Division in Serbia

A number of points raised:

First, reflections on the SRS. Very true. Most Serbs voted for SRS out of frustration with the current political situation in Serbia, rather than any emotional feelings of Greater Serbia. Western media loves to portray Nikolic as a "hardliner" and an "ultranationalist" (whatever that means), and his party as the "Far Right", akin to Germany's NDP or Zirinovskly LDP in Russia. All such observations continue to show the level of ignorance the West has over Serbia. Your argument that the SRS popularity is translated into "screw you" votes is far more on the money. Yes, there are still a number of true Selesj/Milosevic supporters, but then again, Hitler has at least a 25% approval rating in West Germany well into the 1960s.

Second, Kosovo. Talking to Serbs here, I've found that even the most committed supporters of DS find the international community's take on Kosovo to be the height of hypocrisy. Many ordinary Serbs are justifiably angry at what they see as the United States lending a sympathetic hand to every ethnic group in the Balkans to realize their own self-determination, while turning a deaf ear to similar calls from Serbs. Mladic is demanded to stand before the Hague, while Thaci is elected to high office. Albanians are given a state, while Serbs are turned into IDPs. Calling for Serbia to embrace democratic values and work towards European integration, while simultaneoulsly saying basically "we're going to take away parts of your territory and there's nothing you can do about it", creates a collective feeling among Serbs of "why should we join you?" Why should Serbia join the ranks of countries that are actively seeking to dismember it and give absolutely no ear to their pleas or calls for compromise? This is something that many outside of Serbia overlook, and when they do hear a Serb daring to complain about Kosovo, it's usually assumed they're just some crazy nationalist leftover from the Milosevic days. Believe me, the vast majority of Serbs are true believers in democracy. It's just that "democracy" is seen as internationally imposed and conditioned. No one would accept that.

Third, Tadic. Now that the EU has the Serbian leader they want to work with, going ahead with a planned EU mission to Kosovo and planning on acknowledging a UDI will effectively kill any mandate Tadic had with last week's election. Tadic will have to make a major choice: reject the UDI and fall in line with every other politician in Belgrade, or continue coopperating with the EU which may risk him political suicide and lead to the call of general elections that could bring to power a SRS-DSS coalition.

Somehow I would have thought that a Tadic victory may have slowed down the independence process for a while in order to allow Serbia to get on its feet and make concrete steps towards the EU. Independence could then come once Serbia is clearly on its way to EU membership, thus making the loss of Kosovo less traumatic. Obviously the timing of this UDI could not have been worse.

If the Belgrade government falls and Serbia is cast into unpredictable instability and chaos, the responsibility will rest sqaurely on the shoulders of those states adamant about pushing for Kosovo's UDI. It therefore remains to be seen what the very same states that are prepared to recognize Kosovo's declaration will react to Serbia's activity in Kosovo as a response. In the end, Kosovo's independence will not "close the book" on ethnic problems in the Balkans. It will merely be the start of a new chapter.

There you go again Mr Montgomery. Anybody in Serbia that loves its country is a hardliner but in any other country such a feeling would be patriotism.

Shame on you for unfair writings about Serbs every chance you have. What other country would gladly given away part of its territory. I fear that all these unwise decisions made by western leaders will come to bite us some day. God help us all for helping terrorism spread truout Balkan.

Toni, the destruction of Yugoslavia was started by Slovenia and Croatia declaring independence and trying to secede in an un-negotiated fashion. Kosovo has been unequivocally part of Serbia since 1945 and was part of Serbia before Yugoslavia prior to WWI.

Milosevic did not on a whim end Kosovo's autonomy.

A commission that amended the In 1989 the constitution of Serbia was amended to limit Kosovo’s excessive level of autonomy. Kosovo’s autonomy was not revoked by the amendments it was simply limited to a sensible level.

Under the 1974 constitution, Serbia couldn’t enact laws or amend its constitution unless the provinces approved it. Serbia was held hostage by its provinces. The provinces, on the other hand, could do anything they wished and Serbia couldn’t stop them.

The 1974 constitution conflicted with itself and with the Serbian constitution. Article III of that constitution granted the republics (not the provinces) the status of states within Yugoslavia. Because of the provinces’ excessive level of autonomy, the republic of Serbia was denied its rightful status and was placed at a disadvantage to other republics within the SFRY.

Because of Kosovo’s excessive autonomy, citizens who were wronged by the Kosovo judiciary couldn’t appeal their cases to the Serbian Supreme Court, even though they were citizens of the Republic of Serbia. Authority began and ended with Kosovo.

Kosovo abused its excessive autonomy. Between 1981 and 1987, more than 40,000 Serbs fled Kosovo under pressure from Albanians who were striving to create an ethnically pure Albanian Kosovo.

The situation was nonsense, and something had to be done to protect the non-Albanian citizens in Kosovo. In 1988 Serbia appealed to the government of the SFRY. The SFRY, with the consent of all 6 republics and both provinces responded by amending the SFRY constitution, thereby allowing Serbia to amend its constitution.

In 1989 Serbia amended its constitution and the amendments were adopted with the consent of the Serbian assembly, the Vojovodina assembly, and the Kosovo assembly. Some have said that military pressure was exerted on the Kosovo assembly to force it to accept the amendments. Jovic denied that this was the case. He said that the Army was only present around the assembly to protect it from the Kosovo Albanian citizens who were demonstrating against the acceptance of the amendments.

It is clear that the Serbs still have a hard time facing the reality. They initiated the distruction of Yougoslavia. They commited countless crimes across the former Yougoslav republics and that is why the world rallied against Serbia. Serbia never owned Kosovo, they gave the Albanians every reason to seek complete independence and nothing less with their attitude that they somehow where fighting terrorism. By dismantling Kosovo's autonomy in the late 1980's Milosevic started the independent Kosovo and now it is comming to an end. The sooner Serbia lets go of it the less painful it is going to be.

It's interesting article, and good one in some ways. I'll have to respond with two separate comments. First one will be about interesting debate that was started by other posters. It's off the topic of the article, but it's very interesting. Second one will comment on article itself.
Posters No. 5 (PJD) and No. 6 (Will) both know what they're talking about. And it's interesting to examine their positions.
No. 5 starts with the respons to No. 2 (Toni) and explanation that Kosovo was (and legally still is) part of Serbia. I don't think that this actually deservs any respons.
The rest deals with reduction of autonomy in 1989. It's little known fact that Yugoslavian federal government decided to reduce Kosovo autonomy, not Serbian government. It was done in order to equalize Serbia to other republics and as measure to curb secessionist movement in Kosovo. ALL the republics voted for this (including Slovenia and Croatia). One could of course, argue here as Kiko does that it was a COMMUNIST country! With all due respect, communist ruled Yugoslavia more even-handedly, and even more trensparently (remember the debates on 13th Congress of the Central Comeete of the Communist Party and those fiery debates on the TV)then anything we see today, and I include Slovenia here!
Main argument.
"Toni, the destruction of Yugoslavia was started by Slovenia and Croatia declaring independence and trying to secede in an un-negotiated fashion."
Now, Will is giving some counter-arguments.
Main argument.
"it allowed him 4 votes (vojvodinas, kosovos, serbias and puppet Montenegros) in a 8-vote presidency. It meant that Milosevic's votes counted for 50% of all votes and thats what ended Yugoslavia. It meant that all other states had to vote together to just even get a deadlock. This is what ended Yugoslavia."
So, what really ended Yugoslavia?
One can notice that both of them, regardless of their opposite views have one thing in common. They agree that Yugoslavian constitution needed changes, and needed to be amended.
I have to say here that Will's view is 100% compatible with US and EU view and their portreying of the events in former Yugoslavia, but there are major problems with it.
First, that Serbs have gained control of 50% of the Presidency votes. (and that this in fact broke Yugoslavia apart).
Even if we take this as a fact, where did you get that Milosevic gained control of Yugoslavian Presidency?
"End result was him having basically complete control of Yugoslav presidency "
50% is not complete control.
But, I wouln't say that Montenegro was actually a puppet of Milosevic (especially later).
Besides, you are saying that Kosovo was ultimatelly pro-Serbian vote when Yugoslavian vote was decided in early 90's. True, due to a fact that Albanians boycotted the elections, leaving only Serbs and other non-Albanians at the polling stations. Just few months after the announcemnt of special measures in Kosovo in 1989, there were first elections in 1990. Few months down the road. So, if you were not happy with Kosovo being a pro-Serbian vote, why didn't you take it back, elect Rugova or whomever you wanted to represent you?
So, the story here is that Milosevic had complete control of Yugoslavia (here 50% being complete, I guess. Assuming that Montenegro was a puppet). And that the others had to leave not being able to bear the brunt of his rule.
So, the beloved narrative continues, rather then simply casting a ballot and taking Kosovo's vote at federal level back, we decided to boycott and Slovenians and Croats decided to wreck the country (with the help from the outside). And now we say that Milosevic ended Yugoslavia.
I have to ask you Will, if 50% of control over Yu-Presidency was such a problem, why didn't you simpy vote, thus reducing Milosevic's control to 3/8 of the Presidency? He wouldn't be able to do anything on federal level, right? Problem solved.
The truth is, Presidency never did anything illegal or unconstitutional.
Besides, you have chosen not to mention federal parliament at all. And in it everybody had equal number of deputies. Smallest Montenegro, and largest Serbia.
Simmilar to this case when both PJD and Will, everybody was in agreement that federal constitution needed to change, and change to reflect changes in the society. One example would be to regulate the elections.
Wasn't a Serbian side that offered to copy constitutional model of any state that Slovenia and Croatia would want?
Wasn't it Milosevic himself that suggested "one person one vote" system? And would that lead to any Serbian domination of Yugoslavia? How could it? If ALL THE SERBS voted for some pro-Serbian party they would end up with what? some 36% of the votes or so. Simply, Serbs were not majority in Yugoslavia. Period.
After all, all the Albanians posting here unanimouslly consider US to be ideal of democracy. Guess what? In the US state of Alaska, and state of California elect number of representatives corresponding to the size of their respective populations. However, Slovenia (and Croatia joined) demanded to continue to have same number of representatives as Serbia at the federal level (demanding practically for each Slovenian vote to be equivallent of 5 (or so) Serbian votes).
Miracolouslly, nobody wanted Yugoslavia to be modeled after US, Canada, Germany, Switzerland etc. (or you name it). Neither Slovenians, Croats, Albanians...
So, Kiko, if Yugoslavia was terrible as being a COMMUNIST country, why didn't you guys want to transform it, and literally COPY USA constitution? What was wrong with that?
Slovenia and Croatia decided to come up with their own suggestion - confederation. Now, this system does not exist in Europe or North America, and I'm not sure if it exists anywhere in the world. Problem would be that republics would be souveregn, and would be able to override Yusoglavian constitution (which later happened anyway). Anothere problem was that would transfer souvereignty from constituing nations (Slovens, Croats.. etc.) to the republics (Slovenia, Croatia.. etc.)Which also later happened anyway.
My point is that I can't see that Serbs (not being a majority nation in Yugoslavia) could have possibly controled Yugoslavia one way or the other. You could have easilly taken back Kosovo vote, but you decided not to. In the case that Milosevic's "one person - one vote" was accepted Serbs could not control Yugoslavia anyway. Think about it.
Second part of Will's posting opens up another debate.
"True that Serbia was hostage to Kosovo vote in former Yugoslavia, but thats what needed to happen if they wanted to keep Kosovo."
Then he continues to say:
"Lets remember Kosovo is 2 million people who are ethnically and religiously different. Not a few hunderd thousand."
So, it's the number?
Let's remember, by last pre-war census Serbs living west of Drina River (Bosnia and Croatia) amount to more then 2.1 million. I suppouse that you are suggesting giving them independance then? Following the same rules as Ahtisaari plan, they can't join Serbia, etc.
Or is it a precentage?
Last census that Albanians participated in was in 1981 (one in 1991 was again, boycotted). There were complains about that census in 1981 as it was done by Kosovo institutions. Complains came mosty from Goranis who were massivelly counted as Albanians, but never mind that now.
In this census, Albanians were 7.7% of population of Yugislavia. Given that in 1971 they were 6.4% (1.3% increase over the 10 years), they were probablly 9% in 1991. (I'm taking data here before any ethnic cleansing took place).
So, if you claim that Albanian treatment in Yugoslavia was bad, and rights insufficient, what rights were needed for Croatian Serbs, or Bosnian Serbs, both larger percentage in their respective new countries (after they declared independence).
Or what about them in their new, soon-to-be-declared coutnry (Kosovo)?
Take the percentage before ethnic cleansing. Obviously, giving them right to have their own parliament, to govern themselves, to police themselves, and to keep rest of Kosovo hostage is not enough (or why would you revolt and demand more rights in 1980?). But, let's just say that it is.
So, would you say that Northern Kosovo should keep the rest of Kosovo hostage "but thats what needed to happen if they wanted to keep (my insert here, Northern) Kosovo". Remember, they "will not agree to being ruled by Pristina (my insert here, instead of Belgrade) in any matter
Or you would say that "It benefits both to have separation as then neither will be hostage to the other."
Or think about it and let us know. It seems to me that you are complaining how badly you were treated in Yugoslavia, and how you didn't have rights, etc. etc. while in the same time, you wouldn't even dream of giving even the same rights (not larger) to the minority in what you consider to be your country (Kosovo).
But, debate was really interesting and I'm glad to see that there are people here that really know very well matter that we are talking about.
Now this was very long so my actual comment on Mr. Montgomery's article will have to come later or tomorrow.

Now, to say something about article itself.
There is not much to say. I found comment No. 4 by Mike to be exceptionally well written. And it reflects my views completelly (completelly, like more then 50%).
Montgomery wrote:

"Tadić now has a mandate to support vigorously his two-track approach of continuing both to advocate the Serbian position on Kosovo and to at the same time pursue integration with the European Union. "
I would like Serbia to take Tadic's two-track approach. I don't see any reason for Serbia not to sign the document offered by EU for signing. But, in the same time I have come to believe that this two-track approach will soon be comming to an end, due to pending Kosovo Independence Declaration and EU mission to Kosovo.
I believe that, (weather we like it or not) public oppinion in Serbia have won't accept both things simultaniously. In the end, EU membership AND Kosovo independance may not take place, but rather EU membership OR Kosovo inedependance. And choice will be with EU.
There is another thing in Mongomery's article that I found very worrysome.

"This all brings to mind the standard television scenes of broadcasters standing out in the wind and rain on a shoreline, looking at the angry sea and waiting for the hurricane which is about to descend on them. While this "hurricane" will be entirely due to human decisions, that doesn't mean that the damage will be any less devastating."

Unfortunatelly, I think that this is what will happen.
While US verbally supports freedom of choice, etc. in practice it comes down as a devastating hurricane on those who choose to follow the path of their own.
Verbal: "everyone is free to choose its destiny" in practise is "everyone is free to choose destiny we've envisioned for you".
Great "freedom" and "independence".
May I remaind you that even during Stallin's rule in Soviet Union, everyone was free to share Stallin's oppinion (and to freely express it).
But, there is a difference between freedom and tyrrany.
When it comes to US, it walks like a duck, it sounds like a duck, it must be democrasy, right?
Should Serbia choose not to follow path of European integration, you should respect that. Serbia is not a threat to EU or US in any way. Show some ability to tolerate divergent oppinion.

Whenever Montgomery writes about Kostunica, it seems identical to Abraham Lincoln's critics 150 years ago. Just like Lincoln, Kostunica might not be "pragmatic", but he is principled and his first interest is Serbia's legitimate defense. No one can rightly accuse Kostunica of taking the easy way out, or only caring about being reelected. He is fully willing to sacrifice his political viability for the good of the country, and I wish more policitians, Serbian or otherwise, were like him.

I've been fascinated by events in former Yugoslavia, and I tried to gain full understanding of everything that took place there. I spent a lot of time trying to understand root causes of the conflict, looking for them in some injustice perpertrated by Serbs against others in Yugoslavia. I can't say that I found one. I could even say that Serbs were in inferior position then anyone else. In the subject debated here, Kosovo "held Serbia hostage". No other republic was in this postion.
I use to be one of those who blame Serbs for everything. Today, I think that problems were different. All other ethnic groups were more-less flirting with nation-state ethnic idea. Albanians more then others. Forces in their societies that were leaning that way have gained unprecedented support from the outside.
I was suprised to realise that Serbs have actually accepted Yugoslavian idea as no other ethnic group did. Not because Yugoslavia was ruled by them, in some ways they were less in control then others. Such devotion and readiness to live with the others in one common state are intriguing to me. Especailly given a history of the region, including recent history of the WW2. This is something that was worthy of every support.
I couldn't tell you why others did not accept Yugoslavia just the same, except that there is more awareness now inside of EU of the simmilar trends. It's a problem of incusion.
As the one we are facing today, as suburbs of Paris are burning with increasing frequency. It's not a problem of human rights.
I wish all the best to all of you, and for troubles in the region to be solved.

I've hear a lot of those arguments before, and I gave it a lot of thought.
One of the arguments was about strange addmition standards to military and police academies. Yugoslavia was a good country, with rights of its citizents exceeding even the right of many western democratic countries in some areas. But, it was still a communist country. It was reflected mostly in military and police force there. Unlike in western societies, those were not non-political organizations. Communists wanted them to be loyal to their ideas. Applicants comming from the families with WW2 partisan ties were heavily favoured over all others. And it just happened that they were mostly Serbs.
At this point we have to ask ourselves a question of motivation for this practice. Was it a reward for participation in liberation of the country? I don't think that it was. Chetniks were also fighting Germans, but applicant from known "Chetnik family" would find it literally impossible to be addmited to either military or police academy. Never you mind school marks. Communists mistrusted them and considered them to be unfit for those kind of jobs. In a word, it was a closed club where people from "common" families had difficulties getting in, and those from "wrong" families that have produced Ustashas or Chetniks in the past found impossible to get it.
It's still hard to look at it through ethnic prism. I'm convinced that it didn't matter as long as you are a communist, or someone who was assumed to be left indoctrinated through the family. Practice very wrong, but, in my oppinion not ethnically, but ideologically motivated.
As for a years of service, in our professional armed forces retirement after 20 years of active service is a norm. Given that most of them take recruits as young as 16, people retireing at 36 are not very uncommon.
Sitting of the capital city is another one that I'm not hearing for the first time. Unlike the officer stuffing practice, I don't see anything wrong with this one at all. A good friend of mine from the UK, had been offered to move in order to keep the job. His employer have decided to move the headquarters from Edinburgh, Scottland to London, England. He still did not make a decision to move, but time is running short.
One of the reasons for the company's move is to be closer to the government sitting, as they contract for a government a lot.
London is financial and banking hub of Britain, and a sitting place of the government, too. For the sake of connections it only make sense for this company to move to London.
Also, Brittish government, being in London, probably have disproportional number of English in its employ.
Yet, I would have difficulties to see this as proof of discrimination of the Scots in Brittain.
Also, if that is a proof of discrimination, we could also say that Serbs are discriminated in Croatia and Bosnia, as their capitals are situated in Zagreb and Sarajevo, and not in Knin and Banyaluca. I don't think that position of the capital can be taken as proof of discrimination. I think that you are aware of it when you say "just like Budapest and many more capitals". I see nothing that we can't see anywhere else.
And with 1974 constitution virtually all the powers were transferred to the republics, and Yugoslavia was a very, very loose federation. I don't see how anybody can blame federal government for anything after that point, when all the decision making was done in the republics.
Sure, there was a transfer of money towards the underdeveloped. Speaking of that I have to say that I was very surprised to find out that Serbia (and Voivodana) were on the contributing side of this formula. Very surprised, I say, as they payed in silence, unlike Croatia, and especially Slovenia. According to the numebers from Encycloppedia Brittanica, which is a very good source, they payed their share proportionally. You should know that those payments are not unheard of in other countries. Most of the French south is on the recieving end of such payments from better developed north. To name another country, west Germany is still making a huge payments to the former East Germany.
I'm not trying to defend Yugoslavia here. Slovenians were worried that ever increasing transfer payments, especially to Kosovo, are slowing growth of their economy. They looked at the problem as primarilly Serbia's problem, not theirs. And they've decided on plebiscite in 1991 to disassociate themselves from Yugoslavia. There is nothing wrong with that, and those are valid reasons. What I can't understand is constant attempts to present this move as liberation from ethnic discrimination suffered under Yugoslavian state. There is no need for that. There are also no arguments to support that.

The Serbs are between a rock and a hard place. The knifes are out and they are stabbing each other in the back and doing the EU empires dirty work. They should form by all means "Government of National Unity". Serbia will be treated as a pariah state any ways embodiment of all evil if they don't follow the EU and the so called west self serving program. Serbia will be damed if they do and damed if they don't a know win situation.

PJD, whether Milosevic limited or cut kosovo autonomy is irrelevant because it allowed him 4 votes (vojvodinas, kosovos, serbias and puppet Montenegros) in a 8-vote presidency. It meant that Milosevic's votes counted for 50% of all votes and thats what ended Yugoslavia. It meant that all other states had to vote together to just even get a deadlock. This is what ended Yugoslavia. No sane republic would have agreed to being under mercy of Milosevic. Slovenian and Croatian independece with world support was merely an end result. Now whether Milosevic gained his 4 votes legally or illegally through serbian courts is irrelevant. End result was him having basically complete control of Yugoslav presidency and his rejection of Croatian candidates when it was Croatia's turn to be the president merely added to suspicions about his agenda.

True that Serbia was hostage to Kosovo vote in former Yugoslavia, but thats what needed to happen if they wanted to keep Kosovo. Lets remember Kosovo is 2 million people who are ethnically and religiously different. Not a few hunderd thousand. Even now, if Kosovo was to remain within serbia, it would again be a hostage as Kosovo will not agree to being ruled by Belgrade in any matter. Based on recent history, it is not enough of an an arguement to say Kosovo is to be part of serbia for purely "sentimental" reasons. It benefits both to have separation as then neither will be hostage to the other.

As for Serbs leaving Kosovo...I think its no secret that Kosovo was poorest part of former Yugoslavia and negative serb population growth is no surprise. how much of it was "cleansing" and how much of it was merely economic, I cant quantify, however, pointing out to a particular stat without looking at reasons behind it doesnt represent a true picture.

To: Mike

". Believe me, the vast majority of Serbs are true believers in democracy."


Where was that ferver of belief prior to the wars?

To: PJD

"
Kosovo abused its excessive autonomy. Between 1981 and 1987, more than 40,000 Serbs fled Kosovo under pressure from Albanians who were striving to create an ethnically pure Albanian Kosovo.
"

Are you 100% unequivacally sure that the only reason those ppl left was bc of Albanians?

Or was it the fact that every region of FROY had an average groth of 6-7% per year while growth in Kosovo/a was in negative double digits and those ppl left for ECONOMIC REASONS?

I believe Economics had a greater reason for why ppl left and why they sent their kids to the University of Belgrade and elsewhere and those Serbians saw better work opportunities elsewhere in the FROY.

Why did large masses of Albanians leave the Province during that same period to head to other areas of the world? You think it was bc they had "excessive autonomy"? Or that they couldn't find a job?

In 1989 Serbia amended its constitution and the amendments were adopted with the consent of the Serbian assembly, the Vojovodina assembly, and the Kosovo assembly. Some have said that military pressure was exerted on the Kosovo assembly to force it to accept the amendments. Jovic denied that this was the case. He said that the Army was only present around the assembly to protect it from the Kosovo Albanian citizens who were demonstrating against the acceptance of the amendments.

"In 1989 Serbia amended its constitution and the amendments were adopted with the consent of the Serbian assembly, the Vojovodina assembly, and the Kosovo assembly. Some have said that military pressure was exerted on the Kosovo assembly to force it to accept the amendments. Jovic denied that this was the case. He said that the Army was only present around the assembly to protect it from the Kosovo Albanian citizens who were demonstrating against the acceptance of the amendments.
"

Why would someone vote yes to a proposal knowing that they will be fired after the proposal was inacted into law?

And we are talking about COMMUNIST FROY!

There was no DEMOCRACY in your country in that era and today its still shy of being a fully democratic state.

You keep pointing to the Constitution of 1974 and showing justifications of why actions were taken.

And today the only offer Serbia has given is that same autonomy they enjoyed prior to 1989. Does that sound like a genuine compromise to the current situation?

What guarantees can your government offer these ppl that Serbia will not take them away whenever it pleases the political elite to do so?

I respect your viewpoints but don't think so innocently about the situation. Milosevic was on a power trip and would do anything to maintain power. Even having the police beat other law abiding citizens in the capital. I recall seeing that on CNN and those police had no remorse in what they were doing to their own ppl. How can a minority group trust the govt or the ppl of that country?

Thank God for sane ppl and the will to overthrow that man. He shouldn't even be called a Serb, for he is a disgrace to your ppl and not a hero of any kind. Beating his own ppl, ordering the killing of other groups in Croatia, BH, and finally Kosovo/a!

Peace to all and hopefully you guys can find a lasting solution to your problems.

"Mladic is demanded to stand before the Hague, while Thaci is elected to high office." (Mike)

You cannot compare Thaci with Mladic. Mladic was directly responisble for the biggest massacre of innocent civilians since WW2, 8000 innocent men and boys, at one time.

While a lot of serbs dislike Thaci for his role in KLA, there is no evidence to suggest that he directly or indirectly commited crimes against serbs. Whatever Thaci might have done, it certainly not compareable to what Mladic did.

So, i don't think its double standards or hypocrisy there coming from the West, but its a fact, the biggest war criminals since WW2 were serbian.

At the same time I would like to add that, if Thaci has been directly involved in some massacre of serb civilians then he should go to Hague. But so far, there only seems to be empty accusations, and no real evidence implicating Thaci himself.

I can't approve of his leftist ideas, but Sreten is making some good points here.
You want us to believe that Serbs ruined Yugoslavia. Albanians wanted it, just stopped when Milosevic came to power?
Why do we keep hearing from Albanian posters here that they never wanted any Yugoslavia (or Serbia), and that they were "occupied" in 1912?
I would say that they never accepted the state they lived in. This has nothing to do with minority right. After all, as Sreten pointed out, if you think that minority needs to have more right in some country, give it to Kosovo Serbs.
Even if Kosovo becomes independend, you will have a same problem with your minority. Serbs will never accept Kosovo as their state. Show us now, what to do? And how to solve this?
When Croats rejected Yugoslavia as their country, Serbs rejected Croatia as their country. We've seen one solution that took place in Croatia. It that what you will do? It that what Serbs needed to do with Albanians from the beginning? Throwing them out. Show us, let's see.

Mr Mongomery,

I understand that you live in Serbia. So most of your articles are written with tone against Serbs. They seem to be unable to do anything right and yet you are stil walking the streets of Belgrade obviously without any fear.

Please go to Pristina live there for a while and write about Pristinas gang in government and who they are then walk the streets and lets see how long that will last.

Of cause, you won't do that because it is much easier to bad mouth Serbs after all, it is open season on Serbs and you don't even have to worry about their feelings because people like you poisened the world against the Serbs.

I must say I was impressed by the ability of the KLA leaders to switch roles from military commanders to modern politicians. Although serbs, have continuously hammered the idea that the KLA is a terrorist group, uncivilized thugs who are able only to make war, and kill, the KLA - unlike many guerrilla forces around the world - transformed itself into a vigorous, moderate and civilized political force. I must apprise the Albanians for this, as well as for the fact that they were the ONLY - I repeat THE ONLY - side in the Balkan conflicts which exhausted 10 years of peaceful resistance to get their independence. All other once stated killing right away.

Sreten,

I was completely blown away by your comment, very well stated. Mike as always, your input from an outside perspective is always informative and welcome.

Mr. Montgomery,

You make the false assumption that everyone who voted for Tadic supports all of his policies completely. Its very likely that those who switched their votes to Tadic in the runoff election did so merely because they didn’t want to vote for Nikolic. You see this often in the US with its two party system, where we are very often reduced to voting for the lesser of two evils. It’s completely unrealistic to proclaim that everyone who votes for a politician supports every item on their election platform. Tadic most certainly does NOT have any sort of mandate to pursue European integration at any cost. The polls clearly show Serbian electorate would not trade the EU for Kosovo. Not to mention more people voted for Nikolic in the first election than for Tadic.

Both Tadic and Kostunica are being silly at a time when we should be showing unity. I personally don’t see the rush to sign anything with the EU at this point in time. I actually support Kostunica sending a clear message that it’s either the EU or Kosovo but not both. I do think Serbia should pursue Free Trade and Visa’s with the EU, but not join until Russia does and brings true balance to the organization. However, right now is just not the time to make any further moves towards the EU until the Kosovo issue is settled or the EU shows a little more reason and returns to the negotiating table and considers something besides full independence for all of Kosovo. Partition should NOT be a dirty word. Maybe its time to finally hammer out a consistent policy on how to treat ALL minorities in Europe so we don’t have to pretend it won’t set a precedent. If it’s a good and long term solution, it should be applied to everyone universally.

This kind of disjointed arguing and posturing isn't going to impress any outsider observing events in Serbia. The impression given is of a bunch of quarrelsome and irrelevant political hacks from a negligible forgotten country striking a pose on an issue for the trite reason of gaining some imagined domestic political advantage. This sort of foolishness screams weakness to the world and events will unfold as outside parties see fit. If Kosovo is indeed Serbia...as I have heard over and over from Serbs...it must act as if its country is being attacked by rebels. Creating facts on the ground in Kosovo with a carefully planned and very disciplined military takeover of sovereign territory is doable. Serbia would have to exercise extreme caution. If anything resembling the atrocities of past conflicts occurred, it would open the door to a similar military reaction from the western powers as seen in the 1990's. Resistance in the West to a military reaction would be initially very strong, particularly if the takeover was handled quickly without bloodshed as its goal. Can the Serb military act like a modern western military power? Does it have the Officer Corp and professional NCO's to pull it off? I don't know...

Mr. Montgomery,
I have never yet seen that maybe U.S policy may be flowed in the case of Kosovo. When Sadam attacked Kuwait there was an outrage by U.S. administration and we went to war to defend Kuwait. In the case of Kosovo to all the Serbs it is no less then if we told Palestenians today to declare unilateral indipendence and them Israel on the silver plater. That is why the Serbs can not ever forget or fogive U.S. or stop fighting for Kosovo. The break up of Yugoslavia was forgiven and Serbs tried hard to integrate again in the international comunity, but have been blamed , pushed and shoved and humiliated and degraded and the kosovo is the ultimate humiliation that you can inflict on a proud people. How many christian churches in the world do you know that date back like churches in Kosovo. You can probably count them on the fingers of you hands. Let's stop double standards and double talk and spins and get back to reality.
Shame on you. History repeats its self and the day will come when you and all that participated in this shamful , imoral , illigal policy will recognise it as such.

Since various references have been made to former Yugoslavija in the current round of comments, it is logical to see Jean Bertrand enquiring in more depth about how things ran then. Here are three groups of facts which may be relevant.

In 1991 the British international paper Guardian Weekly,published figures showing that 70% of the officers running the Yu army were serbian. At that time you could not enter a college or similar institution to work in the army. We students in Belgrade knew that this was a closed club. Very similar numbers applied to the police. You can look up who were the figures at the top of both institutions and the percentages of nationalities will show the same trend. In addition, many officers retired early, like the father of a friend of mine who retired at around 40, having attained a fairly high rank. I'll leave it to your imagination how these nubmers of men reacted when the time came for sabre rattling.

My third group of facts relates to the siting of the cappital city of the old Yu. Just like Budapest and many more capitals in pre internet and modern media times, the cream of professional people could only tolerate living in the capital. Similarly, actors,studios for film and tv were at that time (pre video tape and modern indesrtuctible cameras), very much fixed in capial cities. This meant that Belgrade, being in those years 10 times bigger than say Zagreb anyway, was at a huge advantage when it came to hosting trade delegations. Thus contracts and contacts would obviously be distributed in a way that weighted Serbia's chances.

In addition, the excellent University research into say machines...done in Belgrade also gave big advantages to Serbia. I mean that machines like traactors and tanks have a lot in common and weapons research is never very far away. And perhaps you have heard of Tito's initiative with non-aligned coutries? Not aligned to west or east, it was a good idea and an even better marketing ploy. Indonesia, a number of african countries and so on.

As a last note I will tell you a bitter joke from the Croatia of the 80's:
The Serbs grabbed the lion's share of contracts to supply Saddam's Iraq (of those years obviously) with heavy machinery. At the end of the 80's when it became obvious that the machines were not going to be properly paid for, the phrase was "well now the have the lion's share of the debt". Believe me, we weren't really laughing.
Best wishes in your quest for the facts, International Iki.

A bitter croatiancomment on the above went likethis "

Dear Jean,
Your followup to my text shows a huge amount of knowledge. Having left Yugo 30 odd years ago, I tend to go by gut feeling about what happened in the terrible 90s.
I agree completely that ethnic problems shouldn't ever be used in connection with the dissolution of old Yugo. The rights for women for example were exemplary, as was education ...Of course it depended on where you lived, to an extent that you couldn't imagine if you haven't physically been there. Another point on which you are absolutely correct is the help richer regions offer to poorer. We all knew that infant mortality in Kosovo was unacceptably high, for example.
If we allow everything you said to be valid, I believe that you can have very little idea how horrific it was to observe from outside this multiethnic, liberal (if you lived in the right place), successful society, with everyone in Belgrade having relatives and friends in say Sarajevo; true with poor southern regions with little tourism like Kosmet or Macedonia, but with the possibility of the tourist dollar making its way from the beaches inland, to suddenly explode into genocide.
My whole ( and The guardian Wekly's) about the numbers running the army were not given because they reflected nationalism of any kind. they reflected that when the army movedon Slovenia, mothers in Bosna were screaming to have their conscripted sons released.
There are archive photos of everything I say - because i wasn't there. but I could feel the mounting horror. After Slovenia came Zagreb. Not much happened there. But Vukovar is another story. Guardian weekly: we went into the small bakery in the slavonian village. there was a smell of blood.

Next came Sarajevo. My moher said you should see the number of cars in belgrade with Sarajevo registrations. Do you know how many snipers had fun in the hills around Sarajevo ( not all sebian , I'll bet a good many international mercenaies had lovely target practice there with free arms and ammunition) 18 000 according to Hague.

OK so they shelled dubrovnik . I had small kids by then and never looked at newspapers. Still, I gazed at a newsstand and saw "montenegrian weekend outings dad and sons take rifles and shoot on jaunt to Bosnia". There is a book ( published in Belgrade, there WAS a peace movement, my mother was in it) "They shot at ccattle".
Or the time I was on duty in our primary school and glanced at the newspaper lining the painting table: Bodybags in Shibenik" Do you knoe how it went? A serb neighbour denounces you and you're dead. There were also acts of kindness (also published in Bgd newspapers after the war) 'The serb neighbour who could have denounced me didn't. He saved my life.
Next: The west publishes pictures of busses ccarrying children from Sarajevo to Italy. Desperate parents :"are we doing the right thing" . Can you imagine the scenes? Do you have any idea how many people were shot in Sarajevo? Can you believe the traumatisation of the ones left alive ( doctor on the saving of a little girl transferred to the west: "do they know that over 90 people die every day in this hospital"? (He wasn't referring to cancer)

Only two or three things left now: A Srebrenica woman remembers ( from extract published in Bgd progressive paper, before the tycoons stepped in) "The sound I will never forget is the desperate lowing of the cattle." While the remaining women were coping with unimaginable horror the cattle were dying of thirst. No automatic watering youo see like we have i9n the west...Think about it.

A story told by a woman in the peace movemen'ts headquarters ( pokey rooms changing every few months Danish reporter to my mum " ther must surely be m,any in your peace movement?" yes she replied, around 1 000. Well one day a kosovo woman comes in and tells this story : thet came and killed all the men and boys. Only one 10 yoarold who was visiting survived. (exact age of my son there that tells me this was 11 years ago. You see the problems of an extended family ; lots of uncles, grandpas and so on living together...A mother comes : my daughter was told she'd lose her job if she didn't report for work that night. None of the managers appeared. She died. Who works at night?..Any guesses ? She died in bombing which had been prewarned.

Did you see the articles about brotherly soldiers in Bosnia sharing a cigarette? Have you spoken to anyone in Split having a baby in the mid 90s? The wards were full of screaming bosnian women who had been raped and were having their babies So sad, no antenatal classes you see- they were so unprepared for birth........

It is clear that the Serbs still have a hard time facing the reality. They initiated the distruction of Yougoslavia. They commited countless crimes across the former Yougoslav republics and that is why the world rallied against Serbia. Serbia never owned Kosovo, they gave the Albanians every reason to seek complete independence and nothing less with their attitude that they somehow where fighting terrorism. By dismantling Kosovo's autonomy in the late 1980's Milosevic started the independent Kosovo and now it is comming to an end. The sooner Serbia lets go of it the less painful it is going to be.

"Mladic is demanded to stand before the Hague, while Thaci is elected to high office." (Mike)

You cannot compare Thaci with Mladic. Mladic was directly responisble for the biggest massacre of innocent civilians since WW2, 8000 innocent men and boys, at one time.

While a lot of serbs dislike Thaci for his role in KLA, there is no evidence to suggest that he directly or indirectly commited crimes against serbs. Whatever Thaci might have done, it certainly not compareable to what Mladic did.

So, i don't think its double standards or hypocrisy there coming from the West, but its a fact, the biggest war criminals since WW2 were serbian.

At the same time I would like to add that, if Thaci has been directly involved in some massacre of serb civilians then he should go to Hague. But so far, there only seems to be empty accusations, and no real evidence implicating Thaci himself.

I must say I was impressed by the ability of the KLA leaders to switch roles from military commanders to modern politicians. Although serbs, have continuously hammered the idea that the KLA is a terrorist group, uncivilized thugs who are able only to make war, and kill, the KLA - unlike many guerrilla forces around the world - transformed itself into a vigorous, moderate and civilized political force. I must apprise the Albanians for this, as well as for the fact that they were the ONLY - I repeat THE ONLY - side in the Balkan conflicts which exhausted 10 years of peaceful resistance to get their independence. All other once stated killing right away.

PJD, whether Milosevic limited or cut kosovo autonomy is irrelevant because it allowed him 4 votes (vojvodinas, kosovos, serbias and puppet Montenegros) in a 8-vote presidency. It meant that Milosevic's votes counted for 50% of all votes and thats what ended Yugoslavia. It meant that all other states had to vote together to just even get a deadlock. This is what ended Yugoslavia. No sane republic would have agreed to being under mercy of Milosevic. Slovenian and Croatian independece with world support was merely an end result. Now whether Milosevic gained his 4 votes legally or illegally through serbian courts is irrelevant. End result was him having basically complete control of Yugoslav presidency and his rejection of Croatian candidates when it was Croatia's turn to be the president merely added to suspicions about his agenda.

True that Serbia was hostage to Kosovo vote in former Yugoslavia, but thats what needed to happen if they wanted to keep Kosovo. Lets remember Kosovo is 2 million people who are ethnically and religiously different. Not a few hunderd thousand. Even now, if Kosovo was to remain within serbia, it would again be a hostage as Kosovo will not agree to being ruled by Belgrade in any matter. Based on recent history, it is not enough of an an arguement to say Kosovo is to be part of serbia for purely "sentimental" reasons. It benefits both to have separation as then neither will be hostage to the other.

As for Serbs leaving Kosovo...I think its no secret that Kosovo was poorest part of former Yugoslavia and negative serb population growth is no surprise. how much of it was "cleansing" and how much of it was merely economic, I cant quantify, however, pointing out to a particular stat without looking at reasons behind it doesnt represent a true picture.

To: Mike

". Believe me, the vast majority of Serbs are true believers in democracy."


Where was that ferver of belief prior to the wars?

To: PJD

"
Kosovo abused its excessive autonomy. Between 1981 and 1987, more than 40,000 Serbs fled Kosovo under pressure from Albanians who were striving to create an ethnically pure Albanian Kosovo.
"

Are you 100% unequivacally sure that the only reason those ppl left was bc of Albanians?

Or was it the fact that every region of FROY had an average groth of 6-7% per year while growth in Kosovo/a was in negative double digits and those ppl left for ECONOMIC REASONS?

I believe Economics had a greater reason for why ppl left and why they sent their kids to the University of Belgrade and elsewhere and those Serbians saw better work opportunities elsewhere in the FROY.

Why did large masses of Albanians leave the Province during that same period to head to other areas of the world? You think it was bc they had "excessive autonomy"? Or that they couldn't find a job?

In 1989 Serbia amended its constitution and the amendments were adopted with the consent of the Serbian assembly, the Vojovodina assembly, and the Kosovo assembly. Some have said that military pressure was exerted on the Kosovo assembly to force it to accept the amendments. Jovic denied that this was the case. He said that the Army was only present around the assembly to protect it from the Kosovo Albanian citizens who were demonstrating against the acceptance of the amendments.

"In 1989 Serbia amended its constitution and the amendments were adopted with the consent of the Serbian assembly, the Vojovodina assembly, and the Kosovo assembly. Some have said that military pressure was exerted on the Kosovo assembly to force it to accept the amendments. Jovic denied that this was the case. He said that the Army was only present around the assembly to protect it from the Kosovo Albanian citizens who were demonstrating against the acceptance of the amendments.
"

Why would someone vote yes to a proposal knowing that they will be fired after the proposal was inacted into law?

And we are talking about COMMUNIST FROY!

There was no DEMOCRACY in your country in that era and today its still shy of being a fully democratic state.

You keep pointing to the Constitution of 1974 and showing justifications of why actions were taken.

And today the only offer Serbia has given is that same autonomy they enjoyed prior to 1989. Does that sound like a genuine compromise to the current situation?

What guarantees can your government offer these ppl that Serbia will not take them away whenever it pleases the political elite to do so?

I respect your viewpoints but don't think so innocently about the situation. Milosevic was on a power trip and would do anything to maintain power. Even having the police beat other law abiding citizens in the capital. I recall seeing that on CNN and those police had no remorse in what they were doing to their own ppl. How can a minority group trust the govt or the ppl of that country?

Thank God for sane ppl and the will to overthrow that man. He shouldn't even be called a Serb, for he is a disgrace to your ppl and not a hero of any kind. Beating his own ppl, ordering the killing of other groups in Croatia, BH, and finally Kosovo/a!

Peace to all and hopefully you guys can find a lasting solution to your problems.

There you go again Mr Montgomery. Anybody in Serbia that loves its country is a hardliner but in any other country such a feeling would be patriotism.

Shame on you for unfair writings about Serbs every chance you have. What other country would gladly given away part of its territory. I fear that all these unwise decisions made by western leaders will come to bite us some day. God help us all for helping terrorism spread truout Balkan.

Toni, the destruction of Yugoslavia was started by Slovenia and Croatia declaring independence and trying to secede in an un-negotiated fashion. Kosovo has been unequivocally part of Serbia since 1945 and was part of Serbia before Yugoslavia prior to WWI.

Milosevic did not on a whim end Kosovo's autonomy.

A commission that amended the In 1989 the constitution of Serbia was amended to limit Kosovo’s excessive level of autonomy. Kosovo’s autonomy was not revoked by the amendments it was simply limited to a sensible level.

Under the 1974 constitution, Serbia couldn’t enact laws or amend its constitution unless the provinces approved it. Serbia was held hostage by its provinces. The provinces, on the other hand, could do anything they wished and Serbia couldn’t stop them.

The 1974 constitution conflicted with itself and with the Serbian constitution. Article III of that constitution granted the republics (not the provinces) the status of states within Yugoslavia. Because of the provinces’ excessive level of autonomy, the republic of Serbia was denied its rightful status and was placed at a disadvantage to other republics within the SFRY.

Because of Kosovo’s excessive autonomy, citizens who were wronged by the Kosovo judiciary couldn’t appeal their cases to the Serbian Supreme Court, even though they were citizens of the Republic of Serbia. Authority began and ended with Kosovo.

Kosovo abused its excessive autonomy. Between 1981 and 1987, more than 40,000 Serbs fled Kosovo under pressure from Albanians who were striving to create an ethnically pure Albanian Kosovo.

The situation was nonsense, and something had to be done to protect the non-Albanian citizens in Kosovo. In 1988 Serbia appealed to the government of the SFRY. The SFRY, with the consent of all 6 republics and both provinces responded by amending the SFRY constitution, thereby allowing Serbia to amend its constitution.

In 1989 Serbia amended its constitution and the amendments were adopted with the consent of the Serbian assembly, the Vojovodina assembly, and the Kosovo assembly. Some have said that military pressure was exerted on the Kosovo assembly to force it to accept the amendments. Jovic denied that this was the case. He said that the Army was only present around the assembly to protect it from the Kosovo Albanian citizens who were demonstrating against the acceptance of the amendments.

Since various references have been made to former Yugoslavija in the current round of comments, it is logical to see Jean Bertrand enquiring in more depth about how things ran then. Here are three groups of facts which may be relevant.

In 1991 the British international paper Guardian Weekly,published figures showing that 70% of the officers running the Yu army were serbian. At that time you could not enter a college or similar institution to work in the army. We students in Belgrade knew that this was a closed club. Very similar numbers applied to the police. You can look up who were the figures at the top of both institutions and the percentages of nationalities will show the same trend. In addition, many officers retired early, like the father of a friend of mine who retired at around 40, having attained a fairly high rank. I'll leave it to your imagination how these nubmers of men reacted when the time came for sabre rattling.

My third group of facts relates to the siting of the cappital city of the old Yu. Just like Budapest and many more capitals in pre internet and modern media times, the cream of professional people could only tolerate living in the capital. Similarly, actors,studios for film and tv were at that time (pre video tape and modern indesrtuctible cameras), very much fixed in capial cities. This meant that Belgrade, being in those years 10 times bigger than say Zagreb anyway, was at a huge advantage when it came to hosting trade delegations. Thus contracts and contacts would obviously be distributed in a way that weighted Serbia's chances.

In addition, the excellent University research into say machines...done in Belgrade also gave big advantages to Serbia. I mean that machines like traactors and tanks have a lot in common and weapons research is never very far away. And perhaps you have heard of Tito's initiative with non-aligned coutries? Not aligned to west or east, it was a good idea and an even better marketing ploy. Indonesia, a number of african countries and so on.

As a last note I will tell you a bitter joke from the Croatia of the 80's:
The Serbs grabbed the lion's share of contracts to supply Saddam's Iraq (of those years obviously) with heavy machinery. At the end of the 80's when it became obvious that the machines were not going to be properly paid for, the phrase was "well now the have the lion's share of the debt". Believe me, we weren't really laughing.
Best wishes in your quest for the facts, International Iki.

A bitter croatiancomment on the above went likethis "

Mr Mongomery,

I understand that you live in Serbia. So most of your articles are written with tone against Serbs. They seem to be unable to do anything right and yet you are stil walking the streets of Belgrade obviously without any fear.

Please go to Pristina live there for a while and write about Pristinas gang in government and who they are then walk the streets and lets see how long that will last.

Of cause, you won't do that because it is much easier to bad mouth Serbs after all, it is open season on Serbs and you don't even have to worry about their feelings because people like you poisened the world against the Serbs.

The Serbs are between a rock and a hard place. The knifes are out and they are stabbing each other in the back and doing the EU empires dirty work. They should form by all means "Government of National Unity". Serbia will be treated as a pariah state any ways embodiment of all evil if they don't follow the EU and the so called west self serving program. Serbia will be damed if they do and damed if they don't a know win situation.

Dear Jean,
Your followup to my text shows a huge amount of knowledge. Having left Yugo 30 odd years ago, I tend to go by gut feeling about what happened in the terrible 90s.
I agree completely that ethnic problems shouldn't ever be used in connection with the dissolution of old Yugo. The rights for women for example were exemplary, as was education ...Of course it depended on where you lived, to an extent that you couldn't imagine if you haven't physically been there. Another point on which you are absolutely correct is the help richer regions offer to poorer. We all knew that infant mortality in Kosovo was unacceptably high, for example.
If we allow everything you said to be valid, I believe that you can have very little idea how horrific it was to observe from outside this multiethnic, liberal (if you lived in the right place), successful society, with everyone in Belgrade having relatives and friends in say Sarajevo; true with poor southern regions with little tourism like Kosmet or Macedonia, but with the possibility of the tourist dollar making its way from the beaches inland, to suddenly explode into genocide.
My whole ( and The guardian Wekly's) about the numbers running the army were not given because they reflected nationalism of any kind. they reflected that when the army movedon Slovenia, mothers in Bosna were screaming to have their conscripted sons released.
There are archive photos of everything I say - because i wasn't there. but I could feel the mounting horror. After Slovenia came Zagreb. Not much happened there. But Vukovar is another story. Guardian weekly: we went into the small bakery in the slavonian village. there was a smell of blood.

Next came Sarajevo. My moher said you should see the number of cars in belgrade with Sarajevo registrations. Do you know how many snipers had fun in the hills around Sarajevo ( not all sebian , I'll bet a good many international mercenaies had lovely target practice there with free arms and ammunition) 18 000 according to Hague.

OK so they shelled dubrovnik . I had small kids by then and never looked at newspapers. Still, I gazed at a newsstand and saw "montenegrian weekend outings dad and sons take rifles and shoot on jaunt to Bosnia". There is a book ( published in Belgrade, there WAS a peace movement, my mother was in it) "They shot at ccattle".
Or the time I was on duty in our primary school and glanced at the newspaper lining the painting table: Bodybags in Shibenik" Do you knoe how it went? A serb neighbour denounces you and you're dead. There were also acts of kindness (also published in Bgd newspapers after the war) 'The serb neighbour who could have denounced me didn't. He saved my life.
Next: The west publishes pictures of busses ccarrying children from Sarajevo to Italy. Desperate parents :"are we doing the right thing" . Can you imagine the scenes? Do you have any idea how many people were shot in Sarajevo? Can you believe the traumatisation of the ones left alive ( doctor on the saving of a little girl transferred to the west: "do they know that over 90 people die every day in this hospital"? (He wasn't referring to cancer)

Only two or three things left now: A Srebrenica woman remembers ( from extract published in Bgd progressive paper, before the tycoons stepped in) "The sound I will never forget is the desperate lowing of the cattle." While the remaining women were coping with unimaginable horror the cattle were dying of thirst. No automatic watering youo see like we have i9n the west...Think about it.

A story told by a woman in the peace movemen'ts headquarters ( pokey rooms changing every few months Danish reporter to my mum " ther must surely be m,any in your peace movement?" yes she replied, around 1 000. Well one day a kosovo woman comes in and tells this story : thet came and killed all the men and boys. Only one 10 yoarold who was visiting survived. (exact age of my son there that tells me this was 11 years ago. You see the problems of an extended family ; lots of uncles, grandpas and so on living together...A mother comes : my daughter was told she'd lose her job if she didn't report for work that night. None of the managers appeared. She died. Who works at night?..Any guesses ? She died in bombing which had been prewarned.

Did you see the articles about brotherly soldiers in Bosnia sharing a cigarette? Have you spoken to anyone in Split having a baby in the mid 90s? The wards were full of screaming bosnian women who had been raped and were having their babies So sad, no antenatal classes you see- they were so unprepared for birth........

A number of points raised:

First, reflections on the SRS. Very true. Most Serbs voted for SRS out of frustration with the current political situation in Serbia, rather than any emotional feelings of Greater Serbia. Western media loves to portray Nikolic as a "hardliner" and an "ultranationalist" (whatever that means), and his party as the "Far Right", akin to Germany's NDP or Zirinovskly LDP in Russia. All such observations continue to show the level of ignorance the West has over Serbia. Your argument that the SRS popularity is translated into "screw you" votes is far more on the money. Yes, there are still a number of true Selesj/Milosevic supporters, but then again, Hitler has at least a 25% approval rating in West Germany well into the 1960s.

Second, Kosovo. Talking to Serbs here, I've found that even the most committed supporters of DS find the international community's take on Kosovo to be the height of hypocrisy. Many ordinary Serbs are justifiably angry at what they see as the United States lending a sympathetic hand to every ethnic group in the Balkans to realize their own self-determination, while turning a deaf ear to similar calls from Serbs. Mladic is demanded to stand before the Hague, while Thaci is elected to high office. Albanians are given a state, while Serbs are turned into IDPs. Calling for Serbia to embrace democratic values and work towards European integration, while simultaneoulsly saying basically "we're going to take away parts of your territory and there's nothing you can do about it", creates a collective feeling among Serbs of "why should we join you?" Why should Serbia join the ranks of countries that are actively seeking to dismember it and give absolutely no ear to their pleas or calls for compromise? This is something that many outside of Serbia overlook, and when they do hear a Serb daring to complain about Kosovo, it's usually assumed they're just some crazy nationalist leftover from the Milosevic days. Believe me, the vast majority of Serbs are true believers in democracy. It's just that "democracy" is seen as internationally imposed and conditioned. No one would accept that.

Third, Tadic. Now that the EU has the Serbian leader they want to work with, going ahead with a planned EU mission to Kosovo and planning on acknowledging a UDI will effectively kill any mandate Tadic had with last week's election. Tadic will have to make a major choice: reject the UDI and fall in line with every other politician in Belgrade, or continue coopperating with the EU which may risk him political suicide and lead to the call of general elections that could bring to power a SRS-DSS coalition.

Somehow I would have thought that a Tadic victory may have slowed down the independence process for a while in order to allow Serbia to get on its feet and make concrete steps towards the EU. Independence could then come once Serbia is clearly on its way to EU membership, thus making the loss of Kosovo less traumatic. Obviously the timing of this UDI could not have been worse.

If the Belgrade government falls and Serbia is cast into unpredictable instability and chaos, the responsibility will rest sqaurely on the shoulders of those states adamant about pushing for Kosovo's UDI. It therefore remains to be seen what the very same states that are prepared to recognize Kosovo's declaration will react to Serbia's activity in Kosovo as a response. In the end, Kosovo's independence will not "close the book" on ethnic problems in the Balkans. It will merely be the start of a new chapter.

Whenever Montgomery writes about Kostunica, it seems identical to Abraham Lincoln's critics 150 years ago. Just like Lincoln, Kostunica might not be "pragmatic", but he is principled and his first interest is Serbia's legitimate defense. No one can rightly accuse Kostunica of taking the easy way out, or only caring about being reelected. He is fully willing to sacrifice his political viability for the good of the country, and I wish more policitians, Serbian or otherwise, were like him.

It's interesting article, and good one in some ways. I'll have to respond with two separate comments. First one will be about interesting debate that was started by other posters. It's off the topic of the article, but it's very interesting. Second one will comment on article itself.
Posters No. 5 (PJD) and No. 6 (Will) both know what they're talking about. And it's interesting to examine their positions.
No. 5 starts with the respons to No. 2 (Toni) and explanation that Kosovo was (and legally still is) part of Serbia. I don't think that this actually deservs any respons.
The rest deals with reduction of autonomy in 1989. It's little known fact that Yugoslavian federal government decided to reduce Kosovo autonomy, not Serbian government. It was done in order to equalize Serbia to other republics and as measure to curb secessionist movement in Kosovo. ALL the republics voted for this (including Slovenia and Croatia). One could of course, argue here as Kiko does that it was a COMMUNIST country! With all due respect, communist ruled Yugoslavia more even-handedly, and even more trensparently (remember the debates on 13th Congress of the Central Comeete of the Communist Party and those fiery debates on the TV)then anything we see today, and I include Slovenia here!
Main argument.
"Toni, the destruction of Yugoslavia was started by Slovenia and Croatia declaring independence and trying to secede in an un-negotiated fashion."
Now, Will is giving some counter-arguments.
Main argument.
"it allowed him 4 votes (vojvodinas, kosovos, serbias and puppet Montenegros) in a 8-vote presidency. It meant that Milosevic's votes counted for 50% of all votes and thats what ended Yugoslavia. It meant that all other states had to vote together to just even get a deadlock. This is what ended Yugoslavia."
So, what really ended Yugoslavia?
One can notice that both of them, regardless of their opposite views have one thing in common. They agree that Yugoslavian constitution needed changes, and needed to be amended.
I have to say here that Will's view is 100% compatible with US and EU view and their portreying of the events in former Yugoslavia, but there are major problems with it.
First, that Serbs have gained control of 50% of the Presidency votes. (and that this in fact broke Yugoslavia apart).
Even if we take this as a fact, where did you get that Milosevic gained control of Yugoslavian Presidency?
"End result was him having basically complete control of Yugoslav presidency "
50% is not complete control.
But, I wouln't say that Montenegro was actually a puppet of Milosevic (especially later).
Besides, you are saying that Kosovo was ultimatelly pro-Serbian vote when Yugoslavian vote was decided in early 90's. True, due to a fact that Albanians boycotted the elections, leaving only Serbs and other non-Albanians at the polling stations. Just few months after the announcemnt of special measures in Kosovo in 1989, there were first elections in 1990. Few months down the road. So, if you were not happy with Kosovo being a pro-Serbian vote, why didn't you take it back, elect Rugova or whomever you wanted to represent you?
So, the story here is that Milosevic had complete control of Yugoslavia (here 50% being complete, I guess. Assuming that Montenegro was a puppet). And that the others had to leave not being able to bear the brunt of his rule.
So, the beloved narrative continues, rather then simply casting a ballot and taking Kosovo's vote at federal level back, we decided to boycott and Slovenians and Croats decided to wreck the country (with the help from the outside). And now we say that Milosevic ended Yugoslavia.
I have to ask you Will, if 50% of control over Yu-Presidency was such a problem, why didn't you simpy vote, thus reducing Milosevic's control to 3/8 of the Presidency? He wouldn't be able to do anything on federal level, right? Problem solved.
The truth is, Presidency never did anything illegal or unconstitutional.
Besides, you have chosen not to mention federal parliament at all. And in it everybody had equal number of deputies. Smallest Montenegro, and largest Serbia.
Simmilar to this case when both PJD and Will, everybody was in agreement that federal constitution needed to change, and change to reflect changes in the society. One example would be to regulate the elections.
Wasn't a Serbian side that offered to copy constitutional model of any state that Slovenia and Croatia would want?
Wasn't it Milosevic himself that suggested "one person one vote" system? And would that lead to any Serbian domination of Yugoslavia? How could it? If ALL THE SERBS voted for some pro-Serbian party they would end up with what? some 36% of the votes or so. Simply, Serbs were not majority in Yugoslavia. Period.
After all, all the Albanians posting here unanimouslly consider US to be ideal of democracy. Guess what? In the US state of Alaska, and state of California elect number of representatives corresponding to the size of their respective populations. However, Slovenia (and Croatia joined) demanded to continue to have same number of representatives as Serbia at the federal level (demanding practically for each Slovenian vote to be equivallent of 5 (or so) Serbian votes).
Miracolouslly, nobody wanted Yugoslavia to be modeled after US, Canada, Germany, Switzerland etc. (or you name it). Neither Slovenians, Croats, Albanians...
So, Kiko, if Yugoslavia was terrible as being a COMMUNIST country, why didn't you guys want to transform it, and literally COPY USA constitution? What was wrong with that?
Slovenia and Croatia decided to come up with their own suggestion - confederation. Now, this system does not exist in Europe or North America, and I'm not sure if it exists anywhere in the world. Problem would be that republics would be souveregn, and would be able to override Yusoglavian constitution (which later happened anyway). Anothere problem was that would transfer souvereignty from constituing nations (Slovens, Croats.. etc.) to the republics (Slovenia, Croatia.. etc.)Which also later happened anyway.
My point is that I can't see that Serbs (not being a majority nation in Yugoslavia) could have possibly controled Yugoslavia one way or the other. You could have easilly taken back Kosovo vote, but you decided not to. In the case that Milosevic's "one person - one vote" was accepted Serbs could not control Yugoslavia anyway. Think about it.
Second part of Will's posting opens up another debate.
"True that Serbia was hostage to Kosovo vote in former Yugoslavia, but thats what needed to happen if they wanted to keep Kosovo."
Then he continues to say:
"Lets remember Kosovo is 2 million people who are ethnically and religiously different. Not a few hunderd thousand."
So, it's the number?
Let's remember, by last pre-war census Serbs living west of Drina River (Bosnia and Croatia) amount to more then 2.1 million. I suppouse that you are suggesting giving them independance then? Following the same rules as Ahtisaari plan, they can't join Serbia, etc.
Or is it a precentage?
Last census that Albanians participated in was in 1981 (one in 1991 was again, boycotted). There were complains about that census in 1981 as it was done by Kosovo institutions. Complains came mosty from Goranis who were massivelly counted as Albanians, but never mind that now.
In this census, Albanians were 7.7% of population of Yugislavia. Given that in 1971 they were 6.4% (1.3% increase over the 10 years), they were probablly 9% in 1991. (I'm taking data here before any ethnic cleansing took place).
So, if you claim that Albanian treatment in Yugoslavia was bad, and rights insufficient, what rights were needed for Croatian Serbs, or Bosnian Serbs, both larger percentage in their respective new countries (after they declared independence).
Or what about them in their new, soon-to-be-declared coutnry (Kosovo)?
Take the percentage before ethnic cleansing. Obviously, giving them right to have their own parliament, to govern themselves, to police themselves, and to keep rest of Kosovo hostage is not enough (or why would you revolt and demand more rights in 1980?). But, let's just say that it is.
So, would you say that Northern Kosovo should keep the rest of Kosovo hostage "but thats what needed to happen if they wanted to keep (my insert here, Northern) Kosovo". Remember, they "will not agree to being ruled by Pristina (my insert here, instead of Belgrade) in any matter
Or you would say that "It benefits both to have separation as then neither will be hostage to the other."
Or think about it and let us know. It seems to me that you are complaining how badly you were treated in Yugoslavia, and how you didn't have rights, etc. etc. while in the same time, you wouldn't even dream of giving even the same rights (not larger) to the minority in what you consider to be your country (Kosovo).
But, debate was really interesting and I'm glad to see that there are people here that really know very well matter that we are talking about.
Now this was very long so my actual comment on Mr. Montgomery's article will have to come later or tomorrow.

I can't approve of his leftist ideas, but Sreten is making some good points here.
You want us to believe that Serbs ruined Yugoslavia. Albanians wanted it, just stopped when Milosevic came to power?
Why do we keep hearing from Albanian posters here that they never wanted any Yugoslavia (or Serbia), and that they were "occupied" in 1912?
I would say that they never accepted the state they lived in. This has nothing to do with minority right. After all, as Sreten pointed out, if you think that minority needs to have more right in some country, give it to Kosovo Serbs.
Even if Kosovo becomes independend, you will have a same problem with your minority. Serbs will never accept Kosovo as their state. Show us now, what to do? And how to solve this?
When Croats rejected Yugoslavia as their country, Serbs rejected Croatia as their country. We've seen one solution that took place in Croatia. It that what you will do? It that what Serbs needed to do with Albanians from the beginning? Throwing them out. Show us, let's see.

Now, to say something about article itself.
There is not much to say. I found comment No. 4 by Mike to be exceptionally well written. And it reflects my views completelly (completelly, like more then 50%).
Montgomery wrote:

"Tadić now has a mandate to support vigorously his two-track approach of continuing both to advocate the Serbian position on Kosovo and to at the same time pursue integration with the European Union. "
I would like Serbia to take Tadic's two-track approach. I don't see any reason for Serbia not to sign the document offered by EU for signing. But, in the same time I have come to believe that this two-track approach will soon be comming to an end, due to pending Kosovo Independence Declaration and EU mission to Kosovo.
I believe that, (weather we like it or not) public oppinion in Serbia have won't accept both things simultaniously. In the end, EU membership AND Kosovo independance may not take place, but rather EU membership OR Kosovo inedependance. And choice will be with EU.
There is another thing in Mongomery's article that I found very worrysome.

"This all brings to mind the standard television scenes of broadcasters standing out in the wind and rain on a shoreline, looking at the angry sea and waiting for the hurricane which is about to descend on them. While this "hurricane" will be entirely due to human decisions, that doesn't mean that the damage will be any less devastating."

Unfortunatelly, I think that this is what will happen.
While US verbally supports freedom of choice, etc. in practice it comes down as a devastating hurricane on those who choose to follow the path of their own.
Verbal: "everyone is free to choose its destiny" in practise is "everyone is free to choose destiny we've envisioned for you".
Great "freedom" and "independence".
May I remaind you that even during Stallin's rule in Soviet Union, everyone was free to share Stallin's oppinion (and to freely express it).
But, there is a difference between freedom and tyrrany.
When it comes to US, it walks like a duck, it sounds like a duck, it must be democrasy, right?
Should Serbia choose not to follow path of European integration, you should respect that. Serbia is not a threat to EU or US in any way. Show some ability to tolerate divergent oppinion.

This kind of disjointed arguing and posturing isn't going to impress any outsider observing events in Serbia. The impression given is of a bunch of quarrelsome and irrelevant political hacks from a negligible forgotten country striking a pose on an issue for the trite reason of gaining some imagined domestic political advantage. This sort of foolishness screams weakness to the world and events will unfold as outside parties see fit. If Kosovo is indeed Serbia...as I have heard over and over from Serbs...it must act as if its country is being attacked by rebels. Creating facts on the ground in Kosovo with a carefully planned and very disciplined military takeover of sovereign territory is doable. Serbia would have to exercise extreme caution. If anything resembling the atrocities of past conflicts occurred, it would open the door to a similar military reaction from the western powers as seen in the 1990's. Resistance in the West to a military reaction would be initially very strong, particularly if the takeover was handled quickly without bloodshed as its goal. Can the Serb military act like a modern western military power? Does it have the Officer Corp and professional NCO's to pull it off? I don't know...

Sreten,

I was completely blown away by your comment, very well stated. Mike as always, your input from an outside perspective is always informative and welcome.

Mr. Montgomery,

You make the false assumption that everyone who voted for Tadic supports all of his policies completely. Its very likely that those who switched their votes to Tadic in the runoff election did so merely because they didn’t want to vote for Nikolic. You see this often in the US with its two party system, where we are very often reduced to voting for the lesser of two evils. It’s completely unrealistic to proclaim that everyone who votes for a politician supports every item on their election platform. Tadic most certainly does NOT have any sort of mandate to pursue European integration at any cost. The polls clearly show Serbian electorate would not trade the EU for Kosovo. Not to mention more people voted for Nikolic in the first election than for Tadic.

Both Tadic and Kostunica are being silly at a time when we should be showing unity. I personally don’t see the rush to sign anything with the EU at this point in time. I actually support Kostunica sending a clear message that it’s either the EU or Kosovo but not both. I do think Serbia should pursue Free Trade and Visa’s with the EU, but not join until Russia does and brings true balance to the organization. However, right now is just not the time to make any further moves towards the EU until the Kosovo issue is settled or the EU shows a little more reason and returns to the negotiating table and considers something besides full independence for all of Kosovo. Partition should NOT be a dirty word. Maybe its time to finally hammer out a consistent policy on how to treat ALL minorities in Europe so we don’t have to pretend it won’t set a precedent. If it’s a good and long term solution, it should be applied to everyone universally.

I've been fascinated by events in former Yugoslavia, and I tried to gain full understanding of everything that took place there. I spent a lot of time trying to understand root causes of the conflict, looking for them in some injustice perpertrated by Serbs against others in Yugoslavia. I can't say that I found one. I could even say that Serbs were in inferior position then anyone else. In the subject debated here, Kosovo "held Serbia hostage". No other republic was in this postion.
I use to be one of those who blame Serbs for everything. Today, I think that problems were different. All other ethnic groups were more-less flirting with nation-state ethnic idea. Albanians more then others. Forces in their societies that were leaning that way have gained unprecedented support from the outside.
I was suprised to realise that Serbs have actually accepted Yugoslavian idea as no other ethnic group did. Not because Yugoslavia was ruled by them, in some ways they were less in control then others. Such devotion and readiness to live with the others in one common state are intriguing to me. Especailly given a history of the region, including recent history of the WW2. This is something that was worthy of every support.
I couldn't tell you why others did not accept Yugoslavia just the same, except that there is more awareness now inside of EU of the simmilar trends. It's a problem of incusion.
As the one we are facing today, as suburbs of Paris are burning with increasing frequency. It's not a problem of human rights.
I wish all the best to all of you, and for troubles in the region to be solved.

I've hear a lot of those arguments before, and I gave it a lot of thought.
One of the arguments was about strange addmition standards to military and police academies. Yugoslavia was a good country, with rights of its citizents exceeding even the right of many western democratic countries in some areas. But, it was still a communist country. It was reflected mostly in military and police force there. Unlike in western societies, those were not non-political organizations. Communists wanted them to be loyal to their ideas. Applicants comming from the families with WW2 partisan ties were heavily favoured over all others. And it just happened that they were mostly Serbs.
At this point we have to ask ourselves a question of motivation for this practice. Was it a reward for participation in liberation of the country? I don't think that it was. Chetniks were also fighting Germans, but applicant from known "Chetnik family" would find it literally impossible to be addmited to either military or police academy. Never you mind school marks. Communists mistrusted them and considered them to be unfit for those kind of jobs. In a word, it was a closed club where people from "common" families had difficulties getting in, and those from "wrong" families that have produced Ustashas or Chetniks in the past found impossible to get it.
It's still hard to look at it through ethnic prism. I'm convinced that it didn't matter as long as you are a communist, or someone who was assumed to be left indoctrinated through the family. Practice very wrong, but, in my oppinion not ethnically, but ideologically motivated.
As for a years of service, in our professional armed forces retirement after 20 years of active service is a norm. Given that most of them take recruits as young as 16, people retireing at 36 are not very uncommon.
Sitting of the capital city is another one that I'm not hearing for the first time. Unlike the officer stuffing practice, I don't see anything wrong with this one at all. A good friend of mine from the UK, had been offered to move in order to keep the job. His employer have decided to move the headquarters from Edinburgh, Scottland to London, England. He still did not make a decision to move, but time is running short.
One of the reasons for the company's move is to be closer to the government sitting, as they contract for a government a lot.
London is financial and banking hub of Britain, and a sitting place of the government, too. For the sake of connections it only make sense for this company to move to London.
Also, Brittish government, being in London, probably have disproportional number of English in its employ.
Yet, I would have difficulties to see this as proof of discrimination of the Scots in Brittain.
Also, if that is a proof of discrimination, we could also say that Serbs are discriminated in Croatia and Bosnia, as their capitals are situated in Zagreb and Sarajevo, and not in Knin and Banyaluca. I don't think that position of the capital can be taken as proof of discrimination. I think that you are aware of it when you say "just like Budapest and many more capitals". I see nothing that we can't see anywhere else.
And with 1974 constitution virtually all the powers were transferred to the republics, and Yugoslavia was a very, very loose federation. I don't see how anybody can blame federal government for anything after that point, when all the decision making was done in the republics.
Sure, there was a transfer of money towards the underdeveloped. Speaking of that I have to say that I was very surprised to find out that Serbia (and Voivodana) were on the contributing side of this formula. Very surprised, I say, as they payed in silence, unlike Croatia, and especially Slovenia. According to the numebers from Encycloppedia Brittanica, which is a very good source, they payed their share proportionally. You should know that those payments are not unheard of in other countries. Most of the French south is on the recieving end of such payments from better developed north. To name another country, west Germany is still making a huge payments to the former East Germany.
I'm not trying to defend Yugoslavia here. Slovenians were worried that ever increasing transfer payments, especially to Kosovo, are slowing growth of their economy. They looked at the problem as primarilly Serbia's problem, not theirs. And they've decided on plebiscite in 1991 to disassociate themselves from Yugoslavia. There is nothing wrong with that, and those are valid reasons. What I can't understand is constant attempts to present this move as liberation from ethnic discrimination suffered under Yugoslavian state. There is no need for that. There are also no arguments to support that.

Mr. Montgomery,
I have never yet seen that maybe U.S policy may be flowed in the case of Kosovo. When Sadam attacked Kuwait there was an outrage by U.S. administration and we went to war to defend Kuwait. In the case of Kosovo to all the Serbs it is no less then if we told Palestenians today to declare unilateral indipendence and them Israel on the silver plater. That is why the Serbs can not ever forget or fogive U.S. or stop fighting for Kosovo. The break up of Yugoslavia was forgiven and Serbs tried hard to integrate again in the international comunity, but have been blamed , pushed and shoved and humiliated and degraded and the kosovo is the ultimate humiliation that you can inflict on a proud people. How many christian churches in the world do you know that date back like churches in Kosovo. You can probably count them on the fingers of you hands. Let's stop double standards and double talk and spins and get back to reality.
Shame on you. History repeats its self and the day will come when you and all that participated in this shamful , imoral , illigal policy will recognise it as such.