?!). He explained that when he mentioned civil society, he was talking about Bosnia only.
I suppouse, civil society is only acceptable in the situation where Muslims could overvote Serbs, not the other way around.
For the ending.
"With every step down this road: bashing NATO, boycotting Kosovo elections, delaying Presidential elections and local elections in Serbia solely due to the Kosovo question, Serbia continues to distance itself from the West. One wonders just how far this will go. "
I agree with this completelly. Distancing exists, and gap will widen further. How far this will go? It's hard to say, but my impression is that it will go very far. In fact it's not very far from point of no return right now. Or perhaps, it's already late and process is not reversable? Popular oppinions have changed dramatically over the last few years.
Sometimes I think that despite of fairly strong EU sentiment in Serbia, the best we can now hope for is to have a good neighborlly relationship with EU.
Most people that I talked to are supporters of EU integrations for Serbia, but line have been drawn now, and not at any cost.
You simply can't expect Serbia to be second class republic among ex-Yu republics, and Serbs to be second class people, and to still want to join.
This is a paramount now.
They want to be treated like anyone else, and they want Serbia to be treated as Croatia did, etc.
That's the way that things should have been from the beginning. West choose to "approach each case as unique" and to find "unique" solutions for each republic.
Sure, you can do that. Serbia can't stop you.
But, I know for sure that many of my friends would drop their pro-EU views, and that in many ways this would be definit parting between Serbia and EU.
Oh, well, perhaps in few decades there would be another chance.
Someone suggested it recently, and I have to agree.
You should get some former Russian ambassador to Yugoslavia to write an oppinion here. I think that B92 has lack of non-Western oppinions. There is however, abundance of people presenting Western point of view.
"Both the Bosniaks in Bosnia and the Kosovo Albanians have consistently shown an awareness and respect for the goals and positions of the international community, even if they planned quietly and deliberately to circumvent them.
The Serbs, in contrast, seem to take delight in openly challenging the International Community and have paid a heavy price as a result. "
--------------
You said it all here. The reason why Serbia has been shrinking for the past 20 years, and why it will continue to shrink. What's even more mind-boggling that during these 20 years ordinary Serbs haven't learned a thing and will continue to support people like Kostunica with their confrontational politics with the West, which will only continue to damage Serbia's chances and inevitabely clear a path for Kosovo's independence. Ironically it is Kostunica more than Ceku, Thaci or any other Albanian leader, who will contribute the most to a "Greater Albania", just like Milosevic's actions helped contribute in this nationalistic Albanian goal.
Lets just comments on Sreten’s “dissertation” here:
1) Yet, in 1980, Albanians demanded seccession from Republic of Serbia and establishment of Republic of Kosovo. They demonstrated, rioted and perpertrated acts of violance against members of local Serb communities throughout the 80's. We can't see such right given to Serbs in Croatia, for example. – Albanians had a different status in Kosovo, than Serbs did in Croatia. I don’t need to go into the 1974 constitution to explain that. And the violence was benevolent from the Serbian side as well in 1981, with hundreds killed on the streets arbitrarily. You fail to mention that, so your arguments are one sided.
2) Wasn't it Milosevic who said (back in 1990) that he is willing to accept any solution for Yugoslavia, that will treat Serbia EQUALLY to other republics, and Serbs EQUALLY to other nations in Yugoslavia? – Milosevic speeches were really great. He always made the local Serbian audiences feel like victims, he promised local Kosovo Serbs in 1989 that they “will never be beaten again”, even though the apartheid mentioned by some other commentator was the state of Albanians, not the other way around. Those “poor” Serbs attending the rally in Fushe Kosove, were part of the regime, many working hand in hand with police. I 1989, they feared of losing their privileged status of colonizers forever. They feared of the vengeance of all the Albanians they did something terrible. And they played victims. I can’t believe Sreten or anybody still falls with this “victim” stuff, after 4 initiated wars by 90’s Belgrade regime. I have never seen more aggressive victims in my life.
3) Sure, some may say here that Serbia closed Albanian language schools in Kosovo, too. But, you choose to boycott them for political reasons. This right was never taken away from you. – Forced history curricula, open chauvinism by teachers, parents and Serbian Children towards their Albanian counterparts, spontaneous using of poisonous gas against Albanian children, all these factors forced Kosovo Albanians to boycott the system. This system was never democratic, never actually allowed us to have a say over the ways of how schools are meant to me run.
I could go over and over arguments of Sreten. However, I have lost my nerves. I pains me to see how still some people stubbornly chose not to see some things that have happened in the past, and give conspiracy theories and blame the other side. I am not saying things are perfect here in Kosovo, far from it, but to have somebody embellish whatever happened 50 years before 1999, is an insult to every Albanian family that suffered during this period. I invite Sreten to come to Kosovo, and listen to people’s stories of their sufferings. They wont be lies, I assure you.
The situation on the ground is that people have been through so much trouble before, they can’t take it anymore. They don’t want ot be ruled by Belgrade. And some members of thisd forum, talk about international legal statute and other global issues. The truth is in the ground, within Kosova families. Ask 100 of them if they want to live under Belgrade, and why they (don’t) want to live, and you will know why Kosovo will never be a part of Serbia. Not anymore.
Another interesting perspective from a former diplomat. Unfortunately in democracies it is politicians who actually make the policies.
It has been abundantly clear for years how the situation in Kosovo will be resolved. The final solution will not be fair or even strictly legal, but that has nothing to do with it.
The loser, as in all the previous regional conflicts, is a section of the local community which is later pretty much ignored by the same politicians who stirred up the trouble in the first place.
In Serbia the Kosovo situation is currently just about politicians avoiding blame and responsibility. It has nothing to do with helping people.
Kosovo is a tragic situation that does not have any happy solution.
Are all those Serbs claiming that Kosovo will always be theirs going to give major financial support to re-house the next flood of refugees? I very much doubt it. Just look around at what has happened to many of the refugees from Croatia and Bosnia.
True patriots would support their brothers and sisters who have fallen victim to the catastrophic mistakes of both local and Western politicians. I see very little of this generosity, just an eagerness to keep alive the next political folly.
Almost absurd for Serbia to still have the slightest expectation to keep Kosovo. But if Serbia insists on keeping Kosovo, it should call on Serbs in Kosovo to participate in Kosovo elections and then call on Kosovars to participate in wider country elections. That would be turning the table around. Nice idea, but I m not betting on it.
IMAGE SOURCE
28 Komentari
Sortiraj po: