|
Here we have it once more, let's kneejerk bash the Americans again. God knows I don't support Bush but the rubbish you are spouting almost makes me want to. Yugoslavia fell apart all on its own and due to their own feral, racial intercine conflicts. That country is dead,dead,dead and nothing will ever put it together again so let it go. It would be even worst to let the mass murdering swine of Serbia get hold of it again. Anyone remember Ethnic Cleansing?
Sure it suits the US to have a Balkanised Balkans but just don't blame them for the abyss that the Serbs,Croats and all the rest ran into with delight. If you want to do something then make sure that the mass murders who are still at large in Serbia and all those other semi failed states are hunted down and punished for their crimes against humanity. The Americans may benefit from the stupidity of the Balkan wars but don't blame them for these conflicts. There are plenty of other areas in the World ( i.e.South America ) where they are responsible so how about placing blame where it lies rather than where you want it to be.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
missingthebigpicture
June 13, 2007 10:52 AM
Keep it up Neil. And whilst you're at it, sock one on Oliver Kamm. And Shawcroft. And Phillips.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Barca
June 13, 2007 10:55 AM
There are two articles in today's Guardian in respect to Kosovo/a (Leader: Breaking Away & Neil Clark's: The Emperor has spoken). The comparison between the two is perhaps indicative of what Tony Blair described yesterday as "impact journalism".
The Leader comments on some of the facts and options that constitute today's international political economy for Kosovo/a and the region, whilst Neil's self-confessed motivation to discredit 'The Empire' of George Bush influences a diatribe against him using Kosovo/a as a case-study. But it doesn't end there, a quick reference to Neil's BlogSpot over the last 7 days shows 3 articles referring to the 'wrongdoings' that Serbia/Yugoslavia has suffered due to US-sponsored foreign policy. It's a repetitive theme with the people of Serbia/Yugoslavia represented as the innocent victims - even a tennis player's success in reaching a ranking final is an opportunity for Neil to promote his cause.
It's hardly journalism at its most incisive nor is it comment which is a balanced reflection. All communities have suffered and continue to do so as a result of the wars in the Balkans. The Serbian government has been complicit in these wars, as evident from the findings of The Hague. Those governments were democratically elected by the population of Serbia. There is therfore an element of responsibility that cannot be placed purely on external parties.
Neil may be describe himself as a journalist, but when the author is more intent on reinforcing his own opinions, readers might wish to reflect on Blair's description of 'feral beahviour'. That there are few comments in reply to his blogs suggests that Guardian readers have already recognised this!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
whitesox
June 13, 2007 11:00 AM
Let the bells ring, gather to the banquet hall and feast, for today, Halleluya, the Guardian has finally (sorry they did ONE before - in all the articles I've read anyway) actually bothered to present the other side of the Kosovo independence story.
After being bombarded with a dozen or more hair-pulling pro-independence drivel from the likes of the Alban-Kosophiliac "Hustler", Ian Williams and Co., Neil Clark has finally exposed the real motives of Uncle Sam and his kennel of Euro-poodles. Everything he says is what I and a number of other posters have been trying to point out - with extreme frustration - so that people can take the blinkers off and see what this proposed illegal travesty is really all about.
My sincere appreciation to you, Mr. Clark. KUDOS man!
The World Federation must stop the Evil Empire ... where is Luke Skywalker?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
willco1
June 13, 2007 11:00 AM
I accept what you say about the non-Albanian minority in Kosovo, but we got a pretty good look at what Belgrade had in store for the Albanian majority, and denying that that is a factor in the current state of affairs seems particularly stupid. As does delighting in the present regime in Belarus, hardly the most pleasant. You also display a fair bit of contempt for self-determination. Time for the Serbs to wrap their head around the idea that they can pick up a history book anytime they want and read about their medieval corn-holing by the Ottomans, but it doesn't make any kind of a case for retaining Kosovo.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
JerryinCrete
June 13, 2007 11:01 AM
Mr. Clarke, I'm afraid, doth complain too much.
Lord knows, I am hardly a Bushie supporter and the sooner we see the back of this administration the better. But the answer is hardly to throw one and all back into the arms of the bear:
"For those who believe the best hope for peace and progress for humankind is the derailing of the US juggernaut, it is imperative that on the issue of Kosovo, the bear makes a stand."
Oh yes? The bear that consigned Eastern Europe to fifty years of backwardness? If the Americans hadn't mucked in with the Marshall Plan, Greece too could have also enjoyed the prosperity, peasant happy times, and fun & frolics of the Balkan Worker's Paradise Mr. Clarke seems to dream nostalgically of.
Mr. Clarke proposes that, to thumb one's nose at Bush, we toss the Kosovans back into the East. But regardless of what happens, they are better off under Western US/UN protection than at the tender mercies of Serbian fascists and Russian backwardness -- or tub-thumping journalists.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
stillfedup
June 13, 2007 11:09 AM
Keep on with the "diatribes", Neil.
They make a refreshing change from the pro-Western narratives of Traynor, Williams and Garton-Ash.
And they are no doubt nearer to the truth
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
nimn2003
June 13, 2007 11:14 AM
Kosovo will gain some form of 'independence'. Beograd knows this. So do the rationale heads in Prishtina. Unfortunately there are too few of them.
Why was Yugoslavia broken up, implicitly and explicitly by the west/USA? IMHO primarily because it would not cow-tow to the demands for a fully 'market based' economy, in other words, sell everything to the Capitalists for profit.
They said no in the late 1980's and early 1990's. the result is history.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
GrandOldMan
June 13, 2007 11:21 AM
A totally unconvincing argument. I have absolutely no time for Bush but recognising that Kosovo wants independance and that there is no realisic alternative means- just for a change- he is recognising the inevitable.
No doubt this thread will attract the usual USA-bashers, some of whom do seem to have a curiously soft spot for Serbia and its fromer leaders who were colonialists and supporters of ethnic cleansing.
I want to look first (surprise surprise) at a bit of the history Clark mentions
1) He says Kosovo is the "cradle of Serbia's national history"
~ It isn't. The indepenant serbia was founded around 1190 North of Kosovo (ie where it is today) by Stefan Nemanja. It expanded to conquer the Kosovo area around 1300. This period of Serbian greatness was VERY short-lived and within 80 years Kosovo- and then Serbia itself- were conquered by the ottoman Turks.
Serbia was recreated- again in its northern heartland as an independant state in 1833. It conquered Kosovo in the Balkan wars- 1912- and there it stayed until the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
So- in 800+ years, Kosovo has been part of Serbia for around 150 years. And it was never the "historic heart" of Serbia as Clark maintains but a conquered province which always had a significant majority of Albanians living tthere
~ In any case, even if Clark's assertion were true [which it manifestly isnt), what right does this give Serbia to say it is ours if 90% of the population dont want that.
Next Clark will be telling us that Germany has a "right" to have East prussia back because of historic links, or that Israel is absolutely right to conquer palestine against the wishes of the majority because of its ancient historic claims there.
2) Clark concedes that 90% of the native population want independance. But he worries about the rights of the 10% minority. So, sure, lets ensure UN Inspections and legally enforced protection for the rights of the minority. But that's an argument to protect the minority, not to deny independance to the majority
3) It will destabilise the region. Ah yes, thats the problem with self-determination, others ask for it as well. Is that an argument for denying Self-Determination? Is Clark arguing for the restoration of the Ottoman and Austrian Empires, big big countries that denied Self-Determination to their people? Did THAT bring stability to the region? Of course not- it was the source of endless conflicts and wars- including a little war called, if I remember correctly "The First World war".
No, once the genie is out of the bottle, you cant put it back. Once yugoslavia started to fragment, the breakup into lots of small states was bound to follow. It may be unstable, but curiously the ONLY instability the region has seen in the last 20 years have been when people have tried to STOP the breakup and fragmentation.
4) You think Putin should make a stand and stop Kosovan independance? Thats of course very similar to what Nicholas II did in 1914 and war was a result.
Overall this is an angry polemic railing against what is bound to happen in the end as part of a crude anti-American agenda.
And it doesnt help that Clark, who claims to speak on behalf of Serbia, actually knows so little about when and how Serbia acquired Kosovo in the first place.
It was by forcible conquest- the conquest of a region peopled by Albanians.
The modern word for that is "colonialism"
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
CantTakeItAnymore
June 13, 2007 11:49 AM
Grand Old Man
Please explain why independence for Kosovo does not set a precedent for Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno Karabakh, the Basque region, Transdniestra etc, etc.
Do all secessionist movements possess the right to self-determination or just those which serve the West's strategic aims?
The West's intervention in Kosovo and the bombing of Serbia, without the approval of the UN Security Council, has already set the precedent for the invasion of Iraq.
We are now reaping the benefits of that little venture.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to take a little more care this time around?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
pdmalcolm
June 13, 2007 11:53 AM
Canttakeitanymore: SLight problem with one of your examples there... Hardly anyone in the Pays Basque wats independance from Spain or France. There has never been a Basque state, merely provinces who were allowed, as part of wider spain, to maintain certain laws and customs.
Why do you think ETA resorts to killing and detonating? Because they have no popular support to affect real and lasting change.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
CantTakeItAnymore
June 13, 2007 12:02 PM
PD Malcolm
OK
Now please explain away the other examples.
Thanks.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
reddoodlebug
June 13, 2007 12:02 PM
Serbian nationalist claims that Kosova is the 'cradle of their nation' irrespective of the existence of a current and very different population, are reactionary nonsense. Similar, in fact, to Zionist nonsense about how the existence of an ancient Hebrew state in Palestine 2000 or so years ago entitled them to throw out the residents of Palestine to re-establish that state.
No wonder Ariel Sharon and Slobodan Milosevic were such good mates! Bush is playing power-bloc politics and using this issue as a pawn in a greater game - to secure US hegemony over the entire world. That US game should be opposed - but just as opposing US attempts to manipulate the Kurdish question should not mean simple-mindedly setting oneself against Kurdish rights, so with this case. Kosova has an indigenous ethnic Albanian majority, and no-one has the right to deny them independence by force if they choose it. Even trying to deny it plays into Bush's hands.
There were valid reasons for opposing Clinton's war of 1999; doing so on the basis of myths that Kosovo was the 'cradle of the Serbian nation' was not one of them.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
whitesox
June 13, 2007 12:17 PM
DorAlbani - Good day! I think your name is a bit of a give-away, so there isn't much point in having a fruitful balanced debate. Afterall, the gist of my post was to point out that for these several last few months the debate has been grossly monoloised by the anti-Serbs faction in this paper, which lacked any sense of balance in presenting the other viewpoint on a very complex issue. The role of the US in this region from the very beginning of the dismantling of a viable and strong former Yugoslavia has willfully been neglected. Anyway enjoy the Raki, and as far as ass-kicking is concerned it wasn't your lot that were doing it until Uncle Sam bombarded Serbia into submission as I recall. Oh by the way, nice move by one of your compatriots in releasing George Bush's from his 25 dollar Timex watch during his Albanian walk-about (if the report is true that is - can't trust anything in the papers these days according to our soon-to-be-ex-leader). Now that's gratitude for you.
GOM - I'd love to debate your historical take on Kosovo, but other duties beckon. Did you get your info from Wiki, as from your comments, it appears to me that the history of the Balkans is not one of your fortes (tough the dates you presented are correct) - unlike the Holocaust.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Sluijser
June 13, 2007 12:19 PM
GrandOldMan
** And it doesnt help that Clark, who claims to speak on behalf of Serbia, actually knows so little about when and how Serbia acquired Kosovo in the first place.
It was by forcible conquest- the conquest of a region peopled by Albanians.
The modern word for that is "colonialism". **
Please, we are talking 12th century here GOM. How far back do you want to go?
How many more potential sources of conflicts are you creating by such a stance?
I'd say in the light of atrocities on both sides that Kosovo should be divided. Give bits adjacent to Serbia with lots of Serbians, to Serbia. Give the rest to Albania. We don't have to worry anymore about how this would stimulate ethnic cleansing, since the Albanian Kosovans have practically completed that already. To reward the Albanians for their behaviour with the whole of Kosovo is totally irresponsible.
And I couldn't care less about any role GWB possibly plays in this.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
GrandOldMan
June 13, 2007 12:22 PM
@Canttakeitanymore:
1) I note that you have not challenged any of the statements I made in my earlier post; so i assume you accept that, amongst other things
~ It is not srerbia's heartland
~ it has only been part of serbia for a relatively short time
~ The vast majority of the people are not Serbians and want independance
2) You say why shouldnt other peoples also demand independance? Yes of course they can. I fail to see what that has to do with Kosovo. I made the point myself that once you let the self-Determination genie out of the bottle, it is very hard or impossible to put it back. So I entirely agree with you, others will and already are going to demand independance too
3) But there is nothing new in any of this. Their demand for freedom is a result, like in Kosovo, of the breakup of Empire. These things happen. get over it.
4) You offer no alternative strategy, and your argument seems to be
* But if we give into Kosovo, others will want the same- To which I reply: Yes, thats true and bound to happen, but the root cause is NOT Kosovo but the breakup of Empire- in other words Chechens will continue to demand independance whether or not Kosovo achieves it. The two are not linked at all, and your attempt to create a link is fake
* The USA is only supporting this because of their strategic interests- to which I reply: Yes of course, nobody is pretending the USA would ever support anything unless it was in their interests.
In the same way are you suggesting that Russia is supporting Serbia out of purely humanitarian and idealistic reasons- Russia too is taking sides to support its strategic interests.
And just because something is in the USA's interests does not mean it is automatically wrong; and just because something is in Russia's strategic interests doesnt make it automatically right
What surely matters is what the ordinary people want. And as they are demonstrably in favour of independance, for all its disadvantages, then they should be supported in achieving this
In the same way, if the South Ossetians can demonstrate the majority want indepedance, i would support them too.
Anyway, to cut to the key point: Are you arguing that Serbia should be allowed to hold onto Kosovo, against the wishes of its peoples, simply because it's one in the eye for the USA and supports Russia's strategic interests? Does that make Europe and the world a safer happier place?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WheatFromChaff
June 13, 2007 12:24 PM
Interesting. I diagree with most of the premises, but agree with the conclusion.
There is the grossest hypocricy going on here, masked only by the fact that the western world has successfully managed to portray the Serbs as being the only "bad guys" in a region full of "good guys".
(Indeed, the recent conviction of a Krajinian *Serb* for ethnic cleansing reminds me of the Franquist convictions of Spanish republicans for "rebellion".)
Both the UN and NATO decided, right at the beginning of the break up of Yugoslavia that the internal borders - no matter how arbitrarily or recently drawn - were sacrosanct and should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn.
And, indeed, that has been their policy.
The fact that the Krajina region of Croatia had had a large majority of Serbs for centuries did not mean that it should be hived off from Croatia (although that "problem" was solved by the Croats themselves, when they drove all of those people into Serbia): nor does the fact that Bosnia is effectively 2 ethnically-opposing states give rise to talk that it should, therefore, be divided.
But, all of a sudden, those borders are *not* inviolable. Or, to be accurate, one country's borders are not inviolable.
All of a sudden, when it comes to Serbia, the expressed desire to maintain "multi-ethnic states" in the Balkans - rather an embarrasing desire given that the only multi-ethnic state left in the Balkans is erm ... Serbia - breaks down into a desire for an ethnically (almost) pure statelet.
Very well then. If, contrary to all the previously expressed intentions, we are going to redraw the Balkans along ethnic lines, then let us do so properly.
Let (eg) the Bosnian Serbs break away from a Bosnia which is less independent now than it was when it was within Yugoslavia. Impossible? Why?
GOM
History is indeed important in the Balkans, but you neglect the rather more recent history. Apropos a recent discussion about British history and the Nazis, the Serb experience of that period was rather different to ours.
Their experience was of having Croats, Bosnian Muslims and Albanians enthusisatically joining the Third Reich, forming SS batallions, and rounding up Serb "untermenchen" for shipment to labour and concentration camps.
Now they see western powers helping Croats and Albanians to kill or drive Serbs out of all but a (shrinking) Serbia. If I was a Serbian, I would be hard pressed to explain the difference.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
pdmalcolm
June 13, 2007 12:36 PM
canttakeit: I don't know anything about the other examples, i just thought you might like to learn something. Wasn't trying to shoot you down in flames or anything.
Interesting question: What is the problem if all those places and a majority of people living within them decide they wish to be independant? Why is self determination not always correct? What are it's lmitations?
Genuine questions... and your sneery tone in the face of an honest correction is one of the things i get annoyed about round these parts
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
mightmakesright
June 13, 2007 12:56 PM
Let me get this right: Kosovo cannot be independant until the UN security council decides it can? Too funny. How about this: the Balkans are Europe's mess, why don't you loudmouths do something about it instead of whining?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
GrandOldMan
June 13, 2007 1:27 PM
@WheatfromChaff: You mention Serbia's experience in World war II. Yes, that is a crucial point- i did think of including that in my earlier post but then thought "enough history!"
you are not quite right in your statements.
It is true that serbia faced aggression and persecution from Croats and Bosnian Muslims- but not, i think, from the Albanians in Kosovo.
1) Kosovo was NOT occupied by the germans in World war II. It was annexed to Albania, which was an Italian colony
2) As far as i know, no Albanians joined the SS [there may have been a few, but their numbers would have been trivial- if only because the SS recruited from territories they had occupied- and as mentioned above Kosovo was not occupied by the Germans)
3) So whilst serbia may indeed bear scars and resentments against Germans, Italians, Croats and Bosnians- the one group who never attacked or persecuted them were the Kosovans or Albanians.
I would also add this: Nationalisms are nearly always created by persecution. The persecution comes first. So: Zionism was a result, not the cause of antisemitism: Palestinian nationalism is the result, not the cause of oppression by the israelis: german nationalism was created by occupation and persecution by the French after 1805...and so on.
And in the same way Kosovan nationalism was caused by the persecution of the Serbs and in particular a former leader who ended up dying in a prison cell in the hague.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
chrish
June 13, 2007 1:30 PM
It is not just a question of whether people living within region a country have a right of self determination. It is also a question of whether foriegn powers have the right to intervene in a soveriegn country to enforce secession.
The Germans claimed that they had this right when they marched into the Sudetenland in Czechoslavakia in 1938 claiming that the native Germanic population were being discriminated against.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
velitrae
June 13, 2007 1:38 PM
Excuse me, but was Mr. Clark BEFORE the Bush Administration, when the future independence of Kosovo was assured? It was the EU who prodded the US, under Bill Clinton, to let NATO bomb Serbia to loosen its grip on Kosovo. And this was done by Mr. Clinton and Secretary of State Albright OUTSIDE the UN. Yet funny how there were no protests about that.
The UN envoy's report basically agreed that Kosovo should be independent, "supervised" or not.
So it is hilarious that Mr. Clark decides to use this issue to pummel President Bush and the "empire" once again!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
WheatFromChaff
June 13, 2007 1:44 PM
GOM
"So whilst serbia may indeed bear scars and resentments against Germans, Italians, Croats and Bosnians- the one group who never attacked or persecuted them were the Kosovans or Albanians."
That isn't how the Serbians tell it.
http://www.rastko.org.yu/kosovo/istorija/savic_skenderbeyss1.html
There certainly was an SS Division Skanderbeg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Skanderbeg_(1st_Albanian)
"Nationalisms are nearly always created by persecution"
Indeed
"And in the same way Kosovan nationalism was caused by the persecution of the Serbs and in particular a former leader who ended up dying in a prison cell in the hague."
Who was himself elected President of Serbia because of (real or perceived) discrimination against Serbs by the then autonomous Kosovar administration.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
bobdoney
June 13, 2007 2:02 PM
velitrae: "the future independence ... should be independent..."
At last! A punter who can spell. I was beginning to wonder...
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
nimn2003
June 13, 2007 2:29 PM
At least the ones that actually have some content, and some input to this discussion.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
TruckDrivinMan
June 13, 2007 2:50 PM
As an American I want to say thank you to the people of Albania for your support of the USA. We should quadruple aid to them and strongly push for an independent Kosovo.
Maybe I should take a vacation in Albania...one of my co-workers did and has a very rewarding experience. Wow...a country that likes America!!!
Long live Kosovo and Albania!!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
nimn2003
June 13, 2007 2:55 PM
Thank you CiF.
First, I do not blame the USA for the situation in the Balkans, and more specifically in Kososov. Primarily the 'blame' lies with the EU members who covertly encouraged the northern Yugoslav states to seceed from an Internationally Recognised and authorised state - Yugoslavia. Now the reasons for this may never come clear, but it is them (principally Germany) who have most blame to bear, and who - coincidentally(?) - seem to lead the anti-Serb propaganda.
The history of the region is full of land grabs and counter grabs, invasions and counter invasion. Much like any other country in Europe really. So when do you finally say, this land belongs to X? It has to be by International agreement in the 21st Century, surely? So, kosovo was recognised as an integral part of Yugoslavia. Therefore IT IS PART OF YUGOSLAVIA/SERBIA i CRNA GORA (As it became).
End of story. History can be very selective, and judicious picking from one time or another, does nothing to help.
The fact is that Kosovo i Metohija IS Serbian, but it seems that it will be 'officially' partitioned from Serbia. That's life.
The USA?? Sure they took advantage, and who can really blame them? Distasteful, Sure, but look at who's in charge.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
nimn2003
June 13, 2007 3:12 PM
Truch Driving Man: You are the reason most people here do not like Americans. Your vitriol and stupid references to "...the genocidal Serbs. Did they not murder enough ethnic Albanians for you?"
This is not only trite, untrue and a complete distortion of the truth, but EVERY BLOODY SIDE in this civil war did the same to everyone else.
Do you LOVE genocidal Albanians, Kosovans, Muslims, Croats??
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
MrEugenides
June 13, 2007 3:20 PM
If you actually look at the report of the Minority Rights Group for 2007:
http://www.minorityrights.org/admin/Download/pdf/SWM2007.pdf
... you will indeed find the criticisms of Kosovo's record on minority rights that Neil Clark describes. And they are, indeed, worthy of comment and censure.
Oddly, though, Clark fails to mention two things:
1. The same report, just paragraphs on, slates Serbia's record on minority rights, too, and
2. On their list of "states of concern" - the ten countries where they feel minority rights are most imperilled - there is one European entry: why, it's Neil Clark's nation of choice to stand up to the imperialist juggernaut: Russia!
Because Neil lives in a Western democracy (however imperfect and badly run) he is given column space to regale us with this rubbish week after week. In his beloved Russia (or Serbia, for that matter), there's a fair-to-middling chance that a 'journalist' [sic] as free with his anti-establishment diatribes as Neil would have been myseriously gunned down years ago.
Minority rights indeed.
http://mreugenides.blogspot.com
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
TruckDrivinMan
June 13, 2007 3:27 PM
It is in everyone's interest for Kosovo to either be independent or part of Albania. Atrocities were committed on both sides. In the early '90's, 98% voted for independence with over an 80% turnout.
If an American state wanted to secede from the Union I bet all the leftist lunatics would be all for it. So what's the problem then?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
BritishBaloch
June 13, 2007 4:12 PM
The principle of self-determination should be qually applied when it comes to the rights of subjugated people. United States is at forefront on Kosovo's independence, but what about other nationalites who are suffereing from ethnic clensing, slow motion 'genocide' and illegal occupation.
Yes, Kosovo takes priority in the realm of U.S. foreign policy because Kosovan cause conforms to the U.S values and above all U.S geopolitical interests. On the other hand, policymakers in Washington are overlooking the case of Baloch people in Pakistan. Balochistan was occupied by newly emerged state Pakistan in 1948, even though it was not part of British India. Several treaties between the Westminster and Khan of Kalat (King of Balochistan) proved that Baloch retained their semisovereign status during the entire colonial era. Nor they became part of Jinah's movement for seperate Muslim state (pakistan). Even the parliament of Balochistan (House of Common and House of Lords) had rejected Jinah's request to join Pakistani state. And yet Balochistan was annexed by use of force in 1948. Since then the Blaoch faced five military operations and their resources looted by Punjabi led Pakistan and its brutal military.
In dealing ethnic cases the West should look beyond its borders if they sincere to do justice. For the proponents of liberal intervention on humanitarian reasons, Blaoch case provides both moral grounds and strategic attraction as Balochistan is not only rich in mineral resources but also important in geopolitical term.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
bellairs1
June 13, 2007 4:23 PM
Camp Bondsteel is maintained by Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, Cheney Inc.
Funny, that.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Vule
June 13, 2007 4:37 PM
@reddoodlebug
You are very persistant, but so am I! The term Schiptar is not offensive and you are soooooo wrong with comparisons with nigger (a reference to someones skin color). All those centuries Serbs are using two terms when referencing to Schiptars
1. Schiptars, tj Siptari (that`s how they call themselves)
2. Arbanasi (That`s how Turks called them)
Albanians is of recent date (1912), you did not know that you are Albanians till Italians and Austrians told you so,
:-)
All those terms are not in bad conotation, and are not slang,like nigger,paki, yip, etc. but centuries old terms, made in those times when Serbs and Schiptars even fought together!
On the other hand it is far more "fancy" to be called Albanian than Schiptar, well it just sounds nicer in English, but that does not cover the fact that the Schiptars call themselves Schiptars (children of eagle, like I`ve earlier explained), and that Serbs are tought during the history to call nations by the name that those nations call themselves!
Well there is only one exception to this rule, Serbs and many Slavic nations call Germans, Nemci, meaning mute man, bacause when Slavic people came in contact with Germanic people, they couldn`t understand Germans, so they marked them as mute!
And please. I warn you again do not put me in Fascist company,
1. No Serb has ever been in any Fascist organization, unlike Croats (Ustashe), and Schiptars (Balist on Kosovo and Metohija, and SS Skenderbeg)
2. My familly made great sacrifice for the liberty and fight against Fascist, even my grandfather (as DorAlbani knows very well, :-)) spent some time figthting fascist in Albania!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Ian70
June 13, 2007 5:01 PM
When in a hole Vule, stop digging.
I've made a formal complaint as the moderators don't seem to be awake at the moment.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
britannicus
June 13, 2007 5:01 PM
This is all getting rather nasty, but on the other hand it's interesting to hear from people in the Balkans.
Vule: you're being unfair to your former fellow countrymen, are you not? My understanding of WW2 is that many people from all over the former Yugoslavia fought with the Partisans against the Nazis. Yes there were Ustashas in Croatia but they were a minority. The Chetniks in Serbia were hardly a great anti-fascist force, often more interested in fighting the Partisans than the Germans.
Perhaps its time that everyone in the area cooled off a bit, and accepted that there are good an bad bits in the history of each of these nations.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
CantTakeItAnymore
June 13, 2007 5:57 PM
GrandOldMan
These days it is arguable that anything that foils the Americans' strategic plans has to be a good thing. But that is not my point.
And I didn't mention Russia or Russia's interests.
Nor did I link Kosovan independence with any other territory.
My point was simply that if Kosova achieves independence in this way (without UN security council approval as a result of a military intervention which was itself not endorsed by the UN security council)then there are many other disputed territories which will perfectly legitimately claim that if the Kosovans are entitled to independence then so are they.
And neither you, GrandOldMan, nor the EU nor the US will be able to answer them.
Abkhazia, South Ossetia, the Crimea, Transdniestra, Nagoro Karabakh all have overwhelming majorities which favour independence. What are you going to do about that?
Taiwan, Catalonia, Kashmir, Transcarpathia, Tamil Sri Lanka et al may also want a piece of the action.
It is a hornet's nest. But that never seems to stop the lliberal interventionist yell leaders.
There is no link between these places other than that many of the conditions are parallel. But that is not to say that Kosova would not set a precedent because it would.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Vule
June 13, 2007 5:58 PM
@ Britannicus
@Ian70
Look, my familly is from the region of Western Slavonija,present day Croatia (btw the greatest concetration camp where the most horrible attrocities, (butchering of babies, choping off human heads with the saw, mass cuthing of throats, smashing of human heads with great hammers, etc there are pictures of these attrocities,) were commited Jasenovac is in Wetern Slavonija!) One of my grandfathers fought in Partizan movement in present day Croatia! The greaaaaaaaaaaat majority of fighters were Serbs in proportion 10 : 1. Yes there were Croats (even the leader Tito was a Croat) and Muslims, even Schiptars, but in very insignificant numbers! The first Partizan "free teritory" was formed in Uzice, Serbia! Than all of great battles were fought on teritories settled by Serbs (Sutjeska, Neretva, Drvar,.....) The Croats welcomed Vermaht in Zagreb 1941, throwing flowers on them! The majority of fighting Croats were in Ustasha (fanatical volunteers), and in Domobrani (recruited force), and only very few were in Partizans! Then, Chetniks were essentially anti fascist movement, and on the begining of the rebelion they even made some actions against Germans, but in order to quel the rebellion Germans introduced policy : For every killed German soldier we will kill 100 Serbs ("Untermenschen"), and for every wounded we will kill 50 Serbs. Chetniks stoped their fight against Germans in order to prevent mass kiling of Serbs, such as the one which happened in Kragujevac where Germans killed 7000 Serbs just in one day! On the other hand Tito (Croat) had no problem with killing of Serbs and cunningly exploited Serbian over - enthusiasm for freedom for introducing Komunizm in Yugoslavia! The Chetniks recognized this and made every effort to stop Partizans even if that implied colaboration with Germans in some cases!
This is all very complicated, but just for sake of truth and justice, type "JASENOVAC" in Google and spare some time to learn horror facts!
@IAN70 If you can be so kind to quote the parts of my posts with "speech of hatred" Everything I said are "hard facts"!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Ian70
June 13, 2007 6:29 PM
Vule. Lectures about Jasenovac are not necessary. It isn't some secret you're breaking to me.
What is unacceptable is the derogatory term for Albanians that you insist on using starting with an S and ending in R.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
TheDude22
June 13, 2007 9:24 PM
GoM,
There has been persistent discrimination in Kosovo against non-Albanians for decades. As per usual, it depended on who was in the ascendant. Tito allowed Rankovic to keep the Albanians under control, but eventually decided that he was too ruthless, hence he was replaced and the albanians given progressively more legal rights in the 1962(?) & then 1974(?) consitutions.
There was a lot of migration from Albania, and this is not suprising considering the kind of regime that was being run by Hoxa.
The Albanians had effective control of Kosovo from 1974+. I know of Serbs settled in Macdonia, Montenegro etc. who expressly say that they were forced out. Under Tito, this was not mentioned and only first came to light after his death (through the reporting of David Binder of the NYT).
The Serbs had accepted Tito's 'Manja Srbija, veca Jugoslavia' (smaller serbia, greater yugoslavia) because they understood that the others were 'nervous' of them. It failed. The rise of Serb dissatisfaction in the 1980s comes directly from albanian discrimination against the serbs in kosovo and the fact that it was hushed up for so long. They came to the conclusion that for every concession they had made, it was never enough, hence Milosevic's speech calling for the respect of everybody's rights, i.e. not of one people over another.
But then, why would the others want to give up their special status'???
Kosovo, though never formally a republic, could veto legislation in the republic of Serbia and effectively bring it to a standstill (Vojvodina as a recongised autonomous region also had this right). Read Binder's reoprts on the 1981 Pristina riots/demonstrations. The Serbs were accused of trying to poison albanian students (a recurring theme, las used against the macedonian government in 2003), denying them their 'rights' etc. etc. and demanding independence. Tito's multibillion dollar loans from the IMF dissapeared in the Kosovo black hole and destroyed the economy. The Slovenian's didn't want to keep on subsidising Kosovo, nor the Croatians etc. but the habit of throwing money at the problem had proved a massive failure.
Sometimes I think it would have been much better if 1: the Serbs had fought for the Nazis (considering how popular the croats, bosnian moslems and albanians are these days in the liberal media); 2: that kosovo had been part of Enver Hoxa's Albania, after all, if life in Kosovo was so miserable, they could have had a much, much better time united together with their brothers further south and west.
A question to everyone out there re kosovo 'independence', who's going to pay for it? Pleas, no propaganda about secret massive oil reserves etc. etc. 2 million people, almost nothing in the way of industry or services. How will it exist without without economic stability?
My prediction in the case of Kosovo... it will be quiet for a couple of years then there will be problems again in Macedonia and albanians turning on albanians (power struggle Pristina/Tirana, Gheg/Tosk etc. etc.)
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
nimn2003
June 13, 2007 9:35 PM
@The Dude:
excellent assessment. The next 'complaint' will be for the partition of western Macedonia. The KLA are re-armed, and guns have flowed into Macedonia for months. Another conflict is just around the corner. The west - in particular Germany - has a lot to answer for in stoking up this fire of unrest and in leading a campaign of lies and misinfomration against serbia.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Vule
June 13, 2007 10:06 PM
quote
Shqiptars have ruled the world. Darling, 28 Prime Ministers to the Ottoman Empire, 33 Emperors to Rome, 3 Emperors to the Buizantine Empire, 5 Popes, oone queen to the Charity Mother Tereza Bojaxhiu, 200 years of Kindom leader to Egypt.
end quote
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You are sick man go ask for some help, this is called complex of greater value! I heard that Muhamed the Prophet was also a Schiptar, also Jesus Christ, but also I heard rumours that Buda is also Schiptar and Tokugawa the great Shogun of Japan!
quote
who got only one place, that of kiling the Archiduke and his Pregnant Wife, as well as many oether pregnant mothers.
end quote
Archduke deserved death because of Austria opression of Serbs, but his wife didn`t, unfortunatly she was killed by mistake ( Gavrilo Princip sad on his trial that he feel great remorce beacuse of this) Americans would refer to this as "Collateral damage"
quote
Those dreams of Serbia getting to the sea is even more ridiculous then your claim to Kosova, still of the same nature!we just laugh.
end qoute
There is no way I am going to explain this, here is the link, but just Google out "Balkan wars Albania"
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/boshtml/bos146.htm
quote
But hey I blame the Romans, for letting Servious in the Ballkans. hhahahaha. A mistake we have to pay for!
end quote
Western Roman empire was dead for 150 years when Serbs settled on Balkans, do not emberace yourself further more!
You know about History just as much as my grand mother knows about Atomic Fussion!
You are one nervous man which cannot cope with reality and so I will not engage in any further discussion with you!
For every reader: just go to Wikipedia,and there are facts
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
nimn2003
June 13, 2007 10:18 PM
DorAlbani: what planet are you on? I am in Kosovo. It is a complete mess, no respect for 'your land', try living in Pristina, it's a perpetual pigsty.
There is no law, only the law of the mob. There is no justice for non-Albanians, only the platitudes of the western 'bosses'. Your public officials are ignorant. By that I mean that they are totally uneducated.
You will get your 'country'. Everyone expects it. But how will you live? You have no resources, no possibility of creating wealth.
Mob money only goes so far, there is only so mant prostitues, only so much drugs. Do you think that the EU will bail you out forever?
You sad man.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
subHuman
June 13, 2007 10:49 PM
Thank you Mr.Neil for a very objective comment on Kosovo and Metohiya.
God Bless Mr.Putin, leader of freedom loving people everywhere.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
TheDude22
June 13, 2007 11:30 PM
oh My God, I'M A SERB! I never knew. Thanks DorkAlbani!
Now I know who I really am, I can get on with eating albanian babies and other 'strange but true' stories from the balkans.
I noticed that you did not actually comment on any of the substance I wrote, but just resorted to ad hominem (you should look that up on the internet) attacks.
Unfortunately, Dor Albania represents a malevolant thread of albanian big mouths that give the rest of them (i.e. reasonable albanians) a bad name. Not to mention that his level of discussion is strictly binary. You can spell 'diplomacy', but you still have no concept of what it actually means, sadly.
IF the albanian position is so right and so obvious, then why do the likes of Dor feel the need to post on sites like these. The same goes for all those who say 'THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE BANNED' yet who would also claim to support freedom of speech. It seems that 'red mist' is more important than debate. We don't need no stinkin' UN, no lawz, no pulice 'coz we are 'THE ONES'. Adam and Eve, albanian, Noah, albanian etc. etc.
Come on, at least answer my one question above, where's the money going to come from?
What happens if, hypothetically speaking, the albanians get everything they want, the Serbs are no longer a ' threat'etc. etc.??? What happens when people see that freedom hasn't protected them from blood feuds, where law enforcement does not exist in any effective manner? Are they all going to emigrate? The leaders have promised much, but will fail to deliver. Someone will be responsible, themselves, or some new/old bogeyman???
As for intra-albanian conflict, who would have thought only a couple of years that the palestinians would be on the verge of a civil war?
Lol! why would I want to be a Serb? They don't need enemies to fight each other and still fight each other when they do have enemies (not a very helpful attribute).
No Dor, the people I come from are made of much sterner stuff. The Serbs look like hippies in comparison. Now go and see your doctor before you give yourself a stroke.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
TheDude22
June 14, 2007 12:17 AM
nimn2003,
there was a report a few years ago on the migration of macedonian slavs & albanians to areas where they already formed a majorities. In fact, I think this was some time before the KLA war in 2003. It certainly raised my eyebrows as a portent of things to come. I suppose it could be classed as 'ethinc cleansing' if I employ the low standards the ICTY uses (i.e. even if you are not actively threatened by anyone, but 'feel' under pressure and decide to leave), but as to whom (or what) is responsible has, not suprisingly, never been exposed...
P.S. I've seen that there will now be direct flight from Pristina to NY. I wonder how long that is going to last....
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
jonatham
June 14, 2007 12:30 AM
Giving Kosovo independence is absurd, and it is so, because it gives them a primacy in terms of self-determination that dozens of other ethnic groups in Europe would love to have, and many of them don't even have nations to call their own.
To add to the idiocy, this would be a 2nd Albanian state???? A second Albanian state that really does NOT have an economic foundation to base at the very least a self-sufficiency that usually goes along with a sensible decision to be an independent state.
This is not Slovenia, Catalonia, new independent states that had all the basics necessary for a good run at independence.
Kosovo has almost NOTHING except ETHNIC HATRED to justify its existence.
Allowing Kosovo to become independent would be to validate this as a reason for separation, and it simply is NOT.
That the Serbs were the perpetrators of the crimes in the most recent historical context, is an anomaly. Take a longer view and as satraps of the Ottoman Empire the Albanians were once tools of the oppressor.
The Serbs didn't just wake up one day feeling threatened.
But really Europe is full of states with nations that have different nationalities, who OVER TIME - OFTEN DECADES OR A CENTURY OR TWO learned to live together; Belgium, Germany's Sorbs, England and the Welsh, Spain and the Basques Etc.
So why is it so utterly necessary to give into the very present reason? What greater purpose is served giving the Kosovo Albanians independence when countless other ethnic groups over time have been forced to live within nations belonging to a different major ethnic group?
The other idiocy re: Kosovo independence is in an effort to respect and not violate the international consensus re: borders, the whole of Kosovo is going be given independence.
WHY? Since when is an internal border equal to an international one PRE-independence.
If independence is going to happen, then common sense decisions MUST BE MADE NOW ABOUT BORDERS.
All areas of Kosovo that are still Serb or mostly Serb MUST BE TRANSFERED TO SERBIA to prevent the inevitable reverse ethnic cleansing that will happen in an independent Kosovo.
That still leaves about 90% of Kosovo for a new nation.
Finally 2 Albanian states in Europe - neither economically or politically viable at the moment???? What political idiocy thinks this makes sense. One would think that the EU would have had enough of wealth transfers to new states to make sure something like this happens, but nope!
2 independent Albanian states would be economic basket cases for decades to come, meaning the EU's treasury would have a hole in it.
IF INDEPENDENCE is going to happen, please do it sensibly.
First, transfer all Serbian majority areas of Kosovo to Serbia.
Second: Make Kosovo part of Albania.
Kosovo and Albania together might have enough as one nation to contribute to their emergence as a healthy nation-state. They have a much better chance together of reaching the critical mass that eventually generates a self-sufficiency necessary for a decently functioning nation-state.
On their own the odds are much greater, and Europe faces decades of support for the two struggling states.
Honestly my nation has made some incredibly stupid moves these last 6yrs, but Europe if it goes ahead and pushes for Kosovo independence without any modification of borders, and without insisting a merging of Kosovo with Albania will prove that extreme stupidity is not just a province of Americans
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
nimn2003
June 14, 2007 9:18 AM
Vule: I have tried posting a reply, but whenever I put in any 'content' it doesn't get posted. Seems someone doesn't like me! ;-)
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Vule
June 14, 2007 9:42 AM
@ nimn2003
You made me so curious! You can answer me on vvule@verat.net
If you are not a Serb, and you are not in UNMIK, then it is very likely that you are in KFOR?
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
DorAlbani
June 14, 2007 10:39 AM
For your information Serbs settled on Balkans at 550 - 600 AD, although they were on the left side of Danube and Sava for a long time (some 100 years) performing raids on Byzantium towns on Balkans! << Ff-ing BArbarians. Your numbers must me multiplied with double....
hahahahahahah
Let me tell you something darling: When I go for a science Fiction or a Fantasy fiction I just go and get that, I do not go and call it a History of the Ballkans By Hitler, ups Sorry Slobodan, The Fyrer of the Serbs
hahahah
I even feel sorry for you at times, times like those, which evrything you believe in falls to the ground as it has no meaning and no truth.
@ nimn2003
You made me so curious! You can answer me on vvule@verat.net
If you are not a Serb, and you are not in UNMIK, then it is very likely that you are in KFOR?
Nimn Vule is another one of your Wolfs in sheeps clothing, poor deluded you, waging your battle in The Guardian Posters, you..
I really feel sorry for you at this point... and also glad that your sickness is history.
bye bye sicoss, byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
nimn2003
June 14, 2007 2:38 PM
vule: wrong again, I'm afraid. I do not work directly with any of the 'support' services / organisations in KiM. I am a EU national, though not in the armed forces.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
Vule
June 14, 2007 3:28 PM
Essentally Schiptar policy is very wrong, and shortsighted! They pissed every single neighbour! Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro even Greece! So they are relaying only on the backing of USA! Indeed that backing is strong now, but with passing time (When USA will have to pay more attention on issues such are IRan`s A - bomb, which will be made, witout doubt!) that support will gradualy diminsh! The Schiptars are very low on their list of priorities, and when there is a top priority that causes the attention, resourses must be allocated to that priority! USA will have to pour more and more infrantry in the Middle East, because it must not withdraw it`s forces from there! As I already mentioned there is a lack of recruits in USA, no one wants to go to war even for very good wage (This was one of the causes of the fall of Roman Empire, simply no one wanted to join legions, wchich were proffesional at that time)! Democartic party stated that it will withdraw it`s forces if their candidate wins the presidential elections, but that is just story for the average American! Simply they must not withdraw their forces! Because the oil reserves will fall in hands of Shiite (i.e IRan) And that would affect American economy very dearly! The whole of American economy is based upon unrealisticly low price of oil and it`s derivatives! So this is a last train to catch for Kosovo`s independance, Americans know this and that`s why they are in such a rush, but Russians are not, and neither are we!
It is shame that such country such is USA is ruled by a bunch of Oil and War equpping companies, instead they could allocate money to more scientific research to find some alternatives to fossil oils, and that would be benefit to whole of world! But that is not in the interest of those companies! Pitty! The gretest country in the world and once a shining sun is reduced to fulfiller of interests of two dozens of unemotional company leaders, who don`t give a damn about Global warming, wars,... pitty very pitty!
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
vitamin
June 14, 2007 4:00 PM
Well,
I can only speak for the threads I read (all the ones on the Balkans) but CiF censorship seems to be on overdrive these days. I have personally seen two posts from other posters disappear (Vule on this thread, SeerTaak on another), nimn2003 is complaining of barriers to posting certain points, and I myself can post freely so long as I don't post my little thesis on the Balkans, which failed point blank on 7 occasions over three days to get onto CiF.
For anybody interested, they can find it on Neil's blogpages,
http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com/
attached to the same article, post number 6, author is 'anonymous'. I don't think it is so radical, but judge for yourself.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
nimn2003
June 14, 2007 5:14 PM
@vitamin: "CiF censorship seems to be on overdrive these days"
Indeed. I will not add a contribution as I am not sure it will be published. I had the same problem on the Leader yesterday. Tried five times during the day to make, what I felt were objective, and critical points, but nothing. then it seems there was no posts at all.
Seems 'Comment is Free' but publication is something else. ;-)
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
nimn2003
June 14, 2007 5:15 PM
If there are any CiF censors/monitors available, I GENUINELY would like to know why my contributions were not published. I am currently living and working here, so feel I have a real input to make. You have my email address, I look forwrad to your response.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
vitamin
June 15, 2007 9:09 AM
nimn2003,
we both have the same experience. We can both post, but we cannot post certain points or comments.
Draw your own conclusions everybody.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Email us
|
