From aki at alb-net.com Tue May 21 03:33:20 2002 From: aki at alb-net.com (AKI News) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 00:33:20 -0700 Subject: [AKI-News] Steiner is Wrong- Freedom is Not Destabilizing Message-ID: Advocates for Kosova's Independence (AKI) May 20, 2002 ================================== ** AKI Newsletter, Issue 10 ** ================================== Steiner is Wrong- Freedom is Not Destabilizing The immediate conflict between the new head of UNMIK and the new Parliament, is not surprising. After three years of heavy-handed, top-down administration, UNMIK has strayed far afield of its original mandate, which should have reflected the principles for empowerment of populations, specifically those who, perhaps for centuries, have been under various forms of totalitarian or apartheid rule as Kosova has. The question is now becoming-- how does UNMIK and UN 1244, together with newly devised institutions created by Belgrade and UNMIK match the clearly stated goals in the 1960 UN Declaration of Independence for Colonial Peoples, stating that, "Recognizing the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence, Aware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such peoples, which constitute a serious threat to world peace, Considering the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non- Self- Governing Territories, Recognizing that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations,... Believing that the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible and that, in order to avoid serious crises, an end must be put to colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith, Welcoming the emergence in recent years of a large number of dependent territories into freedom and independence, and recognizing the increasingly powerful trends towards freedom in such territories which have not yet attained independence, Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory,... And to this end Declares that: 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence. 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, For decades, Serbia treated Kosova as a colony, failing to develop the area, driving out various unwanted populations, robbing the local population of land, savings, property, resources by the dreaded Fiscal Police, and eventually completely suspending their autonomous government, instituting a brutal, apartheid regime. The effort to restore basic human and civil rights ended not in Serb apologies, cooperation and reparations, but in diplomatic failure and the NATO war. During the war, again, soldiers looted homes, robbed displaced peoples, demanded huge bribes, burned property, destroyed livestock, and took materials from the area. Serbia relied on a constant flow of money from Kosova into Serbia through this period. Sadly, the NATO war ended without a peace agreement. The status of Kosova remained undecided. No historian could argue with the fact that since the end of World War II and the birth of the United Nations, a beleagured organization in desperate need of accountability, transparency, and reform, that the end of the age of colonial empires has dominated international politics as much as has the end of Communism. Since the 1950's, more than fifty five former dependent colonies have undergone painful transitions into becoming independent states, often through protracted guerilla-type violence, factionalism, and destabilizing civil wars. Following Ironically enough, one of the few organizations involved in this process is the United Nations Security Council, heavily weighted towards permanent empowerment of former empires- Britain, France, Germany, Russia, United States, and China. While newer nations who may at long last have been released from colonial domination, for example Bangladesh, Singapore, or Ghana, do not have nearly the same power. Similarly, the G8 group has no representation from newer states either. Even today, states that were part of the British empire--Sudan, Palestine, India, Ireland, Afghanistan-are some of the most intractably violent and volatile places in the world because of unresolved territorial issues that are of vital importance to local populations. What cost are we now paying for not having respected the full and equal rights of these local populations, for allowing centuries of economic exploitation to flow into the coffers of Europe, for the overt and covert racism inherent in the tendency to ignore the rights and freedoms of the Sudanese, the Palestinians, or the citizens of East Timor and Kosova? Territorial issues in the Balkans remain unresolved since 1913. After World War II, Russia emerged as a federated republic under Communism. And Yugoslavia was formed in the same mold--created from a series of ethnically based republics, with two lesser provinces, supposedly united under a central communist dictatorship. Serbia seeks very successfully to maintain this now-outdated concept which will continue to give Serbia economic dominance in the region and will keep Kosova underdeveloped and dependent. The political status given to an impoverished minority population in a 1945 communist dictatorship determines now its future and prevents its citizens of self-determination and freedom? It appears so. This, in effect, is the first cause in the misguided policies being applied in Kosova. Given the important historic shift internationally from overt racism, apartheid regimes, colonial domination, resource exploitation, and centralized dictatorships, what independent organizations are there now who have oversight of this still-evolving shift towards local empowerment, universal human rights, and regional/global economies? Only the United Nations. The EU, in the high-handed, closed-door creation of the new country of Serbia/ Montenegro (who knows where Kosova fits into this abomination of a plan and isn't the EU an economic organization which, until now anyway, didn't have the power to create new nations?) that point of view, of a centralized communist federation of South Slavs, now diluted by time, chaos, civil war, corruption, nationalism, hundreds of thousands of refugees, and the demise of communism and totalitarianism, supports this unprincipled hodge-podge of policies that seek to preserve Serb dominance and economic centrality. The plan is to make Belgrade the economic center of the region. But that's not a UN universal human rights plan. It's an EU economic plan. There is no plan to develop Kosova economically, but to continue to allow hundreds of thousands of unemployed to work outside the region and to send money home. Kosova ended up with an interim UN administration, governed by 15 rotating foreign countries in New York City. Contrast this with another bid for independence, the island of East Timor with a population of 800,000, which was given an interim UN government. However, at the same time, they were also given the rapid transfer of powers due to them as described in the 1960 UN declaration on independence. Could the difference be that East Timor has a Nobel Laureate leader, while the Albanians are without political, civic, or moral leadership? The Albanian power vacuum has opened the door for opportunistic policies to flourish in Kosova. Instead of a rapid transfer of power, UNMIK administrators and Nebosja Covic have created various adhoc blocks to direct, representative power. First there was the November 2001 agreement, which set the precedent for settling decisions about Kosova in Belgrade, and created the so-called High Group, then there was the Serbia/Montenegro agreement in which Kosova was not included. Covic speaks about Kosova at the UNSC. Albanians are not allowed a voice at the UN. Media is under orders not to air or publish controversial points of view. Steiner recently told Rexhepi he could not travel to the USA to meet with Albanian Americans. The UNMIK director maintains veto power over all legislation. The topic of final status officially cannot be discussed and there are no known plans for beginning that discussion. The defacto partitioning of Mitrovica has not been studied or resolved. When university students asked questions about this issue at a press conference, Steiner screamed and swore at them. The border change in Viti which gives several Albanian villages to Macedonia is similarly taboo. Meanwhile, Covic has altered the number of Serb returnees from 100,000 to 200,000. That is not up for discussion either. The outrageous salaries--between $100,000 to $200,000- paid to internationals while pensions for the elderly are $25 per month is not up for review or discussion either. UNMIK is simply not accountable. No one will review this situation and put it back on track. If the local population becomes poor enough, and it seems they might, or frustrated with the Mitrovica situation, and it seems they might, or furious about the impervious bureaucracy that UNMIK is rapidly becoming, their recourse --since they have no political power at all-- will probably be violence. Do we want a Palestine or Northern Ireland in the center of the Balkans? By inattention--and this means American inattention-it seems that we might be creating one. In direct violation of the 1960 UN declaration on creating freedom for disenfranchised peoples, the UN has told the citizens of Kosova that they "are not ready" for independence or self-determination. But the path to that freedom should be clearly visible. At the moment it is obscured with a tangle of ill-conceived policies and procedures as UNMIK administrators lurch from crisis to crisis. ### Questions/Comments, email AKI-NEWS at aki at alb-net.com AKI Website: www.alb-net.com/aki/ From kosova at jps.net Thu May 30 10:32:46 2002 From: kosova at jps.net (kosova at jps.net) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 07:32:46 -0700 Subject: [AKI-News] Why are U.S. Officials turning a deaf ear to Kosova's final status? Message-ID: Advocates for Kosova's Independence (AKI) May 30, 2002 ================================== ** AKI Newsletter, Issue 11 ** ================================== AKI Statement: This past week, Kosova's new Prime Minister traveled to Washington. But no matter where he went or whom he met with, American officials turned a deaf ear to his requests for a timeline regarding a settlement on the final status of Kosova. With the first three years of UN administration now up in Kosova, the current U.S. policy is one of do-nothingism. The thinking both here and in Europe seems to be that by refusing to acknowledge the overwhelming reality of the dwindling Albanian patience, the demand for a diplomatic process to settle the fate of the troubled province, they will create some kind of stability instead of a divisive, mistrustful stalemate. Meanwhile, Serb leaders seem to be aligning themselves for the partitioning of Kosova in exchange for independence. UNMIK sits in the middle, increasingly relying on its extensive veto powers as a governing style. Everyone should recognize that despite the NATO war, no one has yet begun talks for a peace plan in Kosova. Insisting that politicians and media remain silent on the one issue that is crucial to all ethnic groups in Kosova, that of final status, will sooner or later push the resolution of this conflict into the streets, as the Prime Minister tried to point out. ================================== Recent Headlines ================================== "Radical ethnic Albanian groups will turn to violence if the international community does not deal quickly with Kosovo's desire for independence from Serbia, the province's prime minister warned yesterday." "Ethnic Albanian MPs want Kosovo's full independence -" "Belgrade has sent its minority mixed signals, which encourage division rather than a united Serb strategy. The official policy has been to exercise influence through Kosovo's institutions with the aim of keeping the province "de jure" part of Serbia and forestalling its independence. At the same time, Belgrade continues to hint that it may accept Kosovo's partition, despite official denials of such strategy. Indeed, Covic recently spoke of his preference for Kosovo's division into Bosnia-style entities, at the UN in New York." ___________________________________________________________ Professor Hurst Hannum of Tufts University has a book called Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-determination: The Accommodation of Conflicting Rights. The following points are taken from an article by Professor Hannum, a international law expert, on independence movements. The article appeared in Foreign Affairs Journal, March/April 1998. I. International Opinion regarding Independence 1. Post cold war conflicts for secession are a substantial and ongoing threat to international peace 2. Therefore internationals must have an objective process for both intervention and settling these disputes, but they don't. This vagueness is in itself destabilizing 3. There is an inherent conflict in decolonization situations- between the concepts of self-determination and sovereignty 4. The right to secession has no defined steps or conditions even though 55 colonies have become states since 1960--Simple military force does not create legitimacy 5. Neither sovereignty or self-determination is an absolute right but is moderated and limited by other rights and obligations that must be recognized at the same time 6. Such conflicts cannot be solved by internationals' simple political preference for one side over the other 7. Much of the time, exercising self-determination has been limited and defined by great power rivalries. II. What is the Appropriate Level of Foreign Involvement in Demands for Self-Determination? 1. Separation cannot create a disturbance in international peace 2. New state must protect individual rights and group identities and facilitate participation in government by all (ie human rights standards are respected and protected, and multiethnicity promoted) 3. Scotland and Quebec have no valid claim for secession because the rights and cultural identity of those citizens are democratically protected 4. Self-determination movements cannot be called terrorist movements by outsiders III. When Secession Demands Are Valid 1. when massive discrimination and human rights violations have occurred, esp if the majority population supported this approach 2. when local self-government has been rejected by the central authority, 3. when even the most minimal demands for change have been rejected IV. Liberation Movements and Their Recognition 1. Both sides must finally agree to the separation before international recognition can take place 2. New boundaries should be defined by a series of votes by citizens 3. the creation of non-viable ethnic enclaves is wrong 4. no ready-made use of force(based on partisani mentality) instead of diplomacy in separation movements should be encouraged 5. Those who claim to speak for the nation must elected in free and fair elections ============================================= Prime Minister Rexhepi's Visit to Washington ============================================= David R. Sands THE WASHINGTON TIMES Radical ethnic Albanian groups will turn to violence if the international community does not deal quickly with Kosovo's desire for independence from Serbia, the province's prime minister warned yesterday. Saying that close to 100 percent of the province's majority ethnic Albanians favor independence, newly installed Prime Minister Bajram Rexhepi told a Washington audience that prolonging Kosovo's uncertain status was a recipe for disaster. "There are radical groups ready to start a new conflict if we do not see action in the next few years," said Mr. Rexhepi, a surgeon who served in the guerrilla Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) during the NATO campaign against the government of former Yugoslav strongman Slobodan Milosevic. Kosovo has enjoyed limited autonomy under a U.N. protectorate since the end of the war, with troops from the United States and other Western powers still providing the bulk of the security for the province. Kosovo's new government, headed by President Ibrahim Rugova and Mr. Rexhepi, came to power in March after elections late last year. The major powers have purposely left Kosovo's ultimate political fate unclear, with many Western European leaders in particular worried that independence for Kosovo could undermine the fragile democratic government in Belgrade and inflame ethnic tensions across the Balkans. The fledgling Kosovo government faces a host of problems, from the status of tens of thousands of Kosovo Serbian refugees looking to return home, to rebuilding the shattered economy, to dealing with corruption and organized crime, much of it linked to former KLA operatives. A report issued yesterday by the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe found that the plight of minorities in Kosovo is "unacceptable," despite a decline in lethal attacks. Walter Irvine, head of the U.N. refugee operation in Kosovo, said at a press conference in Pristina, the provincial capital: "Aggression against minorities has taken a softer style that we call harassment. But such continuous harassment has strong psychological consequences, which in combination make people not want to move." But Mr. Rexhepi said demanding an answer to Kosovo's final status was "neither an extreme position or an irrational luxury," despite the interim government's massive challenges at home. He said the new administration's ability to promote the economy, the rule of law and democratic reforms depended on its ability to extend its authority throughout the province and to deal with the desire of an overwhelming majority for independence. Although prone to squabbling among themselves, all of Kosovo's major ethnic Albanian political parties favor independence. Mr. Rexhepi also said that NATO, and, especially, U.S. troops, should remain in the province, even if independence from Serbia is achieved. Camp Bondsteel, a major U.S. base in southeastern Kosovo, has been operating there since the 1999 war. ================================== UN vetoes Kosovo border resolution Thursday, 23 May, 2002, 15:16 GMT 16:16 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_2004000/2004509.stm - Ethnic Albanian MPs want Kosovo's full independence - The United Nations mission in Kosovo has taken the unprecendented step of invalidating a resolution taken by the province's local assembly, which was seeking to challenge a territorial settlement. - Steiner struck the motion down within minutes of its adoption - The UN administrator in Kosovo, Michael Steiner, within minutes declared "null and void" the resolution adopted by the ethnic Albanian-dominated assembly which rejected a border agreement between Yugoslavia and Macedonia. Kosovo, which borders Macedonia, legally remains part of Yugoslavia. The unanimously passed resolution is being viewed as an attempt by the province to act as an independent state. The incident is also seen as the most serious rift in relations between the province's ethnic Albanian leadership and the UN since the world body took charge of the province in June 1999. The vote is also likely to earn strong criticism from Belgrade - and has already prompted a walkout from the assembly by the Serb deputies. Warnings Ethnic Albanian MPs - who press for Kosovo's outright independence - have been unhappy with the border agreement between Yugoslavia and Macedonia since it was signed last year. They say that over 4,000 hectares of land were removed from Kosovo without any consultation with the local population. The BBC's Nicholas Wood in Pristina says that while some UN officials have sympathised with the MP's grievances, the UN Security Council and the European Union, have warned that the assembly has no rights to discuss issues affecting the region's borders or internal security. Letters from the Security Council and the EU not to go ahead with the vote were presented to the assembly before the session. They warned that Kosovo's reputation would be damaged if the motion was adopted. ================================== COMMENT: BELGRADE'S KOSOVO POLICY ENDANGERS LOCAL SERBS Balkan Crisis Report Serbia has improved its relations with the UN but does not disguise its attempts to control Kosovo through local Serbs By Denisa Kostovicova in Cambridge Since the fall of Slobodan Milosevic, Belgrade has improved its relationship with the UN Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK. But it still tries to control the Kosovo Serbs, even though this policy may ultimately endanger the latter's position. Recent statements by the Serbian prime minister, Zoran Djindjic, have stoked fears that Serbia aims to regain control of Kosovo affairs. In February, he called for moves to bolster Serbian influence over the judiciary, education, health and security in those enclaves in the region where Serbs remain. A subsequent crisis in Kosovo drew criticism of this policy. It blew up after the Kosovo Serbs, following Belgrade's recommendation, refused to take part in the region's government unless they received an extra ministerial post. The UN chief administrator, Michael Steiner, defused tensions by offering the Serbs a government post and a position in the UNMIK office dealing with the return of more than 200,000 displaced members of their community. No sooner was that crisis solved than the older crisis in Mitrovica, close to the border with Serbia proper, flared up again. Unrest in the Serb-controlled north of the divided town has raised the question of whether Belgrade still accepts Kosovo's territorial integrity. Serbs in northern Mitrovica refuse to cooperate with UNMIK. Belgrade's reluctance to cut off support for their local institutions, such as the municipal council and the judiciary, hints at a carve-up strategy that would see the far north of Kosovo join Serbia proper. These developments have disappointed hopes raised after the Democratic Opposition of Serbia, DOS, took over in autumn 2000. Although DOS overturned Milosevic's policy of total obstruction in Kosovo, progress has not been as straightforward as the international community expected. At first, Belgrade signaled goodwill by endorsing Serbian participation in Kosovo parliamentary elections in November 2001. This was after protracted negotiations with the UN administrator resulted in the signing of the Common Document, which affirmed both sides' "determination to address actively the justified concerns of the Kosovo Serbs". But Belgrade has continued to try to direct the Kosovo Serb's policy, not least because they expect nothing else. Belgrade's dealings are conducted largely by deputy premier Nebojsa Covic who backed Serb participation in the protectorate's elections. However, Belgrade has sent its minority mixed signals, which encourage division rather than a united Serb strategy. The official policy has been to exercise influence through Kosovo's institutions with the aim of keeping the province "de jure" part of Serbia and forestalling its independence. At the same time, Belgrade continues to hint that it may accept Kosovo's partition, despite official denials of such strategy. Indeed, Covic recently spoke of his preference for Kosovo's division into Bosnia-style entities, at the UN in New York. In fact, Belgrade appears to be playing to both Serbian camps in Kosovo, the one in Mitrovica that seeks union with Serbia and the second in enclaves such as Gracanica, near Pristina, which fears the consequences of partition. Rada Trajkovic, the head of the Return Coalition in the Kosovo parliament, belongs to the second camp and supports cooperation with Kosovo institutions. But she is battling against the northern Mitrovica faction under Marko Jaksic, vice-president of the Democratic Party of Serbia, DSS. While Belgrade tries to exert influence through the Return Coalition, its failure to rein in the northern Mitrovica Serbs threatens the alliance's very survival. Belgrade's failure to control the Serbs of northern Mitrovica has fed suspicions in the international community that it wants to split Kosovo along the line of the Ibar river, which flows through the town. This policy is undermining Serbia's relations with UNMIK and may diminish its influence over Kosovo affairs in the long term. But it is UNMIK that controls the fate of the Serbs in Kosovo: they only receive token material support from Belgrade. The most vital matter - security - is entirely in international hands. Steiner has set his face firmly against partition. "We have managed to unite Germany and we will achieve the same thing in Kosovo," he said. Belgrade must, in short, dispel any illusion about a restoration of Serbian domination over the whole of the region and encourage community leaders in northern Mitrovica to cooperate with UNMIK. Any alternative policy may isolate Belgrade and leave the Kosovo Serbs out on a limb. - Denisa Kostovicova is a junior research fellow at Wolfson College, Cambridge. ### Questions/Comments, email AKI-NEWS at aki at alb-net.com AKI Website: www.alb-net.com/aki/