Understanding Albanian nationality and regional political-security consequences



2000px-Principality_of_Albania.svg

The Albanian nationhood as understood in the 19th century was part of a romanticist notion of nationality, i.e., the Albanians were the Balkan people whose mother tongue was Albanian regardless of any confessional division of Albanian people into three denominations (Moslem, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox). Within the north Albanian tribes, especially among the Miriditi, the Roman Catholic Church was very influential. The Roman Catholic Church became the main protector of the Albanian language and cultural heritage and the main protagonist of the national identity of the Albanians in the Northern Albania.[1] The expression of common notions of the Albanian nationhood were expressed by the Albanian political leadership in the years of the Balkan Wars 1912–1913 in slogans such as: “Neve Shqiptar nuk jemi Greke, Sllav, or Teerk, neve jemi Shqiptar” (“We Albanians are not the Greeks, Slavs, or Turks, we are the Albanians”).

The Albanian political “methodology” from the time of the First Prizren League in 1878 until the Balkan Wars was applied in preparation for unification of all “ethnically Albanian territories” in the Balkans into (a “Greater”) Albania – a single national state of all Albanians, i.e., within the ethnic borders demanded by the League in the years of its existence from 1878 to 1881. Essentially similar national-state concepts were also included in the political programs of the Albanian Peja (Pejë) League, from 1899, the Greater Albanian Kosovo Committee, from 1920, and the Second Prizren League, from 1943. This included preservation of the traditional, common law and local community[2] as the organizational basis of the national movement followed by the demand for unification of all territories populated by the Albanians became Albanian primary national interest from 1878 onward.

Clearly, the process of creation of Albanian nationality was not yet completed at the end of the 19th century. The Albanian nation was not considered a political reality in Europe by many politicians at that time. The Albanian people were among the last ones in Europe to build up their own national identity and national community.[3] When during the sessions of the Congress of Berlin in 1878 the question of Albania and the Albanians was put on the agenda, the German Chancellor (Kanzzelar) Otto von Bismarck decisively rejected discussing it with the explanation that there was no Albanian nationality.[4] For him, the Albanians were the Turks. At the same time, the Serbs (either from Serbia or from Montenegro) and the Greeks considered themselves as a nation (i.e., ethnic groups which had their own state organizations), and as such were understood by Europe, while the Albanians were understood as the Balkan ethnic group (i.e., the group of people who did not have its own state). Consequently, the ethnic group of Albanians could live only as an ethnic minority included into some of the Balkan national state(s) and could not expect more than the right to autonomy within it (them). At the turn of the 20th century many politicians in Serbia, Montenegro and Greece shared the opinion that the ethnic group of the Albanians was culturally and politically incapable of a modern national development and above all unable and  insufficiently competent to establish and rule their own national state.[5] The backwardness of the development of Albanian society at the beginning of the 20th century was evidenced by the fact that the initiation of a  process of modernization shook the Albanian tribal society, but failed to replace it with a modern industrial, parliamentary and civil society. The Albanian national movement was seen as an archaic social movement that could not reach a level of national cohesion in modern terms. This movement produced among the Serbs, Montenegrins and Greeks a feeling of jeopardization of the political and territorial integrity of Serbia, Montenegro and Greece.[6] For them, the theory of the Illyrian-Albanian continuity was in essence a nationalistic ideological construction which became a driving politically-ideological force for Albanian politicians to create, from the Albanian point of view, their ethnic borders according to Albanian acquired rights.[7] Geopolitically, this project, from 1878 to the present, demands not only the territories which ethnically and historically belong to the Albanians, but goes beyond them and encompasses the entire Illyrian-Albanian ethnic population, dispersed in different areas over the neighboring Balkan regions: Kosovo and Metohija, southern parts of Central Serbia, Çameria (Greek Epirus and Greek Western Macedonia), the western portion of the Republic of Macedonia (the FYROM) and the Eastern Montenegro.[8]

Albania ISIL flag

However, contrary to the theory of the backwardness of Albanian social development, the Albanian political and intellectual leadership from the turn of the 20th century has argued that the Albanians met all conditions required by contemporary political science to be recognized as a nation: 1) they have their separate ethnic, linguistic and cultural identity; 2) the Albanian settlements in the Balkans are compact; 3) the Albanians have a very precisely defined national program; and 4) they possess the abilities to build up a community and their own independent state which would be self-governed.[9]

The Albanian political and intellectual leadership often stressed that the Albanian people with their own national idea would never be successfully integrated either into Serbian, Montenegrin or Greek societies and states. That is, in addition to numerous and diverse causes, also due to the fact that the Albanians do not belong to the Slavic or Greek linguistic and cultural groups. There is also significant divergence of national development of the Serbs, Montenegrins, Greeks, on the one hand, and the Albanians, on the other. These nations had a different kind of national movements and distinctly different political elite and national ideology. However, the Albanian national ideology of the Illyrian-Albanian ethnogenesis was created and still exists as a pure myth in the form of a quasi-scientific political propaganda for the sake of the creation of a “Greater” Albania.

Finally, the Albanians surely were among the very few Balkan peoples who managed to find an internal balance between three faiths and to build up the national identity associated with each one as Islam is followed by 70% of Albanian population (primarily from Albania proper, Kosovo and Metohija, the Western Macedonia and the Eastern Montenegro), Eastern Orthodoxy is professed by 20% of the Albanians (chiefly from the Southern Albania and the Greek Northern Epirus) and Roman Catholicism is adhered by 10% of the Albanians (mainly from the Northern Albania proper and Kosovo and Metohija).[10] In one word, the Illyrian theory of the Albanian ethnogenesis played a crucial role in forming a common Albanian identity regardless on confessional division of the Albanians.

The 19th century movement of the Albanian national awakening started half a century later in contrast to a similar process of other Balkan nations and an entire century after similar movements in Central Europe. The cause of this delay was a general national-cultural underdevelopment of the Albanian people who lived under the Ottoman Empire for centuries without cultural and ideological connections to Western Europe where the ideology and movement of nationalism emerged and spread throughout the European continent. Subsequently, the ideas of national identification, national statehood and the concept of historical-ethnic territorial boundaries was realized by Albania’s neighbors (the Greeks, Serbs and Montenegrins) well in advance of the Albanian people. When Albanian intellectuals during and after the Great Eastern Crisis 1875–1878 theoretically shaped the thought and concept of the Albanian national idea related to the question of fixing Albanian national territories and creating an Albanian national state, they faced, and had to struggle with, Serbian, Montenegrin and Greek national aspirations towards the realization of their own national statehood. This ideological, political and military fight was focused primarily on the question upon certain “national” soils on the Balkans which would be included either into a united Serbia, united Montenegro, united Greece or united Albania: Kosovo and Metohija, Northern Epirus, Western Macedonia, Skadar (Skutari) region in the Northwest Albania and the territories around the city of Ulcinj and the Bojana river in the Eastern Montenegro.

The national program of the First League of Prizren set up the following two ultimate national goals of the Albanians: 1) the national liberation of all Albanians, of whom a majority lived within the Ottoman Empire and a minority in the independent states of Serbia and Montenegro; and 2) the creation of a national state of the Albanians in which the entire Albanian historical and ethnic territories would be incorporated into Greater Albania. This second requirement led the Albanians in subsequent decades into open conflict with the neighboring Christian states: Serbia, Montenegro and Greece. The national awakening of the Albanian people in the years of 1878–1912 resulted in the establishment of an ideology of nationhood and statehood that was, to a greater or lesser extent, challenged and opposed by all  of Albania’s neighbors today – the Serbs, Greeks, Montenegrins and the Macedonian Slavs.

Endnotes:

[1] Draškić S., “Nadmetanje Austro-Ugarske i Italije koncem XIX i početkom XX veka u Albaniji”, Albansko pitanje u novoj istoriji, III, Beograd: Marksistička misao, 2-1986, pp. 129–132. See also: [Starova G., “The Religion of the Albanians in the Balkan European Context”, Balkan Forum, Skopje, vol. 1, № 4, 1993, pp. 201–204].

[2] On Albanian traditional common law, see [The Code of Lekë Dukagjini, New York: Gjonlekaj Publishing Company, 1989; Salihu V., Qerimi I., Social Organization and Self-Government of Albanians According to the Costumary Law, GRIN Verlag, 2013 (in German); Gjeçovi Sh., Kanuni i Lekë Dukagjinit, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014].

[3] On this issue, see more in [Schwandner-Sievers S., Fischer J. B., Albanian Identities: Myth and History, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2002].

[4] Logoreci A., The Albanians. Europe’s Forgotten Survivors, Colorado, 1977, p. 41.

[5] Such approach can be understood as an old theory, which was used during the Balkan Wars 1912–1913 to justify Serbian conquest of the Northern Albania, Greek occupation of Southern Albania and Montenegrin military taking of the city of Skadar/Scutari [Туцовић Д., Србија и Албанија, један прилог критици завојевачке политике српске буржоазије, Београд, 1913, pp. 177–118].

[6] The Serbs, Montenegrins, Macedonian Slavs and Greeks accuse Albanian intellectuals and politicians of using the theory of the Illyrian-Albanian ethnic, linguistic and cultural continuity for the sake of realizing the political concept of a “Greater Albania” in the Balkans (see figure 2). This concept cannot be realized without a radical change of the borders of the Balkan states established in 1912–1913, following two Balkan Wars. Such a change in the borders would violate the territorial integrity of Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Greece. In conclusion, the concept of a “Greater” Albania, based among other ideological constructions and on the theory of the Illyrian-Albanian ethnogenesis, may serve as a prelude to a Third Balkan War. Regarding the concept and consequences of creation of a “Greater” Albania at the Balkans, see [Čanak J. (ed.), “Greater Albania”. Concept and possible Consequences, Belgrade: the Institute of Geopolitical Studies, Belgrade, 1998; Borozan Đ., “Greater Albania”-Origins, Ideas, Practice, Belgrade: the Institute of Military History of the Yugoslav Army, Belgrade, 1995]. It should be stressed that in addition to Orthodoxy and the so-called St. Sava’s spiritual legacy, the province of Kosovo and Metohija (i.e., Serbia proper) is the third pillar of Serbian national identity. Contrary to the Serbian case, Kosovo and Metohija are not of any significance for Albanian national identity. Regarding the (crucial) importance of Kosovo and Metohija for the Serbs from historical perspective, see: [Самарџић Р. и други, Косово и Метохија у српској историји, Београд: Српска књижевна задруга, 1989].

[7] See more in: [Илири и Албанци, Научни скупови, књ. XXXIX, Београд: САНУ, 1988].

[8] According to the map of United Albania, composed by Ali Fehmi Kosturi and distributed since 1938. Historically, there were two attempts to create a “Greater” Albania: first in 1912 supported by Austria-Hungary, and second in 1941 with the direct intervention of fascist Italy and the logistic support of the Third Reich. In both cases the concept of “Greater” Albania reasserted the demands of the 1878–1881 Albanian First League of Prizren to create an Albanian state inside alleged Illyrian-Albanian historical-ethnic borders.

[9] Similar arguments referring to Kosovo and Metohija were presented by the Albanian Kosovo intelligentsia in the 1990s during the Kosovo crisis and the war. See, for example: [Maliqi S., “Strah od novih ratnih uspeha”, Borba, Beograd, September 16th, 1993].

[10] To date, the Albanian Muslims are the main corps of the Albanian national movement and nationalism. The concept of “United”, or “Greater”, Albania, in its original form (from 1878), was under the strong influence of conservative, political Islam.

2. Sotirovic 2013

Prof. Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović

www.global-politics.eu/sotirovic

globalpol@global-politics.eu

© Vladislav B. Sotirović 2017

cropped-Balkan-geographic-map.jpg

Save

Save

Save

The “Domino effect”, Kosovo, Crimea, China…



Monah na rusevinama crkve

So, how did it all begin? On 17 February 2008, the autonomous parliament of Kosovo issued a unilateral declaration of sovereignty. On 22 July 2010, the UN International Court recognized the legitimacy of the Kosovo authorities’ decision to declare independence from Serbia.

Was there really no-one around at that time who could predict, political sympathies aside, that the Kosovo precedent would lead only to regrettable results? There were in fact such people, and they warned the world. But President George W. Bush was deeply unmoved by such warnings; after all, he had followed the example of his great father in defeating Iraq, and named an aircraft carrier after him. If another member of this august family should ever come to power in the USA, then he will naturally lead another invasion of Iraq and, should the US budget allow it, will build something nice for the navy. That is the Bush family tradition – bombing Iraq and ravaging the US budget.

Only a few years ago America’s might was considered invincible, although many knew that NASA’s astronauts reached the International Space Station using Russian “Soyuz” spacecraft, and Atlas V rockets fly thanks to Russian RD-180 engines. Atlas V rockets deliver all kinds of satellites into orbit, including military ones.

Of course, it will not be a problem for America to switch to its own engines and build new manned spacecraft to replace obsolete, decommissioned shuttles. The White House is trying to impress upon people the vastness of President Obama’s power: “by sheer force of mental power, he can send an expedition to Mars, teleport billions of kiloliters of gas to Europe, and force President Putin to write a decree authorizing same-sex marriage in Russia.” Well, then, if Obama has decided to reinvigorate the US space program, one can only be glad for the country.

The problem has turned out to be that while the Obama administration was helping to establish sharia law in the countries of the Arab world, the Crimean parliament declared the republic’s independence from the Kiev junta, and the Russian bear decided to rub the Kosovo precedent in its face. It turns out that the cries of “Stop, don’t move, I’m going to use sanctions, requisitions, demonization and I can even pull the atomic trigger!” do not work on the Russian bear.

Washington has finally begun to acknowledge that what happened in Kosovo was only the first domino falling. What will happen next?

According to Gazeta.ru, the American administration has been urging Beijing officials not to adopt the Crimean situation as a model for action against their Asian neighbors. The sanctions imposed by the USA and the European Union on Russia should have a chilling effect on any fevered minds in the Chinese government who might have been thinking of using the model set forth by the Kremlin in Crimea, declared Daniel Russel, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, in a Senate committee hearing.

All one can say is: “Wow”! So that turns out to be the pedagogic principle governing America’s sanctions against the Russian Federation. The only question is, where in China did Assistant Secretary Russel find these fevered minds? It would appear that he is projecting the clinical picture which is in fact typical of the US Senate and State Department onto the leadership of the PRC. “The net effect is to put more pressure on China to demonstrate that it remains committed to the peaceful resolution of the problems,” Russel stated.

So they were just loading up on popcorn in Beijing, preparing to watch the epic tragedy “America vs. Russia: The Sanctions,” when there came the hysterical cry from the State Department: “Don’t even think about it!” What’s with all of the shouting? Just send Samantha Power to Beijing.

Events in Crimea have generated a lot of excitement not only in Washington, but in Tokyo too. “Crimea has changed the rules of the game. It’s not a salvo on some distant shore. An attempt by a rising power to change the status quo has taken place,” said Kunihiko Miyake, former adviser to Japanese Prime Minister Shindzo Abe. According to Miyake, the PRC may do the same thing. The Japanese media have been vying to outdo each other in publishing stories about Beijing potentially following Moscow’s example by occupying the disputed Senkaku (Diaoyu) islands.

Here, the following facts should be noted. The company Square Enix does not want to have its well-known Final Fantasy series of games translated into Russian. Why? Because it is Tokyo’s sanction in response to Russia’s refusal to give the Kuril Islands back to Japan: “let the Russians suffer and play World of Warcraft.” If Square Enix were to have Final Fantasy translated into Russian, Moscow would enter the same parallel reality in which Tokyo now finds itself.

What is the actual existing reality of the situation?

In the first place, the population of Senkaku consists of exactly 0 (zero) persons; it has no parliament, no separatists, no terrorists, no national minorities, no gays, no US embassies, and so on. What on earth is this conversation supposed to be about? Furthermore, does China really need these islands or does it need a pretext to show the countries of Southeast Asia that the United States are far away and the Chinese dragon’s fangs have not lost their bite? Finally, Japan holds a trump card in its hands – Washington, to which the land of the rising sun is bound by an agreement on common defense.

So why did Tokyo get so frightened and go so far as to promise to give 1.44 billion dollars to the Kievan junta?

On 5 April, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel flew to Tokyo. He calmed the overwrought ally’s nerves and declared that the US would show no hesitation and fulfill all its obligations according to the 1952 mutual security agreement between the US and Japan. Why did Tokyo demand Washington affirm its obligations to its allies, what happened?

Here is where the problem lies. The government in Tokyo is perfectly well aware that when the State Department and CIA special forces organized a Fascist putsch in Kiev, they did not hold back from giving the Maidan leadership generous pledges, promises, and guarantees. Hardly in vain did the heirs of the vestigial OUN shout “America is with us!” Suddenly Crimea separates from Ukraine and enters the structure of the Russian Federation. Obama, Merkel, and the others declare that Vladimir Putin will answer for this, will regret his actions, and the wrath of heaven will be forthcoming.

So where is this heavenly retribution?

Now in Tokyo they got to thinking. The fact is that any kind of treaty is really a gentleman’s agreement, and if one of the parties is not a gentleman, the treaty is not worth the paper it’s written on. The Japanese government understands this perfectly and, it seems, is also beginning to understand that the US is no guarantor, but merely a mass media phenomenon that dreamed up a scheme to take over the world by means of television.

And Beijing? In Beijing they have, all the same, loaded up on popcorn and are sitting back to watch the tragedy “America vs. Russia: The Sanctions” straight through to the end.


About the author:

Konstantin Penzev, writer and historian, is a staff writer for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

Source: http://journal-neo.org/2014/04/13/rus-printsip-domino-kosovo-kry-m-kitaj/

Spaljeni konaci

Save

Save

Kosovo and Ukraine: Compare and contrast



Bagra Kosova

There have been at least two countries in Europe in recent history that undertook ‘anti-terrorist’ military operations against ‘separatists’, but got two very different reactions from the Western elite.

Photo: BBC Radio 4 Today ‏@BBCr4today / Twitter

Photo: BBC Radio 4 Today ‏@BBCr4today / Twitter

The government of European country A launches what it calls an ‘anti-terrorist’ military operation against ‘separatists’ in one part of the country. We see pictures on Western television of people’s homes being shelled and lots of people fleeing. The US and UK and other NATO powers fiercely condemn the actions of the government of country A and accuse it of carrying out ‘genocide’ and ’ethnic cleansing’ and say that there is an urgent ‘humanitarian crisis.’ Western politicians and establishment journalists tell us that ‘something must be done.’ And something is done: NATO launches a ‘humanitarian’ military intervention to stop the government of country A. Country A is bombed for 78 days and nights. The country’s leader (who is labeled ‘The New Hitler’) is indicted for war crimes – and is later arrested and sent in an RAF plane to stand trial for war crimes at The Hague, where he dies, un-convicted, in his prison cell.

The government of European country B launches what it calls an ‘anti-terrorist’ military operation against ‘separatists’ in one part of the country. Western television doesn’t show pictures or at least not many) of people’s homes being shelled and people fleeing, although other television stations do. But here the US, UK and other NATO powers do not condemn the government, or accuse it of committing ‘genocide’ or ‘ethnic cleansing.’ Western politicians and establishment journalists do not tell us that ‘something must be done’ to stop the government of country B killing people. On the contrary, the same powers who supported action against country A, support the military offensive of the government in country B. The leader of country B is not indicted for war crimes, nor is he labeled ‘The New Hitler’ despite the support the government has got from far-right, extreme nationalist groups, but in fact, receives generous amounts of aid.

Anyone defending the policies of the government in country A, or in any way challenging the dominant narrative in the West is labeled a “genocide denier” or an “apologist for mass murder.” But no such opprobrium awaits those defending the military offensive of the government in country B. It’s those who oppose its policies who are smeared.

What makes the double standards even worse, is that by any objective assessment, the behavior of the government in country B, has been far worse than that of country A and that more human suffering has been caused by their aggressive actions.

In case you haven’t guessed it yet – country A is Yugoslavia, country B is Ukraine.

Yugoslavia, a different case

nato-kasetna-serbia1

In 1998/9 Yugoslavian authorities were faced with a campaign of violence against Yugoslav state officials by the pro-separatist and Western-backed Kosovan Liberation Army (KLA). The Yugoslav government responded by trying to defeat the KLA militarily, but their claims to be fighting against ’terrorism’ were haughtily dismissed by Western leaders. As the British Defence Secretary George Robertson and Foreign Secretary Robin Cook acknowledged in the period from 1998 to January 1999, the KLA had been responsible for more deaths in Kosovo than the Yugoslav authorities had been.

In the lead-up to the NATO action and during it, lurid claims were made about the numbers of people who had been killed or ‘disappeared’ by the Yugoslav forces. “Hysterical NATO and KLA estimates of the missing and presumably slaughtered Kosovan Albanians at times ran upwards of one hundred thousand, reaching 500, 000 in one State Department release. German officials leaked ‘intelligence’ about an alleged Serb plan called Operation Horseshoe to depopulate the province of its ethnic Albanians, and to resettle it with Serbs, which turned out to be an intelligence fabrication,” Edward Herman and David Peterson noted in their book The Politics of Genocide.

“We must act to save thousands of innocent men, women and children from humanitarian catastrophe – from death, barbarism and ethnic cleansing from a brutal dictatorship,” a solemn-faced Prime Minister Tony Blair told the British Parliament – just four years before an equally sombre Tony Blair told the British Parliament that we must act over the ‘threat’ posed by Saddam Hussein’s WMDs.

Taking their cue from Tony Blair and Co., the media played their part in hyping up what was going on in Kosovo. Herman and Peterson found that newspapers used the word ‘genocide’ to describe Yugoslav actions in Kosovo 323 times compared to just 13 times for the invasion/occupation of Iraq despite the death toll in the latter surpassing that of Kosovo by 250 times.

In the same way we were expected to forget about the claims from Western politicians and their media marionettes about Iraq possessing WMDs in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion, we are now expected to forget about the outlandish claims made about Kosovo in 1999.

But as the award winning investigative journalist and broadcaster John Pilger wrote in his article Reminders of Kosovo in 2004, “Lies as great as those told by Bush and Blair were deployed by Clinton and Blair in grooming of public opinion for an illegal, unprovoked attack on a European country.”

The overall death toll of the Kosovo conflict is thought to be between 3,000 and 4,000, but that figure includes Yugoslav army casualties, and Serbs and Roma and Kosovan Albanians killed by the KLA. In 2013, the International Committee of the Red Cross listed the names of 1,754 people from all communities in Kosovo who were reported missing by their families.

The number of people killed by Yugoslav military at the time NATO launched its ‘humanitarian’ bombing campaign, which itself killed between 400-600 people, is thought to be around 500, a tragic death toll but hardly “genocide.”

“Like Iraq’s fabled weapons of mass destruction, the figures used by the US and British governments and echoed by journalists were inventions- along with Serbian ‘rape camps’ and Clinton and Blair’s claims that NATO never deliberately bombed civilians,” says Pilger.

No matter what happens in Ukraine…

Illustration - Krematorsk Airfield explosion - Screenshot from YouTube videoIllustration – Krematorsk Airfield explosion – Screenshot from YouTube video

In Ukraine by contrast, the number of people killed by government forces and those supporting them has been deliberately played down, despite UN figures highlighting the terrible human cost of the Ukrainian government’s ‘anti-terrorist’ operation.

Last week, the UN’s Human Rights Office said that the death toll in the conflict in eastern Ukraine had doubled in the previous fortnight. Saying that they were “very conservative estimates,” the UN stated that 2,086 people (from all sides) had been killed and 5,000 injured. Regarding refugees, the UN says that around 1,000 people have been leaving the combat zone every day and that over 100,000 people have fled the region. Yet despite these very high figures, there have been no calls from leading Western politicians for ‘urgent action’ to stop the Ukrainian government’s military offensive. Articles from faux-left ‘humanitarian interventionists’ saying that ‘something must be done’ to end what is a clearly a genuine humanitarian crisis, have been noticeable by their absence.

There is, it seems, no “responsibility to protect” civilians being killed by government forces in the east of Ukraine, as there was in Kosovo, even though the situation in Ukraine, from a humanitarian angle, is worse than that in Kosovo in March 1999.

To add insult to injury, efforts have been made to prevent a Russian humanitarian aid convoy from entering Ukraine.

The convoy we are told is ‘controversial’ and could be part of a sinister plot by Russia to invade. This from the same people who supported a NATO bombing campaign on a sovereign state for “humanitarian” reasons fifteen years ago!

For these Western ‘humanitarians’ who cheer on the actions of the Ukrainian government, the citizens of eastern Ukraine are “non-people”: not only are they unworthy of our support or compassion, or indeed aid convoys, they are also blamed for their own predicament.

There are, of course, other conflicts which also highlight Western double standards towards ‘humanitarian intervention’. Israeli forces have killed over 2,000 Palestinians in their latest ruthless ‘anti-terrorist’ operation in Gaza, which is far more people than Yugoslav forces had killed in Kosovo by the time of the 1999 NATO ‘intervention’. But there are no calls at this time for a NATO bombing campaign against Israel.

In fact, neocons and faux-left Zionists who have defended and supported Israel’s “anti-terrorist” Operation Protective Edge, and Operation Cast Lead before it, were among the most enthusiastic supporters of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Israel it seems is allowed to kill large numbers of people, including women and children, in its “anti-terrorist” campaigns, but Yugoslavia had no such “right” to fight an “anti-terrorist” campaign on its own soil.

In 2011, NATO went to war against Libya to prevent a “hypothetical” massacre in Benghazi, and to stop Gaddafi ‘killing his own people’; in 2014 Ukrainian government forces are killing their own people in large numbers, and there have been actual massacres like the appalling Odessa arson attack carried out by pro-government ‘radicals’, but the West hasn’t launched bombing raids on Kiev in response.

The very different approaches from the Western elite to ‘anti-terrorist’ operations in Kosovo and Ukraine (and indeed elsewhere) shows us that what matters most is not the numbers killed, or the amount of human suffering involved, but whether or not the government in question helps or hinders Western economic and military hegemonic aspirations.

In the eyes of the rapacious Western elites, the great ‘crime’ of the Yugoslav government in 1999 was that it was still operating, ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, an unreconstructed socialist economy, with very high levels of social ownership – as I highlighted here.

Yugoslavia under Milosevic was a country which maintained its financial and military independence. It had no wishes to join the EU or NATO, or surrender its sovereignty to anyone. For that refusal to play by the rules of the globalists and to show deference to the powerful Western financial elites, the country (and its leader) had to be destroyed. In the words of George Kenney, former Yugoslavia desk officer at the US State Department: “In post-cold war Europe no place remained for a large, independent-minded socialist state that resisted globalization.”

By contrast, the government of Ukraine, has been put in power by the West precisely in order to further its economic and military hegemonic aspirations. Poroshenko, unlike the much- demonized Milosevic, is an oligarch acting in the interests of Wall Street, the big banks and the Western military-industrial complex. He’s there to tie up Ukraine to IMF austerity programs, to hand over his country to Western capital and to lock Ukraine into ‘Euro-Atlantic’ structures- in other words to transform it into an EU/IMF/NATO colony- right on Russia’s doorstep.

This explains why an ‘anti-terrorist’ campaign waged by the Yugoslav government against ‘separatists’ in 1999 is ‘rewarded’ with fierce condemnation, a 78-day bombing campaign, and the indictment of its leader for war crimes, while a government waging an ‘anti-terrorist’ campaign against ‘separatists’ in Ukraine in 2014, is given carte blanche to carry on killing. In the end, it’s not about how many innocent people you kill, or how reprehensible your actions are, but about whose interests you serve.


By Neil Clark

Article is originally published on RT.com (http://on.rt.com/2azwwq)

ukraine_map_region_vote

Save

From Kosovo to Crimea — Tales of referendums



pb-140315-crimea-flags-05_748bb0f971b5bfe1cafccd127ff104d1

Following the death of President Tito in 1980 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia slid towards chaos. In the 1990s the plunge accelerated into civil war and one of the regions most affected was Kosovo from which Serbia withdrew after a NATO bomb and rocket offensive from 24 March to 11 June 1999. That blitz involved over 1,000 mainly American aircraft conducting some 38,000 airstrikes on Yugoslavia that killed approximately 500 civilians and destroyed much of the economic and social infrastructure of the region.

NATO said its air bombardment was essential to halt repression of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and justified the deaths of hundreds of women and children as being necessary to defeat a «great evil». The air attacks were not authorized by the United Nations Security Council and there is no article in the North Atlantic Treaty that justifies such a war. It resulted, however, in Kosovo declaring independence from Serbia in 2008.

As reported by the Washington Post, NATO supported the rebel Kosovo Liberation Army whose members are now, belatedly, being convicted of war crimes.

On March 26, 2014 President Barrack Obama said in a speech in Brussels that regarding the 1999 war on Yugoslavia, «NATO only intervened after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and killed for years. And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbours».

The President of the United States, whose State Department has some 15,000 experts to keep him informed about international affairs, told the world that Kosovo had held an independence referendum «in careful cooperation» with the United Nations Organization.

But as reported on Fox News of America, «During his speech in Brussels, President Obama showed a lack of knowledge of the political situation in Kosovo. Kosovo never organized any kind of referendum, but the Assembly of Provisional Institutions of self-government of Kosovo made a unilateral declaration of independence on February 17th 2008».

Although there was no referendum in Kosovo before its declaration of independence from Serbia it is apparent that the majority of Kosovans desired independence and would have voted for separation from Serbia if they had been given the opportunity to do so. And according to Mr Obama there is no reason their wishes should be denied. After all, in 2010 the UN International Court’s Advisory Opinion concerning Kosovo indicated that «international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence», a clear-cut endorsement of Kosovo’s actions — and of other such decisions around the world.

No doubt Mr Obama approved of the opportunity given to the people of Scotland to vote in an Independence Referendum a few months after his enthusiastic endorsement of a non-existent plebiscite in Kosovo. In the Scottish Referendum I wasn’t allowed to vote, in spite of being Scottish-born and educated, because I live outside Scotland (although I have a vote in the UK’s general elections); and in other blatant attempts to influence voting the Scottish National Party decided (in the already independent Scottish Parliament which met first in May 1999, coincidentally at the height of the US-NATO blitz on Serbia) to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16 and to forbidScottish soldiers serving outside Scotland — in Afghanistan, for example — to vote unless they had a residence address in Scotland.

The attempted manipulation didn’t work, and the majority of Scots voted against independence (much to the vexation of very many English people), but justice was seen to be done.

Just as justice was done in the Crimea referendum.

I wrote last year that «some 90% of the inhabitants of Crimea are Russian-speaking, Russian-cultured and Russian-educated, and it would be strange if they did not vote for accession to a country that welcomes their kinship, empathy and loyalty» and that there was not «a single case of bloodshed in the run-up to the plebiscite, the free vote as to whether the population wished to accede to Russia or support the «status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine». The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was asked by the government of Crimea to send representatives to monitor the referendum butrefused to do so».

It was no surprise that the OSCE rejected the offer to observe the referendum and provide independent assessments concerning its conduct and result, because its findings would have been extremely embarrassing for the West and especially Washington which had no intention of accepting the result of any referendum in which voters would favour Russia. Obama’s assertion that the popular accession of Crimea to Russia was «annexation» is on the same level as his bizarre claim about a non-existent referendum by the citizens of Kosovo.

There were energetic attempts in the West to paint the post-accession treatment of Ukrainian military personnel in Crimea as harsh, but some newspapers refrained from deliberate lies. Even the ultra-right-wing British Daily Telegraph reported that «Like many of the Ukrainian servicemen in Crimea, the 600-strong marine battalion in Feodosia has strong local links. Many of the men are either local recruits or have served here so long they have put down roots. Only about 140 of the 600-strong battalion stationed here are expected to return to Ukraine. The remainder, with local family and friends, have opted to remain in Crimea — the land they call home».

To President Obama it is irrelevant that the vast majority of Crimean citizens want to belong to Russia. His hatred of Russia and especially of President Putin has tipped any balance he may have displayed and is now extreme to the point of being malevolently insulting. He is increasingly intent on confrontation and has stated that the decision of the citizens of Crimea to accede to Russia is illegal. The White House announced that «We reject the ‘referendum’ that took place today in the Crimean region of Ukraine», and Obama declared «I again call on Russia to end its occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea».

But what is Obama going to do about Crimea? Does he seriously believe that 1.2 million Crimean Russians could accept domination by Ukraine’s Poroshenko? There would be civil insurrection and mayhem if Ukraine took over the country as suggested by Obama.

Mr Obama’s claim that «Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbours», was rubbish — but was clear indication that he approves of UN-supervised independence plebiscites in territories whose citizens indicate that they wish to alter their circumstances of governance. Given the practicalities of his admirable moral stance it is obvious that in order to clarify matters to his satisfaction he should propose another referendum in Crimea.


By Brian CLOUGHLEY

Source: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/06/28/from-kosovo-crimea-tales-referendums.html

crimea-referendum-would-break-international-law-nato-says

Save

Kosovo: Key dates in the century long goal to create Greater Albania



2000px-Principality_of_Albania.svg

Key facts about Kosovo’s Islamic Albanian minority of Serbia and the century long drive by Islamic extremists to exterminate Kosovo Serbs from that region:

1389—Muslims defeat Christian Serb defenders in Kosovo, depopulate the area and invite mountain tribe of Albanians, in exchange for converting to Islam, to take over pillaged land from Serbs.

1594—Sinan Pasha, an ethnic Albanian, who was a commander in the Ottoman Turkish Empire, burned the relics of St. Sava at Vracar, Belgrade. St. Sava is the Saint that brought Serbs into Christianity.

1878—Albanian nationalist leaders meet in Prizren, known as the First League of Prizren, to announce the creation of a Greater Albania, which will include all areas settled by Albanians, including Kosovo-Metohija, western Macedonia, known as Illirida, southern Montenegro, and northern Greece, Chameria. This is when the Kosovo or “Kosova” separatist agenda starts.

1878—Ottoman Turkish forces put down Albanian insurgency to create a Greater Albania. This was the first attempt to create an Albanian “Kosova” by an insurgency or by military force. A century later, another Greater Albania insurgency would have NATO and US backing.

1900-1918—Austria-Hungary and Italy are sponsors of a Greater Albania and support Albanian expansion in the Balkans, at the expense of Serbia.

1912—Albanian ultranationalists seize Skopje in Macedonia as part of a Greater Albania.

1920—After borders of “Jugoslavia” are legally settled under international law and recognized by the League of Nations, Albanian separatists launch a terrorist insurgency in “Kosova”, murdering Serbian civilians and police. This is known as the “kachak movement” and is the start of Albanian attempts to take over “Kosova” by military or armed force.

1941—Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini invade, occupy, and dismember Yugoslavia. They make “Kosova” a part of a Greater Albania under Mustafa Kruja. Western Macedonia is also made a part of Greater Albania by Hitler and Mussolini.

 

Muslim Albanian Nazi slaying a priest in Kosovo with dull knife during WWII.

1941-1944—“Kosova” is made “independent” and part of a Greater Albania by Adolf Hitler. This is when Albanian ultra-nationalists realized their goal to create a Greater Albania and an independent Kosova under Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

1943—The Second League of Prizren, sponsored and established by Nazi Germany, reaffirms the commitment to create and maintain an independent “Kosova” and a Greater Albania under Nazi sponsorship. Later, the US and EU would replace Nazi Germany as the sponsor of Greater Albania.

1944—Albanians create a Nazi Waffen SS Division, Skanderbeg, made up mostly of Kosovo Albanian Muslims, “Kosovars”. These Albanian Muslim Nazi SS troops murder thousands of Kosovo Serbian Christians and drive thousands of other Kosovo Serbs out of Kosovo.

 

Albanian Muslims murder Kosovo Serbian civilians in streets in 1941 after Adolf Hitler granted them “independence”.

1944—Kosovo Albanian Muslims play a role in the Holocaust, the murder of European Jews. The Albanian “Kosovar” Skanderbeg Nazi SS Division rounds up Kosovo Jews who are sent to the Nazi concentration camp at Bergen Belsen where they are killed.

1948—The U.S. brings Midhat Frasheri, the leader of the Nazi/fascist Balli Kombetar, National Front, whose goal is a Greater Albania that includes Kosovo, and other wanted Albanian “Kosovar” war criminals, such as Xhafer Deva and Hassan Dosti, to the U.S. to form anti-Communist forces for the takeover of Albania. The U.S. put the Communist regime in power in Albania then sought to overthrow it by means of “regime change”.

1951—The U.S. organizes and launches Operation Fiend, one of the first experiments in “regime change” in Albania. Frank Wisner is one of the leaders of the project. His son would lead the efforts in 2006 to create a Greater Albania, an independent “Kosova”, which his father failed to achieve.

1968—Albanian separatism in Kosovo emerges. Closer tries with Albania are established.

1969—Kosovo Albanians begin closer ties with Tirana and begin importing textbooks and teachers from Albania and create their own Albanian school system and university. The “Albanianization” of Kosovo begins.

 

July, 1999– Islamic Albanian forces murder 14 Serbian farmers in Kosovo and then burn their bodies after Kosovo is occupied by U.S. and NATO forces.

1974—The Communist dictator Josip Broz Tito changes the Yugoslav constitution giving Kosovo Albanians control of Kosovo. Albanians control every area of Kosovo from the police to teachers to judges.

1981—Albanians in Kosovo demand independence or secession from Yugoslavia. They demand to be a Republic which is code for independent or a part of Albania. They demand: “We Want a Unified Albania!” Dozens are killed in separatist riots. Serbian Patriarchate in Pec is burned down but no one knows how or why.

1982—British historian Nora Beloff notes that “ethnic cleansing” originated in Kosovo when Albanian Muslims killed or drove off Serbs. Albanians begin terror campaign of ethnic cleansing against Kosovo Serbs. From 1981-1989, an estimated 20,000 Kosovo Serbs are driven out of Kosovo by Albanian ultranationalists.

1982—Ethnically motivated murders of Kosovo Serbs begin with the murders of Kosovo Serbs Danilo Milincic and Miodrag Saric.

1985—Kosovo Serb Djorje Martinovic is “found with a broken bottle up his anus.” Albanian attackers sodomized him to force him out of the province to create an ethnically pure Kosova. US media claims that Martinovic was a closet homosexual who injured himself. The brutal sodomy of Martinovic inflames passions in the rest of Serbia.

1987—Fadil Hoxha, leader of Kosovo Albanians, advocates that Albanian Muslims rape Kosovo Serb women.

 

February, 2001 — 100 Serbian civilians blown up after Islamic Albanian extremists plant the bomb in the bus.

1989—Murders, rapes, desecration of Kosovo Serbian property, churches, and cemeteries forces Serbian government to rescind “autonomy” that Communist dictatorship created.

1991—Albanian separatists respond by proclaiming Kosovo a republic, which is tantamount to independence, which is recognized only by neighboring Albania. Albanian separatists gain sponsorship of a Greater Albania by contributing money to Thomas Lantos, Robert Dole, and Joe Biden. The U.S. becomes the sponsor of Greater Albania.

1996—A violent and armed terrorist and separatist group emerges, the KLA/UCK, whose goal is to create a Greater Albania, an independent “Kosova”. KLA begins killing Kosovo Serb civilians and police. Dozens of Yugoslav policemen, Serbs and Albanians, are brutally murdered by the KLA.

April, 1998—95 percent of the Yugoslav population rejected international mediation on Kosovo in a referendum. The so-called Balkan Contact Group imposed new international sanctions against Yugoslavia even though the decision was by a majority of the Yugoslav population, that is, was democratically determined.

 

Albanian urinates on Serbian Orthodox Church in Kosovo that was destroyed by Albanian Muslims while another Albanian Muslim films it on a cell phone camera, 2004.

July-August, 1998—The KLA separatists takes over 40 percent of Kosovo by force, by killing Yugoslav police and driving Kosovo Serbs out. The KLA terrorist groups are well-armed and supplied. The U.S. is one of the backers of the KLA separatists or terrorists.

1998—US State Department declares the KLA separatists are “terrorists”. US media dismisses the pronouncement.

1998—US media dismiss the fact that the Kosovo conflict is an illegal land grab, a separatist, ethnic war to create a Greater Albania. Instead, the US media concoct a deception that the conflict is about “greater rights” and “genocide”, when it is about Greater Albania, an independent, ethnically pure “Kosova”.

October, 1998—NATO plans airstrikes against Yugoslav targets, which would later include hospitals, nursing homes, passenger trains, TV stations, power grids, factories, and busses. Many of these attacks are war crimes under international law.

January 15, 1999—A “massacre” is manufactured in Racak by the US media and government. In fact, those killed were KLA separatists who had murdered Serbian policemen and had been killed in combat against Yugoslav police.

February, 1999—At a staged peace conference at Rambouillet, the US demands that Serbia allow Kosovo to become an independent nation after three years and that US and NATO troops be allowed to occupy Serbia. The US diktat was meant to force a war which the U.S. had long been planning. Rambouillet was a transparent sham.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1983 — Kosovo Serb farmer carries his daughter who was raped by Kosovo Albanian Muslims. Rape of girls was used by the Islamic extremists to drive out the Christian Serbs.

March, 1999—Yugoslavia’s democratically elected leaders reject the US peace deal as tantamount to dismemberment and military occupation, unacceptable to a sovereign state.

March 24, 1999—NATO launched air strikes against Yugoslavia for 78 days, killing thousands of Serbian civilians. The KLA and U.S. advisers create a fake humanitarian catastrophe by telling and even forcing Kosovo Albanians to flee into Albania and Macedonia Yugoslav forces are falsely blamed for driving out Albanians. The U.S. scores a huge propaganda success with images of refugees.

June 10, 1999—NATO forces Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw Yugoslav forces from Kosovo and to allow NATO to occupy it. NATO occupies Kosovo.

June 12, 1999—After 50,000 NATO peacekeepers begin deployment in Kosovo, over 200,000 Kosovo Serbs, Roma, Gorani, and Jews are forced out of Kosovo by Albanians. Thousands of Kosovo Serbs are murdered by Albanians as NATO takes control of the province. Over 150 Serbian Orthodox Churches would be destroyed by Albanian Muslims protected by NATO troops.

March, 2004—March Pogroms: Albanians attack the last remaining Kosovo Serbs to drive them out of the province to create an ethnically pure Shqip Kosova.

October, 2006—Serbia held a referendum and approved a new constitution which declared that Kosovo was an integral part of Serbia. This decision had the support of the majority of the population of Serbia, that is, was democratically determined

January 21, 2007—Serbia held parliamentary elections where the Radical Party won the most votes, although not enough votes to form a new government.

April, 2007—Russia rejected the Marti Ahtisaari proposal in the U.N. Security Council because it violated Serbian sovereignty by supporting Albanian separatism.

June, 2007—U.S. President George W. Bush claimed that Kosovo had to be independent “sooner rather than later.” This is an issue for the UN to be decided under international law, however, not a decision for the President of the U.S.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1999 — Albanian Islamic terrorists, popularly referred in Western media as “rebels”, pose with severed heads of Kosovo Serbs after a beheading session. Beheading is a popular way of slaying among Muslims.

August, 2007—Envoys from the U.S., EU and Russia began 120 days of further negotiations between Albanian separatists and the Serbian government in order to reach an agreement. No agreement was forthcoming because the only “agreement” the U.S. was pushing was an independent “Kosova”. There was nothing to negotiate about. The negotiations were a sham and a hoax.

December, 2007—Albanian separatist efforts fail at the U.N. The U.S. and Albanian goal is then to unilaterally declare independence outside of international law and the UN Charter, which is illegal and violates the sovereignty of Serbia and denies the will of the majority of Serbs. The majority of the Serbian population rejects the secession of Kosovo by Albanian separatists. This decision is reached by means of the democratic process.

February, 2008—Having failed to achieve their separatist agenda through international law and in the U.N., the U.S. switched gears and told the Albanian separatists to unilaterally declare an independent “Kosova”. This is an illegal act which violates all international norms and conventions and laws. The U.S. reliance is on military force only. The illegal measure is justified by force only.


February 17, 2008
SERBIANNA

Source: http://www.serbianna.com/news/2008/01360.shtml

greater-albania-flag-causes-mass-brawl-albania-v-serbia-game

Save