Imposed Solution for Kosovo Bad For Nation State As Defined by Westphalia 1648

The American Council for Kosovo
www.savekosovo.org
The American Council for Kosovo is an activity of Squire Sanders Public Advocacy, LLC, and Global Strategic Communications Group, which are registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act as agents for the Serbian National Council of Kosovo and Metohija, under the spiritual guidance of His Grace, Bishop ARTEMIJE of Ras and Prizren. Additional information with respect to this matter is on file with the Foreign Agents Registration Unit of the Department of Justice in Washington DC.
Washington, November 15, 2007
IMPOSED KOSOVO "SOLUTION" BAD FOR ISRAEL, BAD FOR AMERICA, BAD FOR NATION-STATE
Anti-Separatist Opinion Grows Worldwide
EU: Corruption Rampant; KLA Violence in FYROM
Editorial Comment from the American Council for Kosovo - We apologize for the volume of material included in this mailing. (CAUTION: Look before you print!) The amount of commentary being generated worldwide calling for a new look at the Kosovo problem - and warning against the disaster that would surely unfold if Kosovo were forcibly and illegally separated from Serbia - is growing faster than we can keep track of it. This means that the glacier of inertia and misrepresentation in which U.S. policy has been frozen for almost a decade is cracking. What had been a trickle of serious analysis taking issue with the State Department's policy has turned into a steady stream.
Case in point: Of all of America's closest friends and allies, the one with the most experience combating jihad terror is Israel. If the light bulb has yet to go on in Washington that U.S. sponsorship of Muslim-only jihad states is a bad idea - whether in "Palestine" or Kosovo - it certainly is in Jerusalem. Writing in the Jerusalem Post, one of Israel's most influential commentators Caroline Glick puts two and two together and, unlike our State Department, gets four:
The Saudi-financed Kosovo Muslims have destroyed more than 150 churches over the past several years, and have terrorized Kosovar Christians and so led to their mass exodus from the province. Kosovo's connections with Albanian criminal syndicates and global jihadists are legion. Moreover, Kosovar independence would likely spur irredentist movements among the Muslim minorities in all Balkan states. In Macedonia for instance, a quarter of the population is Muslim. These irredentist movements in turn would increase Muslim irredentism throughout Europe just as Palestinian statehood will foment an intensification of the Islamization of Israel's Arab minority. In a bid both to prevent the Bush administration from turning on Israel in the aftermath of the failure of the Annapolis conference and to make clear Israel's own rejection of the notion that a "solution" to the Palestinian conflict with Israel can be imposed by foreign powers, the Olmert government should immediately and loudly restate its opposition to the imposition of Kosovar independence on Serbia. In the interest of defending the nation-state system, on which American sovereignty and foreign policy is based, the US should reassess the logic of its support for the establishment of Muslim-only states. It should similarly revisit its refusal to openly support the right of non-Islamic states like Israel, Serbia and even France, to assert their rights to defend their sovereignty, national security and national character from outside-sponsored domestic Islamic subversion.
Not only in Israel, but across the United States, on college campus, and among our European allies, awareness is growing that if Washington carries out its threat to recognize a unilateral declaration of independence by the terrorists and criminals that run the Albanian Muslim administration in Kosovo, the result would be chaos in the international system and a humanitarian and human rights disaster. Recently the European Union - which is slated to take over the mission in Kosovo botched by the United Nations - released a scathing report on corruption and human rights abuses in Kosovo under the "authorities" aspiring to become the government of a new, independent country. Meanwhile, in the next-door Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, police tracked down and killed members of a terrorist/criminal gang, an indication of the destabilization that already has spilled over from Kosovo and would greatly intensify if their cronies in Kosovo are awarded de jure power.
As Washington tries to round up support for its endgame after December 10 (the date the U.S./EU/Russia "Troika" is due to report to the UN Secretary-General on their effort), growing awareness of the true situation in Kosovo is pushing Europe in the opposite direction. "Romania will not be among the first ten countries to recognize it [Kosovo]," said Foreign Minister Adrian Cioroianu, "nor will Romania be part of the next ten." Instead of pushing our friends and allies around the world toward a course they don't want and would be injurious to their interests, Washington needs to take a step back - now.
Meanwhile, as more Americans and friends of America catch on to what the State Department is trying to do, more cracks appear, and the ice is ready to shatter.
James George Jatras
Director, American Council for Kosovo

Other news worthy of note:

1. In November 12, 2007 Jerusalem Post article, "Our world: Islam and the Nation State," Caroline Glick wrote: Shortly After the Annapolis conference fails, and no doubt in a bid to buck up its standing with the Arab world, the US may well stand by its stated intention to recognize the independence of Kosovo. On December 10, the UN-sponsored troika from the US, Russia and Germany is due to present their report on the ongoing UN-sponsored negotiations between the Kosovo Muslims and the Serbian government regarding the future of the restive province of Serbia. Since the Kosovo Muslims insist on full sovereignty and Serbia's government refuses to accept Kosovo's independence, those talks are deadlocked. Since Russia refuses to support Kosovo's removal from Serbia, there is no chance that the UN Security Council will pass a resolution calling for Kosovar independence. The push for Kosovar independence was begun by the Clinton administration. It was the natural consequence of the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999. Yet the basic assumptions of that bombing campaign have been turned on their head in recent years. In 1999, Serbia was run by a murderous dictator Slobodan Milosovic. He stood accused of ethnically cleansing Kosovo of its Muslim population which was perceived as innocent. Today, led by Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica, Serbia is taking bold steps towards becoming a liberal democracy which abjures ethnic cleansing and political violence. On the other hand, the Saudi-financed Kosovo Muslims have destroyed more than 150 churches over the past several years, and have terrorized Kosovar Christians and so led to their mass exodus from the province. As Julia Gorin documented in a recent article in Jewish World Review, Kosovo's connections with Albanian criminal syndicates and global jihadists are legion. Moreover, Kosovar independence would likely spur irredentist movements among the Muslim minorities in all Balkan states. In Macedonia for instance, a quarter of the population is Muslim. These irredentist movements in turn would increase Muslim irredentism throughout Europe just as Palestinian statehood will foment an intensification of the Islamization of Israel's Arab minority. The Kosovo government announced last month that given the diplomatic impasse, it plans to declare its independence next month. Currently, the Bush administration is signaling its willingness to recognize an independent Kosovo even though doing so will threaten US-Russian relations. In a bid both to prevent the Bush administration from turning on Israel in the aftermath of the failure of the Annapolis conference and to make clear Israel's own rejection of the notion that a "solution" to the Palestinian conflict with Israel can be imposed by foreign powers, the Olmert government should immediately and loudly restate its opposition to the imposition of Kosovar independence on Serbia. In the interest of defending the nation-state system, on which American sovereignty and foreign policy is based, the US should reassess the logic of its support for the establishment of Muslim-only states. It should similarly revisit its refusal to openly support the right of non-Islamic states like Israel, Serbia and even France, to assert their rights to defend their sovereignty, national security and national character from outside-sponsored domestic Islamic subversion.
2. In a November 6, 2007 Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies Perspectives Paper, "U.S. Kosovo Policy is Bad for Israel," James Jatras and Serge Trifkovic wrote: There is a small piece of disputed land, rich in history but poor in everything else, whose preponderant population of two million Muslims wants to turn into a sovereign, internationally-recognized state. While that ambition is supported by the United States, the European Union, and much of the international community, such an act would open a Pandora's Box of geopolitical, legal, moral and security issues, and create a black hole of lawlessness, endemic corruption and jihad-terrorism. Surprisingly, the territory in question is not in the Middle East, but in Europe. The status of Kosovo, Serbia's southern province (Kosovo and Metohija), remains contentious eight years after it came under UN/NATO control in the spring of 1999. In the very near future, Washington is expected to make its final push to separate Kosovo from Serbia and establish an independent Muslim Albanian state. A four-month round of negotiations is continuing until December 10, with the mediation of a US/EU/Russian "Troika." These talks are proving to be as unsuccessful in reaching a compromise solution as earlier efforts had been under Martti Ahtisaari, the previous UN mediator. Mr. Ahtisaari produced a plan, unveiled in February 2007, that would award independence to Kosovo, over Serbia's objections. Only the certainty of a Russian veto in the Security Council prevented the plan's adoption. The unlikelihood of a negotiated agreement is a direct result of Washington's promise of independence to the Albanian separatists "one way or another" (in the words of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice), which means the Albanians have no incentive to compromise. No less than its predecessor, the Bush Administration is committed wholeheartedly to the Kosovo Albanian cause. Since the UN Security Council route has been blocked, the prospect looms for later this year of a unilateral declaration of Kosovo's independence and US recognition, despite absence of a UNSC Resolution providing for such recognition. Washington is exerting pressure on EU countries to break with their stated policy of acting within the UN framework, and go along with Washington. The United States also looks toward key non-EU allies -Canada, Turkey, and Israel among the foremost prospects - to follow its example and extend recognition to a self-proclaimed state of Kosovo. The unilateral independence scenario may play out as early as December 10, the date the Troika is due to report to the Secretary General on the result of its efforts. The US has threatened to recognize Kosovo after a unilateral declaration of independence, but fortunately, neither the declaration nor the recognition is certain. Washington still might be dissuaded from that step if it had reason to think other countries, notably its closest allies, would not follow the US example. While it may not be readily apparent to most Israelis, Jerusalem's decision whether or not to follow Washington's lead may be among the most crucial factors in the unfolding drama. The prospect that Israeli political leaders are prepared to display a degree of clear-headedness and realism sadly lacking in Washington, and say No to Kosovo's separation from Serbia, may be one of the most influential factors in inducing Washington to step back from the brink of a disaster in the making.
3. In a November 12, 2007 National Interest Online article, "Rapid Reaction: Kosovo Watch," Nikolas K. Gvosdev wrote: When former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and Russian president Vladimir Putin both agree on a critical issue facing the international community, one takes notice. At the end of October, Bolton told the Voice of America: "I hope that the United States will not recognize a unilateral declaration of Kosovo independence, although I think that things are currently moving in that direction, and I am afraid that it could cause more damage than it can bring good in the Balkans. Such a decision, which would be taken under threat of violence, would actually represent a way to reward bad behavior. The issue of Kosovo should be solved by two parties at the negotiation table. I understand that strong positions are taken regarding the issue by both sides-Albanian and Serbian. These are and will be tough negotiations in order to reach a solution which would satisfy both parties, but this is much better than to impose a solution on one side or the other, based on a wrong understanding of the situation." Then, the first head of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia-certainly someone that cannot be accused of acting out of pro-Serbian sentiment-proposed, instead of full independence for the province, a confederal solution. He noted: "By means of a binding UN Security Council resolution, Kosovo could be granted full and exclusive authority over its citizens and territory, as well as limited capacity for action on the international scene. It could be authorized to enter into trade agreements as well as agreements concerning individuals (for example, admission and circulation of foreigners, or extradition), plus the right to seek admission to the UN (which does not require full sovereignty and independence). "Kosovo would thus gain some essential trappings of statehood. However, a decision-making body consisting of delegates from Kosovo, Serbia, and the European Union would be given full authority over major foreign policy issues (for example, alliances and relations with international economic institutions), defence, borders (in case Kosovo wished to join with Albania), and the treatment of Kosovo's Serbian minority. As a result, Kosovo and Serbia would constitute two distinct international subjects, bound by a confederation hinging on a common decision-making body." Meanwhile, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who in Lisbon came out strongly against any recognition of a unilaterally-declared independent state for Kosovo, repeated his position in Athens at the end of October in a press conference with his Greek counterpart Dora Bakoyannis:"We need to seek a mutually acceptable, or as far as possible acceptable solution on the problem of Kosovo. You can never sort out problems in the Balkans unilaterally. There has to be some sort of consensus, some sort of agreement and Kosovo is no exception to that particular rule". The argument that there can be "no debate" over what to do about Kosovo does not hold water-and there is a whole variety of options at our disposal. There is no need for the United States or any other party to be locked in to one course of action.
4. In a June 13, 2007 Guardian article, "The Emperor Has Spoken," Neil Clark wrote: What is at stake is not just the illegal seizure from Serbia of the cradle of its national history, and rewarding the campaign of violence by ex-KLA members which has seen an estimated 200,000 Serbs, Roma, Turks and other non-Albanian groups fleeing or being driven from the province since 1999. There is also the question of whether one dangerous and globally lawless state, the US of George Bush, has the right to redraw the map of the world in any way it chooses. Bush is pressing for "independence" for Kosovo, and the word needs to be in inverted commas as the Kosovo the US has in mind will be no more "independent" than Iraq or Afghanistan - though not out of concern for Kosovan Albanians, or a passionate belief in self-determination. Contrast Washington's stance on Kosovo with its position on the pro-Russian breakaway provinces in Georgia and Moldova, whose claims for statehood they regularly dismiss. Rather, Bush is acting because this is the final stage in what has been called the west's "strategic concept" - the destruction of the genuinely independent and militarily strong state of Yugoslavia and its replacement with a series of weak and divided World Bank-Nato protectorates. Many will support the independence of Kosovo on simple grounds of self-determination: about 90% of Kosovans desire separation from Serbia. But Kosovo is no simple case. Given the recent history of the area, the minority rights of the non-Albanian population must also be a central concern. And the verdict of the Minority Rights Group that "nowhere is there such a level of fear for so many minorities that they will be harassed simply for who they are...nowhere else in Europe is at such a high risk of ethnic cleansing occurring in the near future - or even a risk of genocide" hardly inspires confidence in the future. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the creation of another new state in the Balkans will not destabilise the region further. Albanian separatists both in Montenegro and in Macedonia, where military hostilities took place as recently as 2001, will be encouraged. Serbia will face further disintegration: Albanians in the south of the country are keen to be included in a new Kosovo, while Hungarian demands for self-determination in Vojvodina are also likely to intensify.
5. In a November 5 Christian Science Monitor article, "If you give separatists an inch... An independent Kosovo will spur other separatists to fight harder," David Young wrote: The NATO intervention in the Serbian province of Kosovo in 1999, the UN protectorate that followed, and the symbiotic push for Kosovo's development and independence have left many analysts and politicians scrambling either to bemoan or trivialize the impact that Kosovo's final status could have on the global order. With the looming Dec. 10 deadline for the latest round of negotiations, it seems exceedingly unlikely that Washington will be able to persuade Moscow to endorse Kosovo's independence at the UN Security Council. Yet Kosovo's frustrated Albanians, who make up more than 90 percent of the province's population, have hinted that they are on the brink of declaring independence unilaterally, even if it means renewed conflict with Belgrade. Ultimately, in our international system, a nation's "independence" is little more than the rest of the world's willingness to recognize it as independent. So, even if Moscow vetoes Kosovo's bid for independence, Kosovo can still enjoy some of the benefits of being an independent country. These benefits become more substantial with every state that recognizes Kosovo. Similarly, the likelihood of renewed violence would decrease if other countries viewed Kosovo's self-defense as legitimate. This means, however, that because negotiations are likely to fail, Washington has been encouraging, and will continue to encourage, foreign governments to support a technically illegal, self-declared, independent Kosovo in the event that negotiations collapse. Yet this kind of persuasion does not come easily. There are more than 50 separatist conflicts across the globe, and few of the governments that have endured the bane of irredentism will be eager to recognize Kosovo if such a precedent could come back to haunt them.
6. In a November 5, 2007 YaleGlobal article, "Kosovo's Independence Could Mean a New Conflict - By avoiding empty sovereignty, Kosovo could lay down the foundation for its prosperity," BBC correspondent Humphrey Hawksley wrote: While Kosovo was a defining issue of post-Cold War leadership, there is now a gaping silence from all global powers - except Russia - as to an acceptable way forward. Kosovo's 2 million citizens interpret this as a signal that the United States and much of Europe would support its independence. Kosovo, therefore, is in danger of falling victim to the type of opaque diplomacy that has been behind some of the gravest global conflicts. One of the more recent is Saddam Hussein's belief that the US would not object to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Another is the initial tepid US reaction to the northern Iraq-based Kurdish insurgency against Turkey, leading to the current crisis, in which Turkish and US troops could face each other from opposite sides of a frontline. Too much is at stake for international policy to be misread again. The West must declare clearly what it will or will not do if independence is declared, and it must avoid enveloping Kosovo in a Cold War-style clash with Russia. Should Kosovo declare independence, it would almost certainly not be recognized by the UN because of a veto by Russia in the Security Council. The EU is unlikely to accept Kosovo's independence because of opposition from governments in Greece, Cyprus, Romania and others. Without UN or EU recognition, the new Kosovo might have less legitimacy than the present one.
7. In a November 9, 2007 Kansas State Collegian article, "Policy stance on Kosovo must change to remedy mistakes," Brett King wrote: After eight years, the United States still stands behind the KLA - which is nothing more than a terrorist organization - and is supporting the establishment of the country of Kosovo. Russia, for all its faults, still stand behind the Serbs and is not giving into the demands of this terrorist group. John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is extremely critical of the U.S. stance on Kosovo independence in his new book. During an interview with Voice of America on Nov. 1, Bolton explained how creating an independent Kosovo will establish a precedent for other violent separatist groups to follow. "Current and future separatists merely have to manufacture the same conditions and sequencing that have compelled the West to embrace an independent Kosovo: terrorize locals, invite government crackdowns, incite a rebellion and lure in foreign intervention and commitment to rebuild," Bolton said. "Once militants get this far, Kosovo will no longer be unique - even by Washington's peculiar standards." The United States has a chance to make up for one of their biggest foreign-policy mistakes. An independent Kosovo will destabilize the region once again and threaten the lives of Serbs living in the Kosovo region. We made the mistake of supporting the KLA in the past, but we do not need to continue to this error in judgment.
8. In a November 11, 2007 Assyrian International News Agency article, "The Church: Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?," Norwegian blogger Fjordman wrote: Bishop Artemije, the spiritual leader of Kosovo's beleaguered Serbs, has warned against Western support for an independent state in the province, where Muslim Albanians greatly outnumber Christian Serbs and have destroyed many churches and monasteries under the auspices of NATO soldiers. The Bishop warns that independence would reward ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims. Since 9-11, he said, "the United States has been engaged in a global struggle against jihad terrorism, which threatens not just America but peaceful people of all faiths and nationalities. That is why we who live in the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija find it difficult to understand why so many voices of influence in Washington support a course of action that would hand to the terrorists a significant victory in Europe."
9. In a November 7, 2007 article, "Macedonia police chase Kosovo fugitive, at least 6 gang members killed," Associated Press reported: Police search teams chased a Kosovo prison fugitive and his criminal gang on Wednesday, killing six gang members and arresting 12 others in northwestern Macedonia, police said. The search operation led to gun battles in ethnic Albanian villages near Macedonia's volatile border with Kosovo, but the main target of the operation - fugitive Lirim Jakupi - was still at large. Jakupi, nicknamed the "Nazi," was a member of the outlawed Albanian National Army, and was wanted in Macedonia and Serbia for alleged participation in attacks in both countries. In 2004 he was arrested in Skopje on suspicion of murdering a policeman and planting bomb outside a police station, but he escaped custody while awaiting trial. He was arrested by U.N. forces in Kosovo, and jailed on terrorism charges.
10. In a November 10, 2007 Reuters article, "EU's Kosovo report scathing on graft, justice," Ellie Tzortzi wrote: Serbia's United Nations-run Kosovo province is plagued by graft, human rights abuses and cronyism because of weakness in the province's authorities, the European Commission said on Tuesday. The EU executive's annual progress report concluded there was little progress in the province and institutions were weak, mainly due to widespread corruption at all levels. "Due to a lack of clear political will to fight corruption, and to insufficient legislative and implementing measures, corruption is still widespread," the report said. There was little control on how politicians and officials got their wealth and "civil servants are still vulnerable to political interference, corrupt practices and nepotism." "Kosovo's public administration remains weak and inefficient," the report added. In a reference to a widespread perception in Kosovo of cronyism, the report said that "the composition of the government anti-corruption council does not sufficiently guarantee its impartiality."
11. In a November 6, 2007 article, "Hope running out for Kosovo independence," The Tiraspol Times reported: With Serbia and Kosovo meeting in Berlin this week, German Foreign Ministry official Martin Jaeger strongly rejected media reports from Pristina which said that Germany would recognize Kosovo's independence after 10 December 2007 when the current 120-day negotiation period ends. With the statement, Germany added itself to a list of countries that are having second thoughts about giving Kosovo independence before other would-be countries that have waited longer to become internationally recognized. These frozen conflicts and "de facto" countries include Transdniestria, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, Abkhazia and several others. Germany sees only slim chances for an international agreement on the future status of the Serbian breakaway republic of Kosovo, the German diplomat said on Monday. Speaking to the press, German Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Jaeger stressed that a settlement of the crisis was "not guaranteed" at all.

1. Our World: Islam and the nation-state
By Carolone Glick
The Jerusalem Post - November 12, 2007
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380800225&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Throughout the world, one of the most prevalent causes of war, terrorism and political instability is the ongoing weakening of the nation-state system. There are several reasons that the nation-state as a political unit of sovereignty is under threat. One of the most basic causes of this continuous erosion of national power throughout the world is the transformation of minority-dominated enclaves within nation-states into ungovernable areas where state power is either not applied or applied in a haphazard and generally unconstructive manner.While domestic strife between majority and minority populations has been an enduring feature of democratic and indeed all societies throughout history, the current turbulence constitutes a unique challenge to the nation-state system. This is because much of the internal strife between minority and majority populations within states today is financed and often directed from outside the country.Traditionally, minorities used various local means to engage the majority population in a bid to influence the political direction or cultural norms of the nation state. The classic examples of this traditional minority-majority engagement are the black civil rights movement in the US in the 1960s and the labor movements in the West throughout the 20th century. By and large, these movements were domestic protests informed by national sensibilities even when they enjoyed the support of foreign governments.Today while similar movements continue to flourish, they are now being superseded by a new type of minority challenge to national majorities.This challenge is not primarily the result of domestic injustice but the consequence of foreign agitation. The roots of these minority challenges are found outside the borders of the targeted states. And their goals are not limited to a call for the reform of national institutions and politics. Rather they set their sights on weakening national institutions and eroding national sovereignty.MUSLIM MINORITIES throughout the world are being financed and ideologically trained in Saudi and UAE funded mosques and Islamic centers. These minorities act in strikingly similar manners in the countries where they are situated throughout the world. On the one hand, their local political leaders demand extraordinary communal rights, rights accorded neither to the national majority nor to other minority populations. On the other hand, Muslim neighborhoods, particularly in Europe, but also in Israel, the Philippines and Australia, are rendered increasingly ungovernable as arms of the state like the police and tax authorities come under attack when they attempt to assert state power in these Muslim communities.Logic would have it that targeted states would respond to the threat to their authority through a dual strategy. On the one hand, they would firmly assert their authority by enforcing their laws against both individual lawbreakers and against subversive, foreign financed institutions that incite the overthrow of their governments and their replacement with Islamic governments. On the other hand, they would seek out and empower local Muslims who accept the authority and legitimacy of their states and their rule of law.Unfortunately, with the notable exception of the Howard government in Australia, in country after country, governments respond to this challenge by attempting to appease Muslim irredentists and their state sponsors. The British responded to the July 7, 2005 bombings by giving representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood an official role in crafting and carrying out counter-terror policies.In 2003, then French president Jacques Chirac sent then interior minister Nicholas Sarkozy to Egypt to seek the permission of Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi of the Islamist al-Azhar mosque for the French parliament's plan to outlaw hijabs in French schools.In the US, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the FBI asked the terror-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations to conduct sensitivity training for FBI agents.In Holland last year, the Dutch government effectively expelled anti-Islamist politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the interest of currying favor with Holland's restive Muslim minority.THE FOREIGN policy aspect of the rush to appease is twofold. First, targeted states refuse to support one another when individual governments attempt to use the tools of law enforcement to handle their domestic jihad threat. For instance, European states have harshly criticized the US Patriot Act while the US criticized the French decision to prohibit the hijab in public schools.More acutely, targeted states lead the charge in calling for the establishment of Muslim-only states. Today the US and the EU are leading the charge towards the establishment of a Palestinian state and the creation of an independent state of Kosovo.In two weeks, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will host the Annapolis conference where together with her European and Arab counterparts, she will exert enormous pressure on the Olmert government to agree to the establishment of a jihadist Palestinian state in Israel's heartland with its capital in Jerusalem and its sovereignty extending over Judaism's most sacred site, the Temple Mount.The establishment of the sought-for Palestinian state presupposes the ethnic cleansing of at a minimum 80,000 Israelis from their homes and communities simply because they are Jews. Jews of course will be prohibited from living in Palestine.FOR ITS part, the Palestinian leadership to which Israel will be expected to communicate its acceptance of the establishment of Palestine, is one part criminal, and two parts jihadist. As Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his colleagues have made clear, while they are willing to accept Israel's concessions, they are not willing to accept Israel. This is why they refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.A rare consensus exists today in Israel. From the far-left to the far-right, from IDF Military Intelligence to the Mossad, all agree that the Annapolis conference will fail to bring a peace accord. Since Rice's approach to reaching just such an accord has been to apply unrelenting pressure on Israel, it is fairly clear that she will blame Israel for the conference's preordained failure and cause a further deterioration in US-Israeli relations.While Israel is supposed to accept a Jew-free Palestine, it goes without saying that its own 20 percent Arab minority will continue to enjoy the full rights of Israeli citizenship. Yet one of the direct consequences of the establishment of a Jew-free, pro-jihadist State of Palestine will be the further radicalization of Israeli Arabs. They will intensify their current rejection of Israel's national identity.With Palestinian and outside support, they will intensify their irredentist activities and so exert an even more devastating attack on Israel's sovereignty and right to national self-determination.SHORTLY AFTER the Annapolis conference fails, and no doubt in a bid to buck up its standing with the Arab world, the US may well stand by its stated intention to recognize the independence of Kosovo.On December 10, the UN-sponsored troika from the US, Russia and Germany is due to present their report on the ongoing UN-sponsored negotiations between the Kosovo Muslims and the Serbian government regarding the future of the restive province of Serbia. Since the Kosovo Muslims insist on full sovereignty and Serbia's government refuses to accept Kosovo's independence, those talks are deadlocked. Since Russia refuses to support Kosovo's removal from Serbia, there is no chance that the UN Security Council will pass a resolution calling for Kosovar independence.The push for Kosovar independence was begun by the Clinton administration. It was the natural consequence of the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999. Yet the basic assumptions of that bombing campaign have been turned on their head in recent years. In 1999, Serbia was run by a murderous dictator Slobodan Milosovic. He stood accused of ethnically cleansing Kosovo of its Muslim population which was perceived as innocent. Today, led by Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica, Serbia is taking bold steps towards becoming a liberal democracy which abjures ethnic cleansing and political violence. On the other hand, the Saudi-financed Kosovo Muslims have destroyed more than 150 churches over the past several years, and have terrorized Kosovar Christians and so led to their mass exodus from the province.As Julia Gorin documented in a recent article in Jewish World Review, Kosovo's connections with Albanian criminal syndicates and global jihadists are legion. Moreover, Kosovar independence would likely spur irredentist movements among the Muslim minorities in all Balkan states. In Macedonia for instance, a quarter of the population is Muslim. These irredentist movements in turn would increase Muslim irredentism throughout Europe just as Palestinian statehood will foment an intensification of the Islamization of Israel's Arab minority.The Kosovo government announced last month that given the diplomatic impasse, it plans to declare its independence next month. Currently, the Bush administration is signaling its willingness to recognize an independent Kosovo even though doing so will threaten US-Russian relations.In a bid both to prevent the Bush administration from turning on Israel in the aftermath of the failure of the Annapolis conference and to make clear Israel's own rejection of the notion that a "solution" to the Palestinian conflict with Israel can be imposed by foreign powers, the Olmert government should immediately and loudly restate its opposition to the imposition of Kosovar independence on Serbia.In the interest of defending the nation-state system, on which American sovereignty and foreign policy is based, the US should reassess the logic of its support for the establishment of Muslim-only states. It should similarly revisit its refusal to openly support the right of non-Islamic states like Israel, Serbia and even France, to assert their rights to defend their sovereignty, national security and national character from outside-sponsored domestic Islamic subversion.
2. U.S. Kosovo Policy Is Bad for Israel
By James Jatras and Serge Trifkovic
The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University, Israel - Perspectives Papers No. 35, November 6, 2007
http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/perspectives.html
Strong American support for the independence of Kosovo is detrimental to Israeli interests. The US position is based on the view that a solution to long-standing conflict can and should be imposed on the parties by outside powers. In addition, the new state's creation seeks to award part of a nation's territory to a violent ethno-religious minority; futilely hopes to curry favor with the Islamic world through appeasement; effectively gives a fresh impetus to the ongoing growth of Islamic influence in Europe; and denies the fact that the putative state's leaders are tainted by terrorism, criminality, and well-documented links with global jihad. Most importantly, it betrays a cynically postmodern contempt for all claims based on the historical rights and spiritual significance of a land to a nation.
It is in Israel's interest to reiterate its already-stated position that any solution to Kosovo should be based on the agreement of both parties in dispute. In addition, the Israeli government should declare that it will not extend recognition to any self-proclaimed "state" unless its independence is approved by the UN Security Council.
Full article: http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/perspectives.html
or in PDF: http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/docs/perspectives35.pdf
Background
There is a small piece of disputed land, rich in history but poor in everything else, whose preponderant population of two million Muslims wants to turn into a sovereign, internationally-recognized state. While that ambition is supported by the United States, the European Union, and much of the international community, such an act would open a Pandora's Box of geopolitical, legal, moral and security issues, and create a black hole of lawlessness, endemic corruption and jihad-terrorism.
Surprisingly, the territory in question is not in the Middle East, but in Europe. The status of Kosovo, Serbia's southern province (Kosovo and Metohija), remains contentious eight years after it came under UN/NATO control in the spring of 1999.
In the very near future, Washington is expected to make its final push to separate Kosovo from Serbia and establish an independent Muslim Albanian state. A four-month round of negotiations is continuing until December 10, with the mediation of a US/EU/Russian "Troika." These talks are proving to be as unsuccessful in reaching a compromise solution as earlier efforts had been under Martti Ahtisaari, the previous UN mediator. Mr. Ahtisaari produced a plan, unveiled in February 2007, that would award independence to Kosovo, over Serbia's objections. Only the certainty of a Russian veto in the Security Council prevented the plan's adoption.
The unlikelihood of a negotiated agreement is a direct result of Washington's promise of independence to the Albanian separatists "one way or another" (in the words of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice), which means the Albanians have no incentive to compromise. No less than its predecessor, the Bush Administration is committed wholeheartedly to the Kosovo Albanian cause. Since the UN Security Council route has been blocked, the prospect looms for later this year of a unilateral declaration of Kosovo's independence and US recognition, despite absence of a UNSC Resolution providing for such recognition.
Washington is exerting pressure on EU countries to break with their stated policy of acting within the UN framework, and go along with Washington. The United States also looks toward key non-EU allies -Canada, Turkey, and Israel among the foremost prospects - to follow its example and extend recognition to a self-proclaimed state of Kosovo.
The unilateral independence scenario may play out as early as December 10, the date the Troika is due to report to the Secretary General on the result of its efforts. The US has threatened to recognize Kosovo after a unilateral declaration of independence, but fortunately, neither the declaration nor the recognition is certain. Washington still might be dissuaded from that step if it had reason to think other countries, notably its closest allies, would not follow the US example.
While it may not be readily apparent to most Israelis, Jerusalem's decision whether or not to follow Washington's lead may be among the most crucial factors in the unfolding drama. The prospect that Israeli political leaders are prepared to display a degree of clear-headedness and realism sadly lacking in Washington, and say No to Kosovo's separation from Serbia, may be one of the most influential factors in inducing Washington to step back from the brink of a disaster in the making.
Implications for Israel
While most Israelis may assume their country has no stake in the outcome of the Kosovo question, Washington's proceeding with its current course would in fact adversely affect Israel's interests in a number of ways:
1. It would set the precedent that a solution to an intractable political and territorial quarrel can and should be imposed by outside countries, even if one of the parties rejects the proposed solution as contrary to its vital national interests. While the question of how Israel should come to an accommodation with Palestinian aspirations for self-rule has resisted efforts to find a negotiated settlement, no one suggests a solution imposed from outside would likely be in Israel's interest.
2. The theory that outside powers can award part of a state's sovereign territory to a violent ethnic or religious minority would put in question not only Judaea and Samaria - which, in any event, are not formally part of Israel - but even such areas as the southern Galilee and parts of the Negev, where non-Jews have, or may eventually acquire, local majorities. Israel's Muslim population is now just above 20 percent, roughly the same as Serbia's if Kosovo is included. If Albanian Muslims can demand separation from Serbia today, and citing alleged past mistreatment, why cannot Israel's Arabs do the same tomorrow?
3. Washington's plan to circumvent the Security Council to avoid Moscow's veto would amount to a devaluing of Russia's veto in the Security Council. Such an action is likely to devalue the power of the veto as such, at least as concerns a Permanent Member's protection of smaller states. In light of how many times anti-Israel UNSC Resolutions have been thwarted by a US veto, damaging the power of the veto per se is detrimental to Israel in the future.
4. As has been pointed out by many American policymakers, an overt motivation of US policy on Kosovo is to curry favor in the Islamic world. Such a notion betrays an incredible naïveté about the jihadist mindset, which has never been impressed with concessions. One only need look at American efforts to help create a Palestinian state, to bring "democracy" to Iraq or Afghanistan, or to provide aid to Osama bin Laden and other mujaheddin against the Soviet Union to see the value of jihadist gratitude. A victory in Kosovo would merely stimulate the jihadists' demand for further concessions elsewhere.
5. Creation of a second Islamic state in the Balkans (after Bosnia, which is regarded as a Muslim country even though its population is majority Christian) would help further the growth of Islamic influence in Europe. Such influence, based on the growing Muslim presence in key European countries, already has contributed to those countries', and the EU's, growing anti-Israel tilt, as well as to anti-Jewish violence in Europe.
6. Proponents of Kosovo independence scoff at Serbia's claim that Kosovo represents not just any part of their country but its heart and soul - "Serbia's Jerusalem." Such a dismissive attitude betrays a cynical contempt for the essence of any nation's life, which must rest on a common historical acknowledgment of its moral and spiritual identity, without which a people ceases to be a people and is little more than a random mob. If Serbia can be deprived of its Jerusalem today, what's to say "al-Quds" will not be demanded of Israel tomorrow as the capital of an independent "Palestine"?
7. Proponents of Kosovo's independence overlook or flatly deny the fact that Kosovo's top Albanian leaders are tainted by terrorism and criminality, and that their record indicates an endemic inability to run a stable, civilized polity. In the same vein, today's Pristina or Podujevo are reminiscent of Gaza or Ramallah - Saudi-financed mosques, armed men, and roadside rubbish heaps included.
No one pretends it will be easy for Israel to stand up to its closest friend and ally on an issue many Israelis may consider peripheral. Yet, it must be kept in mind that Israel's sound position on Kosovo may itself be a factor in holding Washington back from a serious error in judgment.
Israeli Influence
There are two main areas in which Israel can make a positive, perhaps decisive, contribution.
Firstly, the Israeli government can restate its position publicly and forcefully - against an imposed solution. When Serbia's then-Foreign Minister Vuk Draskovic visited Israel last year, his Israeli counterpart Tzipi Livni clearly stated Israel's position against an imposed solution. It can communicate this in bilateral contacts with Washington and with other capitals, notably in Europe. It would also be appropriate for the Knesset to act on a resolution to this effect.
Secondly, the impact of Israeli opinion on the public policy community in the United States should not be underestimated. Among the American advocates of Kosovo independence are many sincere friends and supporters of Israel who have no notion that their advocacy might have a negative impact on Israel. Such advocates are found among media, public policy groups and think tanks, advocacy organizations, and other centers of influence representing in particular the US Jewish community, liberals, neoconservatives, and elements of the Christian community.
In addition, Israel's military and defense experience with terrorism is widely respected in American defense, intelligence, and homeland security sectors, both in and out of government, and in both the Executive and Legislative branches. It is important that every such contact in the United States be informed by their Israeli interlocutors that the wrong solution for Kosovo would have an adverse impact on Israel.
Conclusion
Since the 1999 NATO war against Serbia, the Kosovo question has faded from the horizon of the American and Israeli policy communities. This has allowed the proponents of Kosovo's forcible and illegal separation from Serbia to gain the upper hand in formulating American policy. That does not mean, however, that the misguided policy cannot be recast if the relevant perspectives, including the impact on Israel, are brought to bear. For Israel's well-being, if for no other reason, that process needs to begin as soon as possible.
~~~~~~~~
Mr. Jatras, Director of the Washington DC-based American Council for Kosovo (www.savekosovo.org), is a former Foreign Service officer and former Senior Analyst with the US Senate Republican Policy Committee.
The American Council for Kosovo is an activity of Squire Sanders Public Advocacy, LLC, and Global Strategic Communications Group, which are registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act as agents for the Serbian National Council of Kosovo and Metohija, under the spiritual guidance of His Grace, Bishop ARTEMIJE of Ras and Prizren. Additional information with respect to this matter is on file with the Foreign Agents Registration Unit of the Department of Justice in Washington DC.
Dr. Trifkovic is Foreign Affairs Editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture published by The Rockford Institute, and the author - most recently - of Defeating Jihad: How the War on Terror May Yet Be Won, in Spite of Ourselves.
This article is based on presentations delivered at a September BESA Center Conference on "The Kosovo Problem."
http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/docs/perspectives35.pdf

3. Rapid Reaction: Kosovo Watch
By Nikolas K. Gvosdev
National Interest Online - November 12, 2007
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=16114
When former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and Russian president Vladimir Putin both agree on a critical issue facing the international community, one takes notice.
At the end of October, Bolton told the Voice of America:
"I hope that the United States will not recognize a unilateral declaration of Kosovo independence, although I think that things are currently moving in that direction, and I am afraid that it could cause more damage than it can bring good in the Balkans. Such a decision, which would be taken under threat of violence, would actually represent a way to reward bad behavior. The issue of Kosovo should be solved by two parties at the negotiation table. I understand that strong positions are taken regarding the issue by both sides-Albanian and Serbian. These are and will be tough negotiations in order to reach a solution which would satisfy both parties, but this is much better than to impose a solution on one side or the other, based on a wrong understanding of the situation."
Then, the first head of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia-certainly someone that cannot be accused of acting out of pro-Serbian sentiment-proposed, instead of full independence for the province, a confederal solution. He noted:
"By means of a binding UN Security Council resolution, Kosovo could be granted full and exclusive authority over its citizens and territory, as well as limited capacity for action on the international scene. It could be authorized to enter into trade agreements as well as agreements concerning individuals (for example, admission and circulation of foreigners, or extradition), plus the right to seek admission to the UN (which does not require full sovereignty and independence).
"Kosovo would thus gain some essential trappings of statehood. However, a decision-making body consisting of delegates from Kosovo, Serbia, and the European Union would be given full authority over major foreign policy issues (for example, alliances and relations with international economic institutions), defence, borders (in case Kosovo wished to join with Albania), and the treatment of Kosovo's Serbian minority. As a result, Kosovo and Serbia would constitute two distinct international subjects, bound by a confederation hinging on a common decision-making body."
Meanwhile, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who in Lisbon came out strongly against any recognition of a unilaterally-declared independent state for Kosovo, repeated his position in Athens at the end of October in a press conference with his Greek counterpart Dora Bakoyannis:
"We need to seek a mutually acceptable, or as far as possible acceptable solution on the problem of Kosovo. You can never sort out problems in the Balkans unilaterally. There has to be some sort of consensus, some sort of agreement and Kosovo is no exception to that particular rule."
Bakoyannis also restated the Greek position on Kosovo-"A viable solution, a solution of stability, exhausting every possibility for negotiations, with a single European stance, without unilateral actions, and with the strongest possible international legitimacy, just as the legitimacy provided by UN Security Council resolutions."
The argument that there can be "no debate" over what to do about Kosovo does not hold water-and there is a whole variety of options at our disposal. There is no need for the United States or any other party to be locked in to one course of action.
Nikolas K. Gvosdev is editor of The National Interest.

4. The Emperor Has Spoken
By Neil Clark
The Guardian - June 13, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,,2101526,00.html
So that's that, then. After a meeting with the Italian prime minister Romano Prodi at the weekend, President Bush announced that it was time to bring the issue of Kosovan independence "to a head". In other words, Kosovo should become independent even without the approval of the UN security council. Now the emperor has spoken, is there really any point discussing the future of the disputed Serbian province any further? Well yes, actually, there is.

What is at stake is not just the illegal seizure from Serbia of the cradle of its national history, and rewarding the campaign of violence by ex-KLA members which has seen an estimated 200,000 Serbs, Roma, Turks and other non-Albanian groups fleeing or being driven from the province since 1999. There is also the question of whether one dangerous and globally lawless state, the US of George Bush, has the right to redraw the map of the world in any way it chooses.
Bush is pressing for "independence" for Kosovo, and the word needs to be in inverted commas as the Kosovo the US has in mind will be no more "independent" than Iraq or Afghanistan - though not out of concern for Kosovan Albanians, or a passionate belief in self-determination. Contrast Washington's stance on Kosovo with its position on the pro-Russian breakaway provinces in Georgia and Moldova, whose claims for statehood they regularly dismiss. Rather, Bush is acting because this is the final stage in what has been called the west's "strategic concept" - the destruction of the genuinely independent and militarily strong state of Yugoslavia and its replacement with a series of weak and divided World Bank-Nato protectorates.
Many will support the independence of Kosovo on simple grounds of self-determination: about 90% of Kosovans desire separation from Serbia. But Kosovo is no simple case. Given the recent history of the area, the minority rights of the non-Albanian population must also be a central concern. And the verdict of the Minority Rights Group that "nowhere is there such a level of fear for so many minorities that they will be harassed simply for who they are...nowhere else in Europe is at such a high risk of ethnic cleansing occurring in the near future - or even a risk of genocide" hardly inspires confidence in the future.
Furthermore, it is difficult to see how the creation of another new state in the Balkans will not destabilise the region further. Albanian separatists both in Montenegro and in Macedonia, where military hostilities took place as recently as 2001, will be encouraged. Serbia will face further disintegration: Albanians in the south of the country are keen to be included in a new Kosovo, while Hungarian demands for self-determination in Vojvodina are also likely to intensify.
Far from being concerned about this fragmentation, Washington encourages it. "Liberating" Kosovo from direct Belgrade control, achieved by the illegal 1999 bombardment of the rump Yugoslavia, has already brought rich pickings for US companies in the shape of the privatisation of socially owned assets.
Even more important, it has enabled the construction of Camp Bondsteel, the US's biggest "from scratch" military base since the Vietnam war, which jealously guards the route of the trans-Balkan Ambo pipeline, and guarantees western control of Caspian Sea oil supplies. The camp, which includes a detention facility used to house those detained during Nato operations in Kosovo, was described by Alvaro Gil-Robles, the human rights envoy of the Council of Europe, as a "smaller version of Guantánamo" following a visit in November 2005. To guarantee US hegemony in the region, it is essential that Kosovo is severed permanently from Serbia - a country which, with its strong historical links to Russia, is never likely to be as obedient a servant as the empire demands.
Since the end of the cold war, Russia has allowed the US to surround it with military bases and, through interference in the electoral process, bring to power governments ready to do its bidding. But the tide is turning. The US's attempt to engineer another "colour-coded" revolution in Belarus backfired spectacularly last year and, buoyed up by oil revenues, an increasingly assertive Russia is challenging the empire's Drang nach Osten. And at last week's G8 summit, President Putin reiterated his support for Serbia and his opposition to Kosovan "independence". Let's hope he keeps his word.
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.

5. If you give separatists an inch... An independent Kosovo will spur other separatists to fight harder.
By David Young
The Christian Science Monitor - November 5, 2007
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1105/p09s02-coop.html
The NATO intervention in the Serbian province of Kosovo in 1999, the UN protectorate that followed, and the symbiotic push for Kosovo's development and independence have left many analysts and politicians scrambling either to bemoan or trivialize the impact that Kosovo's final status could have on the global order.
With the looming Dec. 10 deadline for the latest round of negotiations, it seems exceedingly unlikely that Washington will be able to persuade Moscow to endorse Kosovo's independence at the UN Security Council. Yet Kosovo's frustrated Albanians, who make up more than 90 percent of the province's population, have hinted that they are on the brink of declaring independence unilaterally, even if it means renewed conflict with Belgrade.
Ultimately, in our international system, a nation's "independence" is little more than the rest of the world's willingness to recognize it as independent. So, even if Moscow vetoes Kosovo's bid for independence, Kosovo can still enjoy some of the benefits of being an independent country. These benefits become more substantial with every state that recognizes Kosovo. Similarly, the likelihood of renewed violence would decrease if other countries viewed Kosovo's self-defense as legitimate.
This means, however, that because negotiations are likely to fail, Washington has been encouraging, and will continue to encourage, foreign governments to support a technically illegal, self-declared, independent Kosovo in the event that negotiations collapse. Yet this kind of persuasion does not come easily.
There are more than 50 separatist conflicts across the globe, and few of the governments that have endured the bane of irredentism will be eager to recognize Kosovo if such a precedent could come back to haunt them.
Echoing countless other US and European officials, Daniel Fried, the US assistant secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, responded to such concerns in February with the following logic: "Kosovo is a unique situation because NATO was forced to intervene to stop and then reverse ethnic cleansing. The Security Council authorized Kosovo to be ruled effectively by the United Nations, not by Serbia. UN Council Resolution 1244 also stated that Kosovo's final status would be the subject of negotiation. Those conditions do not pertain to any of the conflicts that are usually brought up in this context."
Unfortunately, Washington's "unique" talking points are actually engraving a separatist playbook in stone, blazing a glorious trail that separatists will follow with greater determination, recruits, and (in all likelihood) success.
Separatist regions like the Basque Country or Abkhazia might not resemble Kosovo right now - as Washington is quick to note - but by so explicitly stating the merits of Kosovar self-determination and independence, Washington is essentially creating an innovative code, only to make the cipher publicly available. Current and future separatists merely have to manufacture the same conditions and sequencing that have compelled the West to embrace an independent Kosovo: terrorize locals, invite government crackdowns, incite a rebellion, and lure in foreign intervention and commitment to rebuild.
Once militants get this far, Kosovo will no longer be unique - even by Washington's peculiar standards - and areas that share Kosovo's characteristics will be equally deserving of independence. The horrid irony, of course, is that declaring Kosovo's uniqueness has been Washington's deliberate attempt to prevent future separatism, but it is inadvertently teaching militants how to navigate the complex inconsistencies of geopolitics. In fact, the more thorough and persuasive Western governments are about Kosovo's "uniqueness," the more legitimate separatists' ambitions become, if only they follow the Kosovo model.
Not only, then, has Washington had a hard time selling Kosovo's independence to all but its closest allies, but the very basis for that appeal is even more threatening to governments that would face invigorated separatism in the wake of an independent Kosovo - even if that independence is informal and technically illegal.
With the "unique" endorsement, Washington and a few European capitals close even more rhetorical doors that they will need to slip through when the time comes to reject separatist analogies in the future, and our failure to anticipate these complicated roadblocks will cost our allies more than anyone else.

6. Kosovo's Independence Could Mean a New Conflict - By avoiding empty sovereignty, Kosovo could lay down the foundation for its prosperity
By Humphrey Hawksley
YaleGlobal - November 5, 2007
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9934After World War II, Kosovo became a province of Serbia in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Kosovo, with its majority of ethnic Albanians, enjoyed near-autonomy until 1989 and the oppressive rule of Slobodan Milosevic. The Albanians resisted throughout the 1990s, atrocities ensued, leading finally to intervention by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1999. Yugoslavia splintered, and Kosovo has since remained an international protectorate of the UN, with an international force in place. Citizens in that part of the world have split into two camps, reminiscent of the Cold War era - Serbs are divided about Russian ties and Kosovars lean towards independence, assuming US support. A declaration of independence from Kosovo could bring to the surface the many differences between Russia and the West. Ethnic groups seeking independence - including Kurds in northern Iraq, Palestinians in the Middle East and Albanians in Kosovo - cannot count on a distracted and overloaded US for support. BBC journalist Humphrey Hawksley argues that Kosovo's quest for independence might not be a good idea, considering that both it and Serbia aspire to join the European Union. He points out that nations with ethnic diversity can cooperate on trade and politics, pursuing economic success rather than trying to resolve ancient grudges. Good governance, Hawksley concludes, is a more practical goal than sovereignty. - YaleGlobal
PRISTINA: It's almost nine years since NATO air strikes freed Kosovar Albanians from Serbian control, yet the official status of the province is still undecided. A deadline of December 10, 2007, has been set for the diplomatic process to deliver. It's expected to fail, after which Kosovo's semi-autonomous government says it will make a unilateral declaration of independence.
While Kosovo was a defining issue of post-Cold War leadership, there is now a gaping silence from all global powers - except Russia - as to an acceptable way forward. Kosovo's 2 million citizens interpret this as a signal that the United States and much of Europe would support its independence.
Kosovo, therefore, is in danger of falling victim to the type of opaque diplomacy that has been behind some of the gravest global conflicts. One of the more recent is Saddam Hussein's belief that the US would not object to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Another is the initial tepid US reaction to the northern Iraq-based Kurdish insurgency against Turkey, leading to the current crisis, in which Turkish and US troops could face each other from opposite sides of a frontline.
Too much is at stake for international policy to be misread again.
The West must declare clearly what it will or will not do if independence is declared, and it must avoid enveloping Kosovo in a Cold War-style clash with Russia.
Since the 1999 North Atlantic Treaty Organization intervention, the United Nations has administered Kosovo. Stability remains underwritten by a 16,000-strong international force, and apart from an upsurge of anti-Serb unrest in 2004 and sporadic ethnic attacks, Kosovo is seen as an intervention success story.
In January this year, UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari put forward proposals that would allow Kosovo its official separation from Serbia. He deliberately avoided using inflammatory words such as "independence" and "sovereignty." The new nation would be authoritatively monitored by the European Union and the international military force would stay. In many respects, it would be similar to the status quo.
Serbia rejected the proposals, saying it would never accept Kosovo's separation, and, in September, Russia gave its full support, announcing that it was drawing a "red line" on the issue of Kosovo.
Kosovars argue that they need independence to move on and build a modern European nation. For example, official status would attract investment and lower interest rates.
Serbia insists that it should not be punished for the atrocities of a former dictator. The brutality of the 1990s was carried out under the regime of Slobodan Milosevic who was overthrown by the Serbian people. Serbia is now a European democracy and the issue should end there.
Russia's blunt red-line declaration, however, has taken Kosovo's status to a higher level. What began as a humanitarian mission to stop ethnic cleansing has become part of a new balance of power in Europe. Kosovo's future is linked to the Czech and Polish missile defense-shield dispute, energy supplies, and a basket of issues on which a revitalized Kremlin tests the will of the EU and the US.
Should Kosovo declare independence, it would almost certainly not be recognized by the UN because of a veto by Russia in the Security Council. The EU is unlikely to accept Kosovo's independence because of opposition from governments in Greece, Cyprus, Romania and others. Without UN or EU recognition, the new Kosovo might have less legitimacy than the present one.
Opinion polls have found that more and more Serbs now mull about where their long-term future lies. At present, they are split 50-50 between Russia and the EU. But, increasingly, Moscow is seen to be delivering more than Brussels, particularly by way of security and a sense of belonging.
"Russia and Serbia are almost the same nation," said a resident in the town of Kurshumliza, close to the Kosovo border. "And Russia is heavily armed and a big power. It will help us."
A new illegal Serb militia group is reported to be mobilizing to protect Kosovo's 100,000 Serbs should independence be declared. It calls itself Tsar Lazar after the hero of an epic Serbian poem about reclaiming Kosovo. In Kosovo itself, the banned Albanian National Army recruits members to fight Serb militia. What's new in this familiar Pavlovian Balkan sprint towards the Kalashnikov is that one of these insurgent groups believes their ultimate backer is Moscow, and the other Washington.
"Russia and all those who believe we belong under Serbian rule are our enemies," said an Albanian National Army member, wearing a Balaclava helmet to protect his identity. Like his Serb counterparts, his nom de guerre was Kacak after a legendary Albanian fighter.
"We consider the United States as our biggest friend and ally," he said.
A replica of the Statue of Liberty has become a landmark in the Kosovo capital, Pristina, and an image of Bill Clinton covers the outer wall of a city-center building. As a mainly Muslim society, liberated by US weapons, Kosovo holds much symbolism for the United States. It is little wonder then that Kosovars are convinced of Washington's continuing loyalty.
If Kosovo declares independence, it will create another European issue that pits the West against Russia and it may split the EU. If it doesn't, the disappointment of many Kosovars could lead to instability.
The bilateral recognition of Kosovo by Washington and key European governments may also encourage more ethnic communities to lodge their own applications for independence: Chechnya in Russia and Xinjiang in China come to mind as well as the Tamil areas in Sri Lanka, where an unfinished war of independence has been running since 1983.
If the views on either side of the Kosovo-Serbian border are any indication, a dangerous Cold War polarity is returning, with communities banking their future on the patronage of a bigger global power and not on ability to administer and trade.
Ironically though, both Kosovo and Serbia are embryonic democracies, with an immediate goal to join the EU. That alone would make sovereignty increasingly irrelevant.
Kosovo's argument that it cannot clear the litter and fix the roads without independence is nonsense. It is, in essence, facing the choice of whether it wants to resemble the bloodied Palestinian territories or glittering Taiwan.
While the Palestinians remain mired with land rights and grievances, Taiwan, with no official status at all, has become a global economy, raising the question that if Taiwan can carry on with its ambiguous status, why can't Kosovo?
Serbia, too, must decide on whether it wants to end up as a client state of an authoritarian Russia or sign on to the democratic values entrenched within the European Union. A quick look at the hospitals of Brussels compared to those of Moscow might hint which system the average Serb parents would trust to care for their children.
It is time for politicians in both Serbia and Kosovo to lead their people away from the contentious issue of independence. Ahtisaari has already provided details of how the area can be managed and funded for the next decade or so. The West must also send an unequivocal message that the way forward is to deliver not nationalistic symbolism but good governance.
The legitimacy of both Serbia and Kosovo will come not from their ability to protect historical legends, but to provide health, education, employment and a thriving economy for their citizens.
Humphrey Hawksley, author of "The History Book," is a BBC correspondent whose reports on Serbia and Kosovo can be seen on BBC World on November 7th and 8th and will be posted on the BBC website.

7. Policy stance on Kosovo must change to remedy mistakes
By Brett King
Kansas State Collegian, November 9, 2007
http://media.www.kstatecollegian.com/media/storage/paper1022/news/2007/11/09/Opinion/Policy.Stance.On.Kosovo.Must.Change.To.Remedy.Mistakes-3091614.shtml
Glued to CNN while watching night footage of cruise missiles being fired and planes taking off from aircraft carriers is how many of us recall Kosovo. Only being in seventh grade, my teacher tried to explain what was happening. We were told the genocide was similar to experiences in World War II; however, after eight years, our errors in self-righteousness have come back to create a perfect storm leaving the Bush Administration in a vicarious state.According to the International Herald Tribune on Nov. 4, Agim Ceku, former commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army and current prime minister of Kosovo, said the time is growing close for Kosovo to declare its independence from Serbia. In an interview with the tribune, Ceku said, "If Washington asks us to delay for a short time, we will wait. But if the date is much after Dec. 10, we will say, 'Let us go.' It is better to ask for an apology than for permission."Though inappropriate force by the Serbian military against Albanians in Kosovo was taken, it was not unjustified. According to the Global Policy Forum Web site, which monitors the policies of the United Nations, "The KLA attacked police and government installations as well as Serb civilians." After President Clinton orchestrated a NATO bombing campaign against Serbian forces, which ironically coincided with his trial for perjury charges before the Senate, the U.N. Security Council authorized rule of the Kosovo territory to fall under control of the United Nations. According to the report of the Secretary-General on the U.N. Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, Albanians in Kosovo are failing to meet benchmarks to transfer governmental control back to the region. According to the report, "Kosovo Serbs remain excluded from the political process, while few are allowed to return to homes they abandoned during the Kosovo War." A Wall Street Journal investigative piece, written by the late Daniel Pearl in December 1999, displays how the numbers of Albanians killed were inflated greatly, and some of the bodies found showed no evidence of mutilation.After eight years, the United States still stands behind the KLA - which is nothing more than a terrorist organization - and is supporting the establishment of the country of Kosovo. Russia, for all its faults, still stand behind the Serbs and is not giving into the demands of this terrorist group. John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is extremely critical of the U.S. stance on Kosovo independence in his new book. During an interview with Voice of America on Nov. 1, Bolton explained how creating an independent Kosovo will establish a precedent for other violent separatist groups to follow. "Current and future separatists merely have to manufacture the same conditions and sequencing that have compelled the West to embrace an independent Kosovo: terrorize locals, invite government crackdowns, incite a rebellion and lure in foreign intervention and commitment to rebuild," Bolton said. "Once militants get this far, Kosovo will no longer be unique - even by Washington's peculiar standards."The United States has a chance to make up for one of their biggest foreign-policy mistakes. An independent Kosovo will destabilize the region once again and threaten the lives of Serbs living in the Kosovo region. We made the mistake of supporting the KLA in the past, but we do not need to continue to this error in judgment.Brett King is a senior in political science. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.

8. The Church: Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?
By Fjordman
Assyrian International News Agency, November 11, 2007
http://www.aina.org/news/20071111154356.htm
Although not a religious person myself, I am usually in favor of a revitalization of Christianity in Europe. However, I sometimes have my doubts when I see how many, too many, church leaders consistently end up on the wrong side of issues related to Islam and Muslim immigration.
Bat Ye'or claims that dhimmitude in the Middle East has often progressed because Christian leaders have sold out their own people, either for short-term personal gains or in the mistaken belief that they have a "shared religious heritage" with Muslims. It is also frequently Christian leaders and bishops in the West who are calling for open borders for poor, destitute Muslims because "it is the Christian thing to do."
The Protestant Lutheran Church in the German city of Hannover organized an exhibition to acquaint the Germans with Islam. The exhibition, entitled "The Faces of Islam," was the work of the female students of the Protestant Studies Institute in Aachen. On Palm Sunday in 2006, a Protestant church in Bochum, Germany celebrated Muhammad's birthday and invited the local Turkish community to attend the service. A Turkish music band played Sufi music during the service, in which Protestants and Muslims joined together in honor of Muhammad.
In the UK, church leaders wanted to invite the families of the London suicide bombers to a national memorial service in honor of the victims. Two senior Church of England bishops believed that extending the invitation to the bombers' families would acknowledge their own loss and send a powerful message of reconciliation to the Muslim community. Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, urged the nation to unite and turn would-be suicide bombers into friends by building "an inclusive circle of love."
The same Archbishop has also said that British Christians should see Muslims as allies in the struggle against secularism. A number of Christian, and some Jewish, leaders shared this point of view both during the death threats against Salman Rushdie and during the Danish cartoon Jihad.
Meanwhile, in Indonesia, about 10,000 Christians have been killed between 1998 and 2003 and about 1,000 churches have been burnt down by Muslim mobs. The radicals want Indonesia to be the foundation of a Southeast Asian caliphate that will launch Jihad against other nations such as Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines and Australia until they submit to Islam. In the Indonesian province Aceh, where sharia law officially prevails, Muslim mobs razed a church in response to a forged (by a Muslim) advertisement inviting Muslims to a Christian revival service. Witnesses said there were over 100 Muslim men present, many of them carrying swords. They poured gasoline over the building and set fire to it.
Why this aggressive reaction? According to Islamic law, Christians and Jews (not other religious groups) can live in an area dominated by Muslims, but only if they accept their status as second-rate citizens, dhimmis. This implies many restrictions, such as never trying to convert or preach to Muslims, never to have a relationship with a Muslim woman and never to say anything insulting about Islam or Muhammad. If even one single person breaches any of these conditions, the entire dhimmi community will be punished, and Jihad resumes. Notice that while Muslims, following each case of Islamic terrorism, are quick to say that not all Muslims should be punished for the actions of a few, this is precisely what sharia prescribes for non-Muslims.
What's worse is that in practice, as in this case from Indonesia, attacks on non-Muslims can be triggered by unconfirmed rumors, personal grudges by Muslims or outright lies. In reality, this means that all non-Muslims will live with a constant, internalized fear of saying or doing anything that could insult Muslims, which would immediately set off physical attacks against them and their children. This state of constant fear is called dhimmitude. Many Middle Eastern, Pakistani and Indonesian Christians know that as a matter of survival, they must say one thing in public and another in private. They are held hostage in their own countries.
In Egypt, a film depiction of someone converting to Islam and then becoming disillusioned with his new religion was enough to bring more than 5,000 protestors to the church, get a nun stabbed and three people killed. Muslims interpreted it as a breach of the traditional Islamic law mandating death for anyone who leaves Islam, and of the old dhimmi laws forbidding non-Muslims to proselytize.
Bishop Armia of the Coptic Church in Egypt, which predates the 7th century Arab invasion and preserves the last remainder of the language of the ancient pharaohs, assured that "Copts would never tolerate anyone insulting Islam." Coptic Pope Shenouda III, knowing fully well that any provocation could mean mayhem and murder for his fellow Copts, has reiterated that "any remarks which offend Islam and Muslims are against the teachings of Christ."
Several recent incidents have demonstrated that Muslims are now trying to apply these dhimmi rules to the entire Western world. The most important one was the burning of churches and embassies triggered by the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad. This was, down to the last comma, exactly the way Muslims would treat the persecuted non-Muslims in their own countries. The cartoon Jihad indicated that Muslims now felt strong enough to apply sharia rules to Denmark, and by extension NATO. Hardly anybody in the mainstream Western media made any attempts to explain this to the public.
In another case, angry protests raged across the Muslim world over a Newsweek magazine report that interrogators at the U.S. military prison Guantanamo Bay had put the Koran on toilets, and in at least one case flushing it down. The escalating violence prompted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to urge Muslims to resist calls for violence. "Disrespect for the Holy Koran is abhorrent to us all," she said. Newsweek later retracted their original article, which was found to be baseless.
In November 2002, days before the Miss World pageant in Nigeria, a Nigerian newspaper published an article in which the writer suggested that Islam's prophet, Muhammad, would have approved the pageant and would have chosen a wife amongst the contestants. The article sparked a Jihad riot in which over 200 people were killed and thousands injured. The next day, the newspaper published an apology. The president of Nigeria went on national television and condemned the newspaper. He said, "It could happen anytime irresponsible journalism is committed against Islam."
As one African observer later noted about the Newsweek story, the reaction of the White House in the United States was largely similar to that a Third World president gave when faced with the same challenge. For Muslims, the world's only remaining superpower appeared to play the role of dhimmis.
Bishop Artemije, the spiritual leader of Kosovo's beleaguered Serbs, has warned against Western support for an independent state in the province, where Muslim Albanians greatly outnumber Christian Serbs and have destroyed many churches and monasteries under the auspices of NATO soldiers. The Bishop warns that independence would reward ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims. Since 9-11, he said, "the United States has been engaged in a global struggle against jihad terrorism, which threatens not just America but peaceful people of all faiths and nationalities. That is why we who live in the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija find it difficult to understand why so many voices of influence in Washington support a course of action that would hand to the terrorists a significant victory in Europe."
While Muslims responded with deadly outrage to the now-retracted report by Newsweek of alleged Koran desecration, there was little outcry when Islamic gunmen in 2002 holed up in Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, assumed to be the birthplace of Jesus Christ, used the Bible as toilet paper. About 30 priests, monks and nuns, and more than 150 Palestinian civilians, who hid inside to escape a gun battle between Israelis and Palestinians, remained inside the church with the armed militants for more than five weeks. Some of the Palestinian fighters, who belonged to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, part of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah organization, were received as heroes when they later returned to Gaza.
During the so-called Oslo peace process from the mid 1990s, while Palestinian authorities received financial support from Western nations, Arafat increased the boundaries of Bethlehem to include nearby Muslim villages, and encouraged Muslims to settle in the city. As a result, the percentage of Christians rapidly declined.
The Islamic gunmen were also responsible for the rape and murder of two Christian teenage sisters. The assailants claimed that the sisters had been murdered because they were "prostitutes" and had been "collaborating" with Israeli security forces. "The gangsters murdered the two sisters so that they would not tell anyone about the rape," said a family member. "Many Christian families have sent their daughters abroad for fear they would come under attack by Muslim men." "Some of the murderers were later killed by the Israeli army, but others are now living in Europe after they had sought refuge in the Church of Nativity. It's absurd that Muslim men who rape and murder Christian girls are given political asylum in Christian countries like Ireland, Spain and Italy."
The irony is that the same sexual harassment and rape of non-Muslim women, part and parcel of Jihad, is now spreading to cities in Western Europe with many Muslim immigrants.
Professor Weiner, Scholar in Residence at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, provides an in-depth look into the nearly uninterrupted persecution of Christians throughout the decade since the Oslo peace process began. The Christians have shrunk to less than 1.7 percent of the population in the Palestinian areas. "Tens of thousands have abandoned their holy sites and ancestral properties to live abroad, while those who remain do so as a beleaguered and dwindling minority," Weiner said. "Their plight is, in part, attributable to the adoption of Muslim religious law (sharia) in the constitution of the Palestinian Authority. Moreover, the Christians have been abandoned by their religious leaders who, instead of protecting them, have chosen to curry favor with the Palestinian leadership."
More than 500 Muslim men, chanting Allahu akbar, attacked the Christian village of Taiba east of Ramallah. "They poured kerosene on many buildings and set them on fire. Many of the attackers broke into houses and stole furniture, jewelry and electrical appliances," said one resident. The attack was triggered by the murder of a Muslim woman from the nearby village of Deir Jarir. Her family forced her to drink poison for having had a romance with a Christian man from Taiba. Muslim men can marry Christian women, but Islamic law forbids Muslim women from marrying Christian men. The Christian community was thus collectively punished because it was rumored that one of their members had breached the rules of dhimmitude.
In a meeting attended by Robert Spencer, former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky noted that Israel had again and again aided Christians -- at their own request -- against Islamic violence and injustice, most notably when the Church of the Nativity was occupied by Jihadists in 2002. Yet international Christian leaders, he said, have not responded with similar gestures toward Israel. He is right. While Christians are persecuted on a daily basis in Muslim nations and may soon be wiped out in the Holy Land, Christian organizations in the West are too frequently engaged in "dialogue" with Muslims and demonization of Israel. Christians need to realize that they have much more in common with other non-Muslims, not just Jews, but Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Atheists, than they will ever have with Muslims. Jussi Halla-Aho, running for parliament in Finland as an independent candidate, has come to some of the same conclusions as I have regarding the Leftist-Islamic cooperation in many Western nations: The Left milks the working natives to maintain a predominantly idle immigrant population, who thankfully vote for the Left. The welfare state society thus has to support two parasites, each living in a symbiotic relationship with the other. This will eventually cause the system to collapse. Why would anyone support a policy that leads to certain destruction? Well, because a career politician never sets his sights 20, 50 or 100 years to the future but instead focuses on the next election. The short-term focus of our democratic system can thus, combined with Muslim immigration, turn into a fatal flaw.
But Halla-Aho asks an even more important question: "Why do the voters let all this happen? It is because Westerners like to be 'good' people and believe that their fellow men are equally good people. It is because they have humane values." "It is because the moral and ethical values of Western man have made him helpless in the face of wickedness and immorality."
Our Western "moral and ethical values" are profoundly influenced by Judeo-Christian thinking. Will our openness to outsiders, our democratic system and our Christian compassion, precisely the values that we cherish the most, render the West incapable of withstanding Jihad? A good Christian has to turn the other cheek and love his enemies. How are we to reconcile this with the reality that Muslims regard this as a sign of weakness? And how can we fight sharia when bishops and church leaders are the first to call for a "compassionate" immigration policy that allows masses of Muslims to settle here? Christians argue that Europe's problem is a cultural vacuum created by the retreat of church attendance and Christianity as a religion, which has paved the way for Islam to enter. They have a point, as I have shown before. But some Christian groups are opening the West to Islam, too, and the secular state doesn't have to be insipid and toothless. Far from it, it was secular states that fought and defeated the Fascist regimes during WW2 and risked the destruction of the planet in the Cold War. The non-religious authorities in China are far more ruthless in crushing any Islamic aggression than most Christian countries are. Of course, the downside is that they are far more ruthless in crushing anything deemed to be a potential challenge to their power.
Luckily, not all Christian leaders are appeasers of Islam. One of the intelligent ones comes from Australia, a country that has been fairly resistant to Political Correctness. They have taken serious steps towards actually enforcing their own borders, despite the predictable outcries from various NGOs and anti-racists, and Prime Minister John Howard has repeatedly proven to be one of the most sensible leaders in the Western world. George Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, tells of how September 11 was a wake-up call for him personally:
"I recognised that I had to know more about Islam." "In my own reading of the Koran, I began to note down invocations to violence. There are so many of them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages." "The predominant grammatical form in which jihad is used in the Koran carries the sense of fighting or waging war." "Considered strictly on its own terms, Islam is not a tolerant religion and its capacity for fear-reaching renovation is severely limited." "I'd also say that Islam is a much more war-like culture than Christianity." "I've had it asserted to me is that in the relationship between the Islamic and non-Islamic world, the normal thing is a situation of tension if not war, or outright hostility."
Pope Benedict XVI, nicknamed "God's rottweiler" as a cardinal, seems to embody elements of both the sensible and the silly Christian ways of dealing with the Islamic threat. Although Benedict has stressed the need for "reciprocity" in Christian-Muslim relations and urged Islamic countries to ensure religious rights for Christian migrants, he has also said that Christians should continue welcoming Muslim immigrants with open arms.
It caused an uproar in the Islamic world when Benedict XVI, as a part of a longer dissertation, quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor's hostile view of Islam's founder: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Benedict later said he was "deeply sorry" for the reaction to his comments on Islam and that the quote he used from the medieval text about holy wars did not reflect his personal thoughts. Although this technically constitutes a non-apology apology and was deemed "unsatisfactory" by Muslims, many anti-Jihadists would have preferred the Pope to use the opportunity to make a clearer stand against Islamic aggression.
Still, his comments raised public debate about the issue, and certainly marked progress compared to his predecessor Pope John Paul II, who kissed the Koran in public in an effort to reach our to Muslims.
I have described examples of incredible stupidity and appeasement from Christians in the West, but also of courage and clarity of mind in standing up to Islamic aggression and defending Western civilization and the world from sharia. The ideological civil war within the West is not just between secularists and religious people; it runs straight through the Church itself.
Christians need to understand that there can be no peace or understanding with the Islamic world. They want to subdue us, pure and simple. Church leaders of all denominations, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, must stop stabbing Israel in the back and campaigning for a de facto open borders policy while Muslims are threatening to swamp our lands. Yes, Christianity teaches compassion, but it also teaches identifying evil and standing up to it. At the end of the day, the Church must decide whether, in the defense of civilization, it wants to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution.
Fjordman is a noted Norwegian blogger who has written for many conservative web sites. He used to have his own Fjordman Blog in the past, but it is no longer active.

9. Macedonia police chase Kosovo fugitive, at least 6 gang members killed
Associated Press, November 7, 2007
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/07/europe/EU-GEN-Macedonia-Fugitives.php
SKOPJE, Macedonia: Police search teams chased a Kosovo prison fugitive and his criminal gang on Wednesday, killing six gang members and arresting 12 others in northwestern Macedonia, police said.
The search operation led to gun battles in ethnic Albanian villages near Macedonia's volatile border with Kosovo, but the main target of the operation - fugitive Lirim Jakupi - was still at large.
Special police officers searched houses and seized weapons, including rocket-propelled grenade launchers and automatic weapons, in village of Brodec, some 45 kilometers (28 miles) west of the capital, Skopje.
At least 10 nearby villages were cordoned off as police searched door-to-door. Several of the men arrested had been disguised as women, police spokesman Ivo Kotevski said.
Police arrested 12 suspected gang members and found the bodies of six others, Kotevski said, but added that more might have been have been killed or wounded in the gunbattles. He did not confirm earlier media reports that eight people had been killed.
The identities of the men killed were not yet known, but Interior Minister Gordana Jankulovska said no bystanders or police were among the dead.
Police said they were trying to capture the group of gunmen led by Jakupi, who was still at large after escaping from Kosovo's Dubrava prison two months ago.
Jakupi, nicknamed the "Nazi," was a member of the outlawed Albanian National Army, and was wanted in Macedonia and Serbia for alleged participation in attacks in both countries.
In 2004 he was arrested in Skopje on suspicion of murdering a policeman and planting bomb outside a police station, but he escaped custody while awaiting trial. He was arrested by U.N. forces in Kosovo, and jailed on terrorism charges.
Gunfire was first reported Wednesday in Brodec, before the fighting moved into an open area, according to private news agency Makfax.
The mountainous area, close to the border with Kosovo, was also the center of an uprising by ethnic Albanian armed rebels in 2001, which was put down by government forces after several months.
An opposition party official in Tetovo condemned the police raid, which he said threatened area peace.
"With these actions, whatever freedom and peace we had as Macedonians will fade," Xhevat Ademi said. He also claimed several villagers had been injured in the raids.
Last week, another Kosovo prison fugitive was shot dead in the same region. Police denied involvement, saying Xhavid Morina had been killed in a skirmish between rival criminal gangs.
Macedonia is currently courting membership in both NATO and the European Union and is keen to project an image of stability.

10. EU's Kosovo report scathing on graft, justice
By Ellie Tzortzi
Reuters, November 6, 2007
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L0629979.htm
BRUSSELS, Nov 6 (Reuters) - Serbia's United Nations-run Kosovo province is plagued by graft, human rights abuses and cronyism because of weakness in the province's authorities, the European Commission said on Tuesday.The EU executive's annual progress report concluded there was little progress in the province and institutions were weak, mainly due to widespread corruption at all levels."Due to a lack of clear political will to fight corruption, and to insufficient legislative and implementing measures, corruption is still widespread," the report said.There was little control on how politicians and officials got their wealth and "civil servants are still vulnerable to political interference, corrupt practices and nepotism.""Kosovo's public administration remains weak and inefficient," the report added.In a reference to a widespread perception in Kosovo of cronyism, the report said that "the composition of the government anti-corruption council does not sufficiently guarantee its impartiality.""Some but uneven progress can be reported in combating money laundering," and "little progress can be reported in the area of organised crime and combating of trafficking in human beings."The report is an indictment for the U.N. bureaucrats running the province since 1999, and for the province's ethnic Albanian leaders, who are seeking independence from Serbia, political analysts said.Belgrade rejects the demand, and the two sides have been locked in negotiations for months, closely watched by the EU that is preparing to take over some of the U.N. functions once Kosovo's status is settled.According to the report, Kosovo's judicial system is still "weak" and institutions have made "little progress".WAR CRIMESLaws are not standardised and there is not enough qualified personnel. The case backlog is growing, and there are several hundred pending war crimes trials from the 1998-99 insurgency by ethnic Albanians and the counter-war by Serb forces.NATO intervened and expelled Serb troops accused of killing civilians while cracking down on the rebellion. Serbia accuses the guerrillas of the Kosovo Liberation Army of also killing civilians not loyal to its cause, both Serb and Albanians. "These (war crimes trials) are being hampered by the unwillingness of the local population to testify," the report says. "There is still no specific legislation on witness protection in place." The report notes that "civil society organisations remain weak," "awareness of women's rights in society is low," and there is no adequate mechanism to address complaints from Kosovo's citizens against the U.N. authorities in Kosovo. It also highlights major problems in minority rights, especially related to the situation of Kosovo's remaining Serb minority. Some 100,000 stayed in the province after the end of the war, and as many left, fearing reprisals."Especially the Kosovo Serb community still see their freedom of movement being restricted ... Returnees' houses are still the targets of violent attacks," the report says.It adds that acts of vandalism against Serb Orthodox religious monuments "including with mortars", remain a problem, and investigations into the crimes are not always professional.(Writing by Ellie Tzortzi; Editing by Peter Millership)

11. Hope running out for Kosovo independence
The Tiraspol Times, November 6, 2007
http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/news/hope_running_out_for_kosovo_independence.html_0
BERLIN (Tiraspol Times) - With Serbia and Kosovo meeting in Berlin this week, German Foreign Ministry official Martin Jaeger strongly rejected media reports from Pristina which said that Germany would recognize Kosovo's independence after 10 December 2007 when the current 120-day negotiation period ends.
With the statement, Germany added itself to a list of countries that are having second thoughts about giving Kosovo independence before other would-be countries that have waited longer to become internationally recognized. These frozen conflicts and "de facto" countries include Transdniestria, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, Abkhazia and several others.
Germany sees only slim chances for an international agreement on the future status of the Serbian breakaway republic of Kosovo, the German diplomat said on Monday.
Speaking to the press, German Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Jaeger stressed that a settlement of the crisis was "not guaranteed" at all.
Romania withdraws support
Talks on status of Kosovo must continued after 10 December if the sides do not come to agreement, said Romania's Foreign Minister in an interview with AFP. Adrian Cioroianu also said that if Kosovo proclaims independence unilaterally, then "Romania will not be among the first ten countries to recognize it, nor will Romania be part of the next ten." He added that this position is shared by Greece, Spain, Slovenia and Cyprus.
Internationally mediated talks between Serbian and ethnic Albanian negotiators over the future of Kosovo remain mired in disagreement with neither side reporting progress.
Government officials from Transdniestria (officially Pridnestrovie) have often pointed to Kosovo as a precedent, saying that if Kosovo gets international recognition then so should Transdniestria. Legally and historically, however, some experts argue that Transdniestria has a better case for independence than Kosovo, and that Transdniestria does not need a "Kosovo precedent" since its claim to statehood is much stronger and more solidly grounded in international law. (With information from IRNA, AFP)