Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

A brief history of Kosovo. Part I: 1189-1989

by Sirocco Mon Mar 20th, 2006 at 06:29:25 PM EST

The Balkans region has a penchant for producing more history than it can consume. ~ Winston Churchill

Getting history wrong is an essential part of being a nation. ~ Ernest Renan

Kosovo is in focus again. Below is a primer on the broad sweep of its history from 1189 to 1989. I have aspired to be objective, which is a challenge although I am aware of no personal, ideological, or other particular bias. However, the presentation is selective inasmuch as it highlights certain periods, trends, and developments at the expense of others.


Part 1: 1189-1989

Kosovo mapThe Serbian province — and UN protectorate — informally known as 'Kosovo' is a fertile, mountain-ringed area of 10.887 km˛. It subdivides into the valleys of Kosovo proper and Metohija (Greek for 'monastic land'): indeed, its full name, as Serbs often like to point out, is 'Kosovo and Metohija'. Here, 'Kosovo' will refer to the entire area unless otherwise noted.

The ancient history of the region is fairly obscure. Suffice it to say that, conquered by Alexander the Great 300 years B.C.E., it became part of the Roman province of Dardania in the 4th century A.D. and thus belonged to the Byzantine empire when the Serbs arrived in the Balkans about two centuries later. Fast forward to...

Patriarchate of Pec1189 In this year, the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa passed through on his way to the Third Crusade. Stefan Nemanjić, ruler of the small Serbian principality of Rascia, met with him and signed a trade agreement. Barbarossa drowned underway to Jerusalem, but Nemanjić used the mayhem of the time to carve out a kingdom. One of his sons was crowned; another founded the Serbian Orthodox Church and secured it autocephalous status. As proven today by some 1,300 monasteries and churches, Kosovo was the cultural, political, and economic heartland of this advanced medieval state.

The Kingdom of Serbia flourished between the demise of the Byzantines, from whom it emerged, and the rise of the Ottomans, to whom it fell prey. This Golden Age spanned less than two centuries, culminating with Tzar Stefan Dušan the Powerful, who doubled his empire until it stretched from the Danube to the Peloponnes and encompassed present-day Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia, northern Greece, and Bulgaria. When Dušan died en route to seizing Constantinople in 1355, it dissolved into squabbling fiefdoms.

By then, the Ottoman Sultanate had embarked on a formidable campaign of conquest. In 1371 it vanquished a Christian army in modern Bulgaria, wiping out the chief contenders for the Serbian throne. Militarily, this spat was far more important than the one to follow in 1389; the same can be said of the final Serbian loss on the Danube in 1459. In terms of mythic significance, however, it is the other way around: "In all of European history," notes Tim Judah in The Serbs: History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia, "it is impossible to find any comparison with the effect of Kosovo on the Serbian national psyche." (30). By way of attempts, the Battle of Kosovo has been likened to Hastings, Bastogne, the Siege of Leningrad, and the Fall of Troy — combined.

1389 Murad IOn St. Vitus Day, June 28, 1389, at a desolate plain near Priština, a scrambled Christian alliance of Serbs and Bosnians faced its foe. Its commander was a minor Serb nobleman, a certain Prince Lazar; his Ottoman counterpart being the Sultan, Murad I. Neither man survived the day. And though the Turks gained the most in relative terms, the battle itself was apparently a tie which mostly pleased the blackbirds feasting on the tens of thousands of slain. This gave the region its name: Kosovo Polje means 'the Field of Blackbirds'.

But legend has painted the draw as a Serbian disaster, and elevated the defeat, in turn, to a moral triumph. As was Ottoman practice, the Sultan had offered Prince Lazar a choice between vassalage and war. Aprčs la lutte — likely in order to boost morale as well as the interests of Lazar's heir — the Serbian Church cast the decision to fight as an affirmation of moral purity over worldly gain. According to this hagiography, God made Lazar choose between victory and temporal power, or death and an eternal Kingdom of Heaven. "And the emperor chose the empire of heaven above the empire of the earth," one poem, "The Downfall of the Serbian Empire," declares.

Lovingly embellished over the centuries, this story evolved into a veritable Passion. For example, a 16th century interpolation involves a Last Supper, as well as a Judas figure represented by Vuk Branković, one of Lazar's favorite knights, who supposedly withdrew at a critical stage in the battle. Taken to extremes, the myth suggests that St. Lazar's "martyrdom" absolved the Serbs of the sins by which their state had perished, making them in effect a "new Israel." So, in the fullness of time, they shall be restored even their earthly kingdom.

In the present, however, Serbia was duly conquered by 1459 and would remain so for centuries. Killing or expelling most of the nobility, the Ottomans imposed shari'a laws reducing Christians to second-class citizenry. This included a poll tax (jizya), legal discrimination, and worst of all, devshirme: the dreaded "blood tribute" of perhaps a thousand male children per annum, to be converted to Islam and enrolled in the imperial apparatus. While these were better terms than those offered Muslims by Christian rulers of the age — notably in Spain upon the Reconquista — that obviously did little to console the Serbs. The most hardcore fled to the mountains of Montenegro, the only semi-independent Balkan state. There the monks would carry forth the martyr cult of Kosovo Polje, while by the flickering bonfires, village bards sang of Prince Lazar.

Dance of Kosovo AlbaniansIn the meantime, another ethnic group was moving down from the highlands. The people now known as Albanians began settling in the lowlands. These were fiercely clannish pastoralists of disputed ancestry, who are thought (though all such questions are controversial) to have been a minority in the Serbian Kingdom. Having neither a Church of their own nor the memory of statehood, the proto-Albanians proved more susceptible than Serbs to conversion and its rewards. An estimated two-thirds took up Islam. And from their ranks sprang the new feudal lords of Kosovo; a mainstay of Serb resentment ever since.

1689 The demographic shift came to a head after the failed second siege of Vienna. When the Turks repelled an Austrian invasion in 1689, Serb peasants, who had risen to support it, fled the harsh retaliations. In 1690 the Archbishop of Peć, whose monastery the Ottomans had destroyed, led 30,000-40,000 families across the Danube to the Austrian Military Frontier, the area now called Vojvodina.

This "Great Migration" — another paradoxically celebrated event, which in the Serbian national consciousness evokes the Exodus — moved the center of Serb culture to the Belgrade region, where it has since remained. This rendered Kosovo underpopulated, causing a Turk-sponsored influx of Muslims from present-day Albania. Along with not necessarily voluntary mass conversions among remaining Serbs, many of whom came in time to adopt Albanian customs and even language, this produced an ethnic Albanian majority in Kosovo that has also endured to this day. Such, at any rate, is the simple version of a complex tale. Fast forward two centuries...

1889 By now the tide of power was turning on the Balkans. With the declining Ottoman Sultanate on the verge of bankruptcy, Serbia had resurfaced as a principality after a revolutionary war (1804-14) and under the auspices of the Turks' most vehement enemy, Russia. At the 1878 Berlin Conference it had won recognition as a sovereign state, as did Montenegro. The Serbian Kingdom was back on the map; and its gaze became fixed on its historical heartland.

Death of Prince Lazar
A 19th century representation of the epic poem "The Maiden of Kossovo."

In Belgrade a nascent bourgeoise had discovered the epic cycles of Kosovo Polje, which had drifted north from Montenegro and were published in national-romantic fashion. (They attracted international admiration: Alexander Pushkin and Jacob Grimm cherished the poems, and Goethe, who taught himself Serbo-Croatian in order to read them, compared them to The Illiad.) As with nation-building in general, a literate high culture was constructed from folk traditions in a manner glorifying a distant past. What is unique here is the status assigned the fictionalized events of a non-decisive battle half a millennium back. In a rousing opening address to the nation-wide, months-long celebration of the 500th anniversary of this slaughter, Serbia's minister of foreign affairs intoned:

An inexhaustible source of national pride was discovered on Kosovo. More important than language and stronger than the Church, this pride unites all Serbs in a single nation.... The glory of the Kosovo heroes shone like a radiant star in that dark night of almost 500 years.... There was never a war for freedom — and when was there no war? — in which the spirit of Kosovo heroes did not participate. The new history of Serbia begins with Kosovo — a history of valiant efforts, long suffering, endless wars, and unquenchable glory....

On St. Vitus' day, June 28 1889, 30,000 pilgrims paid homage to St. Lazar's bones in Hungary.

In due course, the national myth was pressed into service for a Greater Serbia. Set in motion by ambitious politicians and sustained by a wave of yearning for the Golden Age, an irredentist project gained momentum: the "historic mission" of "liberating Old Serbia." Thus, in the chaotic First Balkan War of 1912, Serbian troops advanced on Kosovo, whose defense the retreating Turks had left to the Albanian aristocracy. After centuries of tense but seldom violent co-habitation, Serbs and Albanians clashed for the first time in large-scale battle. Here is how one typical young enlistee responded to his southward deployment:

The single sound of that word "Kosovo" caused an indescribable excitement. This one word pointed to the black past 5 centuries. In it exists the whole of our sad past the tragedy of Prince Lazar and the entire Serbian people... The spirits of Lazar, Milos, and all of the Kosovo martyrs gaze on us. We felt strong and proud, for we are the generation which will realize the centuries-old dream of the whole nation: that we with the sword will regain the freedom that was lost with the sword.

That year the Serbian army, trailed by thousands of peasant settlers and wreaking much havoc, conquered Kosovo proper in the face of stiff Albanian resistance. The next year the international community recognized the area as Serbian, with Montenegro getting sovereignty over Metohija.

Famously, however, on June 28 1914 another young Serb nationalist assassinated the Austro-Hungarian Archduke in Sarajevo. Gavrilo Princip was outraged that Bosnia remained a Habsburg province, and especially, that the prince had picked St. Vitus Day to oversee military manoeuvres on the Serbian border. He was also inspired by a mythical incident in the Battle of Kosovo, wherein a Serb nobleman, Miloš Obilić, infiltrated the enemy in the guise of a deserter and plunged a poisoned dagger into the Sultan. In any case, his wrath lit the fuse of World War I; an unprecedented carnage which would cost Serbia an incredible sixty percent of its fighting-age male population.

In Kosovo proper, a fierce guerrilla war ensued between Serbs and Albanians, before Bulgarian and Austro-Hungarian invaders crushed the Serbian army there and forced what is — characteristically — known as the "Great Serbian retreat" across Kosovo and over the Albanian mountains to a refuge on the island of Korfu. Constantly harried by insurgents, this hapless winter march claimed as many as 100,000 Serbian lives. (It is remembered in Serbia as the nation's "Albanian Golgotha.") However, by 1918, as the Dual Monarchy lost out to the French, the Serbian army inflicted a terrible revenge replete with massacres and ethnic cleansing. Meanwhile Serbia received accolades in the West. In June 1918, for example, the United States recognized St. Vitus Day as a day of special commemoration.

Serbian army 1915
The retreat of the Serbian army in 1915.

The colonization continued after Serbia joined the pan-Slavic monarchy later to be named Yugoslavia. Throughout the interwar period, the Belgrade government deported Albanians from Kosovo proper and resettled half the arable land, spawning a big Serb majority by the late 1920s. (More on this project and its ideology can be found in an official memorandum from 1937 called The expulsion of the Albanians.) But during World War II the tide turned again, with most of Kosovo incorporated into an Italian-controlled "Greater Albania." Nearly 100,000 Serbs were expelled, and up to 10,000 killed, by Albanian militias allied to the fascists.

It was hoped that the country's post-war reincarnation as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) under the partisan leader Josip Broz Tito would end this inter-ethnic bloodfeud. And after a final uprooting of the Albanian resistance, killing up to 48,000 in six months, it did for a while. The province of Kosovo enjoyed decades of relative tranquility wherein nationalism of every kind was suppressed with extreme prejudice by the equal-opportunity dictator and his secret police.

During this respite, a demographic bomb went off. Rural Albanians, plagued by poverty and low education levels, had the highest birth rate in Europe, making the Kosovar Albanian population virtually explode. By 1961, Albanians accounted for 67%, Serbs for 27%, and others for 6%. This new situation on the ground, combined with frustration at the underdevelopment that propelled it, led Kosovo Albanians to riot for independence in the 1968 student revolts.

The pragmatic Tito responded by revamping the consitution in 1974, granting Kosovo (as well as the Vojvoidina province with its big Hungarian minority) effective self-government. Besides vast financial transfers from the center, Kosovo gained a seat on the federal presidency; a legislature; a supreme court; a university; a central bank; a police force; and a quota system ensuring Albanian dominance of all these institutions. But much as this displeased the Serbs, it also thwarted a growing Albanian demand for full Republic status, which carried the theoretical right to secede. A year after Tito's death in 1980 — at which point 77% of the population were ethnic Albanians — near-revolutionary riots flared up anew. This time they were quelled with tanks.

Meanwhile there were now persistent claims of harassment and discrimination of non-Albanians. The complaints had considerable merit, as the thousands of Serbs fleeing Kosovo every year would readily confirm. It is equally true, however, that they were wildly exaggerated by Serb nationalists. In 1986, Serbian Orthodox bishops spoke of genocide in progress, as did 216 prominent Serbian intellectuals who decried "the physical, political, legal and cultural genocide" against the Serbs.

Milosevic 1987Then, a much-reported turning point occurred. In April 1987, the deputy president of the Serbian communist party, Slobodan Milošević, arrived at Kosovo Polje — by now a suburb of Priština — to mediate the simmering conflict. As he met with local Serbs, a crowd of nationalist Serbs outside the building began pelting stones at the (predominantly Albanian) police, who struck back with batons. As Milošević ventured outside to see what was happening, an elderly man approached him begging for help against "separatist police beating women and children." The former retreated to a second-floor balcony and declared, while gesturing toward the Field of Blackbirds: "Noone shall be allowed to beat you again!" The crowd responded with chants of "Slobo, Slobo."

This incident, which rebel leaders have proudly confessed to instigating — possibly in collusion with Milošević, who had met with some of them four days beforehand — was televised in all four corners of Serbia. It served as a firebrand for nationalist emotion. Transformed overnight from grey apparatchik to national hero, Milošević proceeded to wrest control of the communist party from Ivan Stambolić, his friend and benefactor for a quarter century. Stambolić, who in 2000 was assassinated on the eve of the Presidential election by eight Serbian secret police officers loyal to Milošević, has said he had seen that day at Kosovo Polje as the end of Yugoslavia.

While that may be an overstatement, certainly two basic taboos of that federation had been flaunted: on mass rallies and ethnic identity politics, respectively. Milošević, supported by hard-liners from Kosovo, followed up with more than sixty so-called "meetings of truth" on the the Kosovo question across the length and width of Serbia. These mass rallies he deftly used to overthrow the provincial leaderships of Kosovo and Vojvoidina. At a November 1988 meeting in Belgrade, under the parole of "Brotherhood and Unity," he thundered to a million listeners:

This is not the time for sorrow; it is time for struggle. This awareness captured Serbia last summer and this awareness has turned into a material force that will stop the terror in Kosovo and unite Serbia.... People will even consent to live in poverty but they will not consent to live without freedom.... We tell them that we enter every battle with the aim of winning it.

In grand demagogic style, he envisioned a new:

...battle for Kosovo [which]... we shall win despite the fact that Serbia's enemies outside the country are plotting against it, along with those in the country. (Quoted in Sabrina Petra Ramet: Nationalism and Federalism in Yugoslavia 1962-1991, 2nd ed., 229-230.)

To be continued.

Display:
Excellent rendition. Of course, the real nitty gritty details begin in the next part.

I would only add one thing. The former Yugoslavia was bustling economically in the 1970s. The only Communist state to really do well with their system. In the 80s, the Yugos were the victims of economic warfare. The subsequent economic downturn did much to spur the fledgling independent movements in the republics. We can't forget that the mayhem of the 90s was partially triggered by the West's ideological battle against Communism. Especially in an area such as Yugoslavia, an area that had plenty of farmland, mineral resources, industry, etc.

by Upstate NY on Mon Mar 20th, 2006 at 07:40:43 PM EST
Can you provide any links whatsoever to justify your assertion thay there was an "economic war" against Yugoslavia in the 1980's? Part of the reasons behind Yugoslavia's economic success was due to the fact it was not part of the Russian axis under Tito, indeed he was at various points highly hostile to the USSR. That made Yugoslavia particularly popular with the West and it was almost a client state of the USA as a challenge to the Soviet Union.

The Adriatic coastline was a popular summer holiday destination for western europeans as it was rather cheaper than Italian or French resorts There was a growing winter sports tourism industry spurred on by the Winter Olympics being held in Sarajevo in 1984. (That was when the twin office blocks that were a feature of the skyline became familiar as a symbol of the city and which were often seen in coverage of the seige) A growing number of Yugo cars were being exported and your claim of "economic warfare" in that decade is even more strange when you consider that these cars were first imported into the USA in 1986. Not in this diary but mentioned in another on Kosovo is that the Serb migration from Kosovo to Serbia was due more to the greater availability of jobs in the larger province - somewhat analagous to the slightly earlier migration from southern to northern Italy - than the rather limited terrorist killings by Kosovar Albanian separatists.

by Londonbear on Mon Mar 20th, 2006 at 09:41:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is Jack Kemp's letter to VP Dan Quayle in 1992: "It was the IMF that created a tinderbox out of the Balkans at the end of the Cold War. The result of the IMF's deadly economic medicine of the 1980s has been to bankrupt the entire Yugoslav economy, destroy the currency and unemploy the people. We should be doing everything possible to prevent the IMF from re-entering the region and undermining efforts to rebuild the economies. "

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9904a/yugodismantle.html

First site that popped up on Google:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/kosovo/Kosovo-controversies43.html

by Upstate NY on Mon Mar 20th, 2006 at 10:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So you are basing your assertions on the writings of Michel Chossudovsky who is directly quoted in one of your links and whose work on Yugoslavia is interpreted by an article published by a presumably neo-Trotskyist group naming itself after the Fourth International?

Their thesis appears to be that this "war" was initiated by the IMF imposing policies in a deliberate attempt to destabilise the Yugoslav economy in the 1980s so that the country would fragment to provide an excuse to invade in 1999 when the Fourth International article was written. Readers in the UK will be rather amused to find that the first (broken) link to come up when you search the web for Michel Chossudovsky using the BBC engine leads to David Icke's site. This presumably is the same David Icke who is the ex-sports programme presenter whose brief forray into politics was rather undermined by his views on the personal nature of God (ie he thought God was his dad)

That of course is not to deny that the policies of the IMF during those two decades were not incompetent or that a number of economies around the world suffered because they adhered to the recommendations of the IMF and World Bank. However, to suggest as Michel Chossudovsky seems to do that they were specifically designed to damage Yugoslavia looks like paranoid nonsense designed to provide an pseudo-intellectual basis for opposition to the NATO interventions.

In fact even the articles you quote are inconsistent with your claim that this supposed "economic war" was due to the Yugoslav government being Communist. The Nick Beams article on the World Socialist site quotes a Susan Woodward as writing:


the real origins of the breakdown of civil and political order lay in the economic decline caused largely by the debt repayment program imposed by the International Monetary Fund and other international financial institutions.    

Now this supports my comment that Yugoslavia was disengaged from the main Communist block, not a member of Comecon and that to an extent they were regarded as more "western". The IMF and "other international financial institutions" did not lend to the main USSR-centered communist block.

The WSWS also quotes a report to Madeline Albright as stating


"In 1987," Zoakos wrote, "the old Yugoslavia, with all its tragic failings, was still a functioning state. The International Monetary Fund then took over economic policy....


"When the IMF shock therapy hit Yugoslavia, the initial form of social disorder was not ethnic friction but massive and repeated strikes and labor actions. As late as 1988, an enterprising US journalist employed in Belgrade had difficulty in finding ethnic passions and reported: ' "I would be a Serb, a Bosnian, anything--an Uzbekistani--I'd make my eyes slanted, if I'd have money," says a Belgrade taxi driver named Zoran, stretching the skin around his eyes to make the point.' Ordinary people turned into ethnic monsters only after all their options for a normal economic life were destroyed. 'Ethnic cleansing' arrived only after 'shock therapy' had done its work."

That last assertion is clear nonsense. Apart from there arguably being a history of "ethnic cleansing", even if it was not called that, going back to the earliest days of Yugoslavia, the infamous visit of Milosevic to Kosovo Polje in 1987 is evidence to the contrary. His original mission was to mediate between the Serb and Albanian sides. You will also see above that the year before that Serb orthodox bishops were talking about genocide.  

by Londonbear on Tue Mar 21st, 2006 at 08:55:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, you're really jumping all over the place.

First, you got combative and asked for "any evidence whatsoever." Then when I offered you links "whatsoever" you proceeded to do a Google search and cite a link to Choussodosky's work from some British sportscaster? Really, I have no idea why you did that. Is the sportscaster's disgrace to be blamed on Choussodosky? Next, you call him a Trotskite, though he's a famous historian in Canada and a well-known academic. Not a marginal figure at all. Third, Albright is not a source I would put my trust in. Her rendition of the effect of those loans is very telling. The World Bank and the IMF are NOT above being used as politcial tools. I think this is a very naive view of world banking.

Lastly, I see you avoided the Jack Kemp quote altogether.

by Upstate NY on Tue Mar 21st, 2006 at 03:25:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I did not say Choussodosky was a Trostskyite - try reading my post, I said that one of the links you quoted was an interpretation of his writings published by an apparently Trotskyite group naming themselves after the Fourth International. The other is a link to an article written by the Professor himself.

His Global Research site is reprinting all sorts of articles which support the "Milosevic is a Serbian martyr" line. The impartiality of his "history" writings must also be called into question by his political position in opposition to the 1999 action. While this position did have some support in North America and even less in Europe among those who had genuine anti-war credentials, the Milosevic apologism must indicate a considerable bias in his other writings. This one in particular , first written in 1999 but on a web page dated 21 March 2006 clearly indicates this:  

The causes and consequences of this war have been the object of a vast media disinformaiton campaign, which has sought to camouflage NATO and US crimes.    

It is important to note that a large segment of the "Progressive Left" in Western Europe and  North America were part of this disinformation campaign, presenting NATO military intervention as a necessarry humanitarian operation geared towards protecting the rights of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

The intervention was in violation of internaional law. President Milosevic at the Rambouillet talks had refused the stationing of NATO troops inside Yugoslavia.

The demonization of Slobodan Milsovic by so-called "Progressives" has served over the years to uphold the legitimacy of the NATO bombings. It has also provided credibility to "a war crimes tribunal" under the jurisidiction of those who committed extensive war crimes in the name of social justice.

The Just War thesis was also upheld by several prominent intellectuals including Richard Falk who viewed the Kosovo war as: "a Just War  because it was undertaken to avoid a likely instance of "ethnic cleansing" undertaken by the Serb leadership of former Yugoslavia, and it succeeded in giving the people of Kosovo an opportunity for a peaceful and democratic future" (Richard Falk).

In turn the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was upheld by several "Leftists" as a bona fide liberation movement rooted in Marxism.

The KLA was and remains a paramilitary army supported by Western intelligence, financed and trained by the US and NATO. It has ties to organised crime. It has  links to Al Qaeda, which is also supported by US intelligence.

Is the Kemp you are quoting the one whose Wikipedia entry includes:


 Although mentioned as a possible 2000 presidential candidate, Kemp did not run, instead endorsing eventual winner Governor of Texas George W. Bush.

Jack Kemp also started the free market advocacy group Empower America, which later merged with Citizens for a Sound Economy to form FreedomWorks, but resigned as Co-Chairman of FreedomWorks in March 2005 after he was questioned by the FBI about his ties to Samir Vincent, a Northern Virginia oil trader implicated in the U.N. Oil-for-food scandal who pled guilty to four criminal charges stemming from the scandal, including illegally acting as an unregistered lobbyist of the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein.[1]

That same year he was exposed as being part of a highly questionable oil-for-influence deal with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. [2]

His legacy includes the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of the 1980s, also known as the first of the two "Reagan tax cuts." He also served at a Distinguished Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute where he wrote regularly on economic and regulatory issues.

A link to the letter you quote from would be useful to put the snippet in context however from the biodgraphical details he seems to be a proto-neo-con who is always good to provide a client with connections providing the price is right. Do you have details of his financial supporters in the period before he wrote that letter?

In his March 6 2006 column in townhall.com he writes of the Israeli "security wall":


 While the wall sounds ominous, its effects on the ground create a better climate for talks with the Palestinian Authority.

This was an impression gained on

my recent trip to Israel, co-sponsored by the American Israeli Friendship League, where I led a mission of U.S. financial industry executives on behalf of the Israeli Ministry of Commerce Trade and Finance.

So you seem to rely on one Canadian historian (extensively) who has a clear pro-Serb bias and a US Republican who it appears write say anything that pleases his latest client.

by Londonbear on Tue Mar 21st, 2006 at 05:56:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the smears. Jack Kemp is a well-known political figure in America. A long-time Senator opposite Moynihan, he was one time very close to being the American President, as he lead G. H. W. Bush early in the primaries.

Does this quote show that you are genuinely open to discussion on this issue?

"The impartiality of his "history" writings must also be called into question by his political position in opposition to the 1999 action."

I'm also opposed to the 1999 action in Kosovo. I have no idea why that disqualifies me from offering evidence that you asked for. Nor does it make me a Milosevic apologist. I suggest we stick closer to the discussions at hand rather than trying to brand each other with political labels and smears in some ideological battle that frankly I don't have the time for.

by Upstate NY on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 11:24:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Being "well known" does not exclude a politician in the USA (or UK for that matter) being "on the make" and their political opinion open to the highest bidder, which is why I asked what funding Kemp had received during the period up to the letter you quote. Very clearly he is currently open to expressing the views of the Israeli government in return for the funding of his trip and presumably payment from AIPAC and other pro-Israeli lobby groups.

I made it clear that there were two groups opposed to the 1999 NATO action. One was clearly on the Serb side either out of a personal connection or from sympathy for the Serb cause. The diary makes it clear that there are national/ethnic myths that pervade Serbian politics and which Milosevic played on. The other group were those who one might expect to be opposed to any military action either because of religious belief (Quakers for example) or other pacifist views which could include scepticism about the official line to persuade the US body politic to support the action. Given the lies about Iraq from Bush, this scepticism can seem justified however Bush's deceit does not make Clinton's case invalid. After the experience of a UN force with a limited mandate being unable to stop the massacres in Bosnia, there was overwhelming support in the rest of Europe for far more robust terms of engagement in Kosovo. The USA had to be virtually dragged into acting. Anybody like a historian who is interpreting primary sources has to be viewed critically. I for one would question David Irving, a well known English historian, when he was commenting on the Holocaust or writing a history of WWII.

The main body of this diary gives as neutral a history of the region as is possible. Bringing in comments clearly affected by the propaganda of one side without critically examining it, as you did with your theory of why the Serbs became a minority in Kosovo, had to be challenged.

Serbs do appear to have a national self image of an oppressed group against who all others plot. You only have to look at the debacle of the country's entry into the Eurovision Song Contest this year to see it made manifest and sooner or later you will be claiming the referendum later this year which is likely to result in the independence of Montenegro was the result of a plot by the west against Serbia - but that no doubt will form part of the next diary.

Now I presume from your comments you fall into the second group of protestors I identified. Choussodosky is clearly approaching the situation with pre-formed opinions. You make very extensive references to his works whenever you comment on the Balkans. The article I quoted, which I will remind you HE has re-published on his web site this week, shows clear sympathy for Milosevic (note his criticism of the "demonisation of" ) If you are going to comment adversely on the motives of one side, I think it essential that you do so by using a neutral or unbiased commentator. Choussodosky clearly is not and unfortuantely I have not been able to find further details of his family history as he is merely described as "Canadian". Were, for example, his family to have emigrated from the Balkans and carried the Serb national myths with them, one would find a reason behind his obvious sympathies. His whole body of work on the Balkans seems one sided (or you have quoted selectively from his work to support that side and I have not found any "balancing" commentaries on his site from him)  

by Londonbear on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 12:41:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm calling BS on most of your responses.

You erect straw man after straw man in your argument. Critiquing American politicians according to who funds them may be a fun passtime, but it gets this conversation nowhere. Be specific. How is Jack Kemp's comment about Western financial involvement in Yugoslavia subverted by his campaign contributions? Who is funding Kemp's apparent "pro-Yugoslavian" views? All American politicians take money  Does that mean you should just ignore absolutely everything they say?

Second, you describe those who oppose the West's actions in Kosovo as either Serbian nationalist sympathizers or Quaker pacifists or skeptics? Does this seem like an honest argument to you? I have no idea why you brought Bush's Iraq into this. Seems to me Albright's actions on their face are repugnant enough. I don't care for politicans who squelch already agreed to peace plans and then watch smugly as thousands die.

Third, the USA had to be dragged into acting? Um, it was France and Germany who frowned on Albright's exploits in Rambouillet (quite rightly!). It was Albright who screeched at Colin Powell, "What good is your army?" It was the US who pressed the war, while France (the peace conference's host) clearly thought a peace offer had been made. You need to revise your opinion on this.

David Irving? What? What? What?

Fourth, then you write this drivel: "Bringing in comments clearly affected by the propaganda of one side without critically examining it, as you did with your theory of why the Serbs became a minority in Kosovo, had to be challenged."

What is my theory of why the Serbs became a minority in Kosovo, again? Where did you challenge the professor? All I see is that you engaged in character assassination. You didn't challenge anything one bit.

As for the rest, Eurovision or what nonsense you write, I see you have trouble sticking to the specific arguments at hand, and most of your retort constitutes an attempt to smear me with any boogeyman you have at hand, AIPAC and David Irving and some sportscaster I never heard of. Frankly, this is all beneath me, and it's the end of my participation in this discussion with you.

I tried to talk specifics, this is my third attempt to generously offer a way of getting to the bottom of things, and all I get are vilifications.

I don't have the time.

You can have the final word.

by Upstate NY on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 02:19:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
David Irving is the "respected historian" who is sitting in an Austria jail for holocaust denial. The point is that just because somebody is an "historian" does not mean that they do not have either a political agenda or a personal one. The one you constantly quote has a clear bias and I am trying to get to the basis for this. If he is Serbian or of Serb descent, a question I ask of you as you are his principle proponent on here, then one can rightly question his impartiality. (For that matter neither would I consider a history of the American War of Independence written by an American historian to be automatically impartial simply because they inevitably have absorbed the cultural traditions and creation myths of that country)

I lifted part of the Wikipedia entry for Jack Kemp simply because it shows that he has a record of being a right wing Republican who is against organisations like the IMF and World Bank for purely ideological reasons. The independence and validity of his expressed opinions can certainly be called into guestion when you examine the piece I quoted on the Israeli security wall which are bizarre to say the least and can only be the line fed to him by the Israeli government as it is challenged by many Israelis, let alone virtually every government outside of Israel and the USA.

You will also note that I linked to those items I quoted. I asked you for a link to the Jack Kemp letter you quoted and you still fail to do so which means the extracts you print cannot be put in context. The link you did give goes to an article by Michel Chossudovsky. My obsevervation of his own reposting of a 1999 article he wrote which justifies Milosevic's action at a time when the Serb Socialists are trying to create a martyr myth around the murderer is highly indicative that Chossudovsky is a massacre justified, if not denyer.    

by Londonbear on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 02:51:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We can't forget that the mayhem of the 90s was partially triggered by the West's ideological battle against Communism.
---
Yap!

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Mon Mar 20th, 2006 at 10:29:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Excellent rendition. Of course, the real nitty gritty details begin in the next part.

Thanks, and yep...

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Tue Mar 21st, 2006 at 07:28:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That nationmaster site is something else. I've spent an hour over there, and have to drag myself away now.
by Upstate NY on Mon Mar 20th, 2006 at 08:12:49 PM EST
Yeah, it's great isn't it? Nothing like a little graphics to drive home the stats. E.g.:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_pop

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Tue Mar 21st, 2006 at 07:31:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you for this Sirrocco. It looks like pretty fair writing for now.

Quote:
...with frustration at the underdevelopment that propelled it, led Kosovo Albanians to riot for independence in the 1968 student revolts.
-------
The fact that Kosovo was underdeveloped does not come from "underinvestment" of others. Actually Kosovo was helped by all others like no other republic or area has been. Poverty there came from as you mentioned "demographic bomb" and "highest birth rate in Europe" and that did not just come because of "poverty and low education levels"...It was a policy...and very successful one as we see it.

Quote:
Besides vast financial transfers from the center, Kosovo gained a seat on the federal presidency; a legislature; a supreme court; a university; a central bank; a police force; and a quota system ensuring Albanian dominance of all these institutions. But much as this displeased the Serbs, it also thwarted a growing Albanian demand for full Republic status, which carried the theoretical right to secede. A year after Tito's death in 1980 -- at which point 77% of the population were ethnic Albanians -- near-revolutionary riots flared up anew.
------
Vbo:
Now how this looks like to you people. They gained much more then ANY other minority IN THE WORLD but hey they were not happy. Of course because their intention has always been to have "Greater Albania" like they had it with Nazis.
Now why is a Great Albania more acceptable for West then great Serbia  is above me. Just don't tell me it's because Albanian emerging democracy... The only conclusion for me is that that's because Milosevic and Serbs didn't want NATO /USA military bases and voluntary occupation on their land ( Milosevic didn't even want to consider it all though he received few messages from diplomatic sources ...final message from the west was " with or without you...")
--------
Quote:
This incident, which rebel leaders have proudly confessed to instigating  -
Vbo:
Yes it was staged and yes Milosevic did ride on the "nationalism horse" but that does not say that Serbs haven't been oppressed by Albanians badly...They were. And all the other Serbs being furious because of it were easy target for power hungry "patriots" like Milosevic. There was actually nothing and nobody else on the stage at that moment. All the others (Albanians as well as Croats, Muslims, Slovenians, Macedonians ...) adhered to their nationalists and what exactly was a choice for Serbs? Especially in uncertain times of communism disappearing all over the Europe and not real plans for the future...They needed (and used to) strong man...strong politician. Milosevic for most of them looked like someone who knows what he is doing (like Bush for Americans few years ago). I remember a time when I was desperate seeing where he is going to lead us and I spoke my desperation to my neighbor who was a journalist at state (Milosevic's) TV Serbia at the time. All though his motto was "I am professional and I will work for who ever is paying me" he was not a stupid guy and after I put my arguments he made a pause in silence and said "He (Milosevic) most probably must know what he is doing..." meaning that he may have some secret arrangements or something...I was not under the same impression.


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Mon Mar 20th, 2006 at 10:25:34 PM EST
Thank you for this Sirrocco. It looks like pretty fair writing for now.

Thanks, glad to hear you say that.

The fact that Kosovo was underdeveloped does not come from "underinvestment" of others. Actually Kosovo was helped by all others like no other republic or area has been. Poverty there came from as you mentioned "demographic bomb" and "highest birth rate in Europe" and that did not just come because of "poverty and low education levels"...It was a policy...and very successful one as we see it.

These are tough questions. First of all, you are right that the underdevelopment did not result from federal underinvestment and that Kosovo received transfers like no other republic or province from the Federal gov't. I think it got something like 30 percent of the transfers with 8 percent of the population, for decades.

So why the socioeconomic inertia? Well, for one thing there was a classic dependency effect at play: the carte blanche transfers encouraged wasteful largesse and corruption rather than sound investment by the provincial authorities, as is also seen with bilateral development aid. As long as good results might threaten the cash flow, receiving gov't weak has incentives to get them.

While that helps explain the lack of growth despite massive transfers, a root cause of Kosovo's problem is, I think, that it was Ottoman territory - peripheral such, at that - into the 20th century. The Ottoman empire stagnated economically and politically as early as the 17th century and eventually collapsed, Soviet Union style. Serbia "escaped" in the early 19th century; Slovenia and Croatia were in the more dynamic Habsburg empire. Thus Kosovo emerged as comparatively backward in terms of urbanization, cultural capital and industrial infrastructure.

Within this agrarian society, the Albanian population had a more rural settlement distribution than the Serbs and thus underwent less of a demographic transition. The nature of clan societies may also have something to do with it. But I don't think one needs suppose that the high birth rate was a function of official policy. In that case one would also need to show how this worked (e.g. schools in Albanian areas deliberately failed to teach about family planning, etc.), since after all, people don't tend to reproduce as a matter of policy.

As to the Greater Albania project and the ultimatum to Slobo, I'll get back to that in Part II.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Tue Mar 21st, 2006 at 08:29:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
receiving gov't weak has incentives to get them.

Read: the receiving gov't has weak incentives to get them.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Tue Mar 21st, 2006 at 08:32:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The fact that Kosovo was underdeveloped does not come from "underinvestment" of others. Actually Kosovo was helped by all others like no other republic or area has been. Poverty there came from as you mentioned "demographic bomb" and "highest birth rate in Europe" and that did not just come because of "poverty and low education levels"...It was a policy...and very successful one as we see it.

The high birth rate was a policy?! lol

Now how this looks like to you people. They gained much more then ANY other minority IN THE WORLD but hey they were not happy. Of course because their intention has always been to have "Greater Albania" like they had it with Nazis.
Now why is a Great Albania more acceptable for West then great Serbia  is above me. Just don't tell me it's because Albanian emerging democracy... The only conclusion for me is that that's because Milosevic and Serbs didn't want NATO /USA military bases and voluntary occupation on their land ( Milosevic didn't even want to consider it all though he received few messages from diplomatic sources ...final message from the west was " with or without you...")

The US opposed the break up of Yugoslavia as it was happening. They largely ignored the Albanians, in spite of ever growing oppression by the Serb minority in Kosovo.  Hardline nationalist Kosovo Albanians grew frustrated with the strict policy of nonviolent resistance and formed the KLA. The violence that ensued  got the West's attention. There was considerable guilt over the long delays before intervening in Bosnia and the lack of intervention in Rwanda. Considering that the Serbs had in the past responded to violent ethnic militias with massacres and thorough ethnic cleansing they had good reason to be worried, especially as it seemed like the pattern would repeat itself. So they decided to act.  Nothing to do with bases. Nothing to do with Nazi plans either.

All the others (Albanians as well as Croats, Muslims, Slovenians, Macedonians ...) adhered to their nationalists and what exactly was a choice for Serbs?

The fun logic of ethnic civil war - you get pushed towards the extremists because you know that the extremists on the other side see you as part of 'them'. Vicious circle follows. The problem was that the Serbs responded with the greatest amount of violence in the initial phase of the war and insisted on control of not just the areas where they were the majority, but also those where they were a minority - and in Croatia and Bosnia ethnically cleansed local majorities. This resulted in an understandable but false black/white portrayal of the conflict in the Western press.

 That bias was perhaps at its clearest during the Croatian conquest of Krajina and the ethnic cleansing of the Serb population that ensued - contrast it to the coverage of the ethnic cleansing of the Croat  majority of the area a few years earlier. The Croats were then portrayed as angelic victims, while the articles on the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs had a 'they had it coming' flavor to them. And it wasn't just the press. I worked in a DC think tank then, spending a lot of time  on the ex-Yugoslavia issue, and can testify that the DC foreign policy community largely saw it the same way.

I can understand a Serb's frustration and anger at this, but I find it difficult to be sympathetic when you insist on an equally one sided portrayal that ignores or denies Serb atrocities and resort to bizarre conspiracy theories.

by MarekNYC on Tue Mar 21st, 2006 at 02:07:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Quote:
The high birth rate was a policy?! lol
---
It wasn't all that funny you know. Have in mind that they are Islamists ...so no protection or family planning there ...and it are OK with me. It's their culture, their way of life. But on the other hand they have been encouraged to have as many children as they can by their community leaders and unintentionally with Serbian policy of helping financially families with a children (as Serbs had/have low birth rate).Now it wasn't big money but multiplied by 10 (cause they literally had 10 and more children on average, especially in rural areas.

Quote:
The US opposed the break up of Yugoslavia as it was happening. They largely ignored the Albanians, in spite of ever growing oppression by the Serb minority in Kosovo.  Hardline nationalist Kosovo Albanians grew frustrated with the strict policy of nonviolent resistance and formed the KLA. The violence that ensued  got the West's attention
---------
I see you know this by heart. Straight from western media text books...
Quote:
The US opposed the break up of Yugoslavia as it was happening.
---
USA opposed break up of Yugoslavia at the beginning while they were still negotiating with Milosevic and others but when they couldn't reach a deal with Milosevic they decided it has to break. They had an easy job though...
Quote:
 Nothing to do with bases.
----
You really made me laugh...how nice...how idealistic...how naive... (or intentional?)

Quote:
Considering that the Serbs had in the past responded to violent ethnic militias with massacres and thorough ethnic cleansing they had good reason to be worried, especially as it seemed like the pattern would repeat itself.
----
Now this is intentional ...very much so...Who ever took time to read history ,and here are available few sources in my topic and Sirrocco topic (even USA library of Congress) will see that Serbs are NOT exclusive in "massacres and thorough ethnic cleansing"  and Albanians were and are  very much in this business...They did not delivered cookies to the Serbs in WWII acting WITH HITLER you know...but hey here we are again...When you repeat a lie so many times it somehow tend to become a truth ( for those who are actually not interested in truth at all).
Quote:
The problem was that the Serbs responded with the greatest amount of violence in the initial phase of the war and insisted on control of not just the areas where they were the majority, but also those where they were a minority - and in Croatia and Bosnia ethnically cleansed local majorities.
---
Now finally some truth here from you...Yes they did responded with "greatest" amount of violence probably because they were the strongest military
...I never thought war is the way to solve those problems but I was told I was naive. Responding to criticism that "Serbs insisted on control of not just the areas where they were the majority" they told me that it's all done in order to have better negotiating position in the end. Now I am not much in military science or strategies of the war and all though it looked logical I was aware that this had to cost so much more lives and I couldn't agree with it. I also thought its Milosevic's fault...All though I am not really sure how much of the control he actually had of Karadzic and Mladic...
Quote:
  I worked in a DC think tank then, spending a lot of time on the ex-Yugoslavia issue,
---Now I understand how you know everything "by heart"...
Quote:
when you insist on an equally one sided portrayal that ignores or denies Serb atrocities and resort to bizarre conspiracy theories.
----
You get me wrong...I do not want ONE SIDED portrayal and that's why I am writing this...and I am NOT denying anything I just wants facts...not propaganda...I am sick of it!

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Tue Mar 21st, 2006 at 08:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
[...] I just wants facts...not propaganda...I am sick of it!

vbo,

Reading your comments about birth rate policies (what?!?! this is hilarious), previous cliché comments about Albanians and Serbs, you are a good example of a victim of propaganda. I mean, to some extent, I would not be surprised if you thought Albanians had tails (as they had been portrayed in Serbia for a long time).

As much as I would like to refrain from replying to your comments, as I consider some of them quite childish, I sense a lot of stereotyping and hatred against people, who, I am assuming, have not done anything to you personally. Do you really believe all that is necessary, or are you trying to prove a point? I mean, do you really believe Albanians had 10 kids so that they get more money from the "Serbian welfare" (it didn't even exist in Kosovo)??? Is this what you are told??

by AmonRa on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 06:28:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's Ok with me if you  more like version that they had 10 children because they were poor and not educated but it's a pure lie that
Quote:
"Serbian welfare" (it didn't even exist in Kosovo)???
...simply lie...
All tho you are right that this was not main reason for having 10 children. It was not much of the money even for "oh so poor" Kosovo Albanians. As I mentioned before it was more because their religion and because they were said so by their tribal chiefs... Now tell me cause I really do not know how many children Albanians in Albania have/had  on average in last 50 years???
Quote:
I would not be surprised if you thought Albanians had tails (as they had been portrayed in Serbia for a long time).
---
As I mentioned before we had "our own Shiptars" (Albanians) even in Belgrade (would you believe it?) and one of them was my brother's best friend from childhood. I never saw the "tail" on him so I suppose Serbian propaganda couldn't do much in my case.
But here I am trying to establish some facts. Mostly historic facts.  In some cases I may be even wrong and I am open to criticism...
Give me some proof (facts) for what ever is your point and I'll think of it. Just stop with that myth about hallowed Albanians and bloodthirsty Serbs...


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 09:41:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, as I remember we have introduced each other before, and coming from Prishtina gives me the "in-person" advantage of the experiences and information. In response to your question, I can truly tell you that noone in my family, nor the families of my friends have more than 3-4 children. Of course there is a difference between people living in the villages and those in the city. However, no "tribal chief" (tribes in Kosovo?? villages maybe) told anyone to make 10, 5 nor 2 children.

You cannot give specific figures for the past 50 years, but there are differences. There are families with 12 children, but there are many other families with 2. It is a part of the culture and that is what people decided to do. There is no conspiracy theory that they made babies in order to do something against the Serbs. In fact, one sad thing that I often heard was that mothers would say that "three of their children were for Milosevic, and the rest for her" prompting that those for Milosevic would be killed at some point. But I do not want to get into that discussion.

My only point in these comments is to create some kind of balance to your comments, as I regard them quite belligerent. I understand your attitude and your idea of the Albanians and why it is such, but I am trying to give you some truthful information of what it really is like.

BTW, I am sure that you are very aware that "Shiptar" is a derogatory word (very offensive actually) and would be considered a snark.

by AmonRa on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 12:03:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Quote:
In fact, one sad thing that I often heard was that mothers would say that "three of their children were for Milosevic, and the rest for her" prompting that those for Milosevic would be killed at some point. But I do not want to get into that discussion.
---
But I want to...Did patriotic Albanian mothers said the same thing during Tito's dictatorship? So now Kosovo looks more like Palestine...was that your intention to show it in that light here?
Do you have some exact numbers how many Albanian children (or youngsters)  Milosevic exactly killed prior to 1999 and how many of Albanian children have been actually born and grown as a "gift" to Milosevic during those cca 10 years of his governance?
Now again I look like devil's advocate just because I can't swallow propaganda. WHO EVER COMMITED WAR CRIMES SHOULD BE PROSECUTED is my policy but I would like to see facts. And when you find something like this:
Albanian casualties:
Ploughshares 2000: 2,500-10,000
How is this for facts? Or even information...If in fact those 7,500 Albanians really had been killed I would like to know who did it and I would like them prosecuted! Even if it was ONE single Albanian killed in a "war crime manner" it's one too much. But how do we know? I can't say I see any reliable documented sources anywhere...
Quote:
However, no "tribal chief" (tribes in Kosovo?? villages maybe) told anyone to make 10, 5 nor 2 children.
---
You may trick people who actually do not know Albanian customs but not those who are familiar with it.
Albanians have very strange solidarity amongst them and it's not always on voluntary bases. In financial sphere some may call it racket (spelling?)  but they call it donation I suppose. Strange kind of solidarity goes much further that finance. And yes their "tribal" roots (as well as for example Montenegrins) are pretty strong. In a way it's good for them. I suppose "tribal chief" or community leader in modern language does not need to say much...They know in advance...
Quote:
BTW, I am sure that you are very aware that "Shiptar" is a derogatory word (very offensive actually) and would be considered a snark.
---
Well yes. They call us (Greeks, Italians, ex Yugoslavs and others) WOGs here in Australia. We are a little bit too much "oriental" for them and yes it is derogatory too...We can live with it!
I wouldn't know why we call Kosovo Albanians Shiptars, or what that would mean but that's the way we call them. If you can't live with it I apologize to you!

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Thu Mar 23rd, 2006 at 04:47:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Excellent diary. Possibly of interest a few articles written in the world press regarding Kosovo from 1981 to 1988, which are valuable in that they present the turmoil in Kosovo during those years, when Kosovo was still some sort of peripheral internal Yugoslav issue.

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Tue Mar 21st, 2006 at 07:37:13 AM EST
Thanks. Yeah, that is a great resource.

The world's northernmost desert wind.
by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Tue Mar 21st, 2006 at 08:33:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks. This helps truth a lot...

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Tue Mar 21st, 2006 at 09:45:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=1858

Get past the low-tax stuff and he has a point.

by Upstate NY on Wed Mar 22nd, 2006 at 03:47:03 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]