Posted on 12/02/2005 10:15:22 PM PST by Hunden
[This] article written for the [Bosnian Institute] website argues that Western politicians have been mistaken in accepting the notion that Kosova is 'an integral part of Serbia', so that Belgrade must necessarily be involved in discussions about Kosova's status
As negotiations between Serbia and Kosova about the latter’s status are about to begin under UN auspices, one is prompted to pose the obvious question: ‘Why is Serbia involved at all?’ Or, to put it in another way:
‘Why do Western governments assume that the wishes of Kosova’s inhabitants are insufficient grounds for recognising its independence, and that such a step requires also Belgrade’s acquiescence?’
Answers to such questions refer as a rule to Kosova being an integral part of Serbia: recognising Kosova means changing Serbian borders. The international community, the argument continues, has thus far respected the borders of the former Yugoslav republics: Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina have all been recognised within their existing borders. Recognising Kosova as an independent state without Serbia’s agreement would be a departure from past practice. Some even suggest it would violate international law. The otherwise respectable International Herald Tribune even recently published a letter from Raju G.C. Thomas in Belgrade (27 October 2005) that moved on from arguing that Kosova’s independence would violate ‘international law’ regarding ‘the territorial integrity and sovereignty of existing states’ to advocate in effect genocide against the recalcitrant Albanians.
The Western assumption that Serbia enjoys sovereign rights over Kosova, however, is as fictitious as the Serbian myth that Kosova was the cradle of the medieval Serbian state [which was actually in Rascia, now called the Sandjak although Serb nationalists are now trying to give it back its former Slavic name of Raska]. On the contrary, Kosova’s inherent sovereignty and separate existence from Serbia is a well-established legal and historical fact. By accepting Serbia as a relevant partner in negotiations over Kosova’s future, the United States and the European Union have vested it with an authority that it never enjoyed in the former Yugoslavia.
To begin with, the former Yugoslav Republic of Serbia was not of the same character as the other former Yugoslav Republics. Unlike Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro, all of which were constituted on a unitary model, the Serbian Republic was from its inception composed of three distinct politico-territorial entities: Serbia, Kosova and Voivodina. These entities were constituted separately and independently from each other in the last stages of World War II (1944-5), as part of a process leading to creation of a Yugoslav federation on the ruins of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The process began with the formation of a number of distinct politico-territorial entities in areas liberated from Italian Fascist and German Nazi armies of occupation: once established, these entities served as basic building blocks for the new Yugoslav federated state. Some of them were constituted as Republics, others as Autonomous regions (later provinces). Each and every one of them, however, was established formally as an emanation of the proclaimed will of their (usually ethnically mixed) inhabitants.
Kosova and Voivodina were actually established before Serbia: Kosova in January 1944, Voivodina in March 1944, Serbia only in November 1944. Serbia at the latter juncture did not include either Voivodina or Kosova. It was only in July 1945 that Kosova and Voivodina voted - autonomously and separately from one another and from Serbia - to join Serbia. Their adhesion to Serbia was sanctioned by the Yugoslav AVNOJ government in August 1945 [AVNOJ stands for "Anti-Fascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia"], when they were also given separate (from Serbia) [and direct] representation within Yugoslavia’s Federal bodies. Kosova and Voivodina, in other words, were from the start constituent elements of the Yugoslav federation, just as the Republics were. This was fully recognised by the last Yugoslav Constitution [of February 21, 1974], by virtue of which Voivodina and Kosova were in all practical respects equal to the Republics [and which explicitely recognized them "equal rights"]. Despite their formal union with Serbia, they were by the nature of their Constitutions and legal status Provinces of Yugoslavia, not of Serbia. Their union with Serbia was legally valid only during Yugoslavia’s existence, or as long as their populations did not decide otherwise. For just as Kosova had voluntarily joined the union with Serbia, so too it retained the right to leave it by its own will.
Four of the six former Yugoslav Republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia) are today internationally recognised states. Their recognition took place on the basis of two criteria: their separate status within the former Yugoslavia, and the will of their populations. Although Kosova satisfies both criteria [as it voted for independence in September 1991], its international recognition has been delayed for reasons of Western Realpolitik - resting on the (clearly mistaken) premise that peace in the region can be achieved only by conciliating Serbia.
What is most extraordinary in this whole story is that while the international community treats Serbia as a state whose alleged borders should be respected, it simultaneously pretends that Kosova was not a self-governing territory within Yugoslavia and within Serbia, hence that its status remains to be determined. The fact is that neither Serbia nor Kosova are internationally recognised states, though each has its own democratically elected government. Whether Serbia and Kosova win international recognition depends - and should depend - solely upon the freely expressed will of their respective populations.
And of course, to say that Dubrovnik was originally "Serb" on account of the fact that it was founded on a territory invaded by the Serbs in the 7th century is only slightly less true than to say that the Ustashe were Serbs. For almost all of the Ustashe were Herzegovinian Croats and as such, the descendants of Serbs converted to Catholicism by the Franciscans in the early 15th century.
Branka Magas bases her reasoning on the 1974 Constitution, which recognized the "equal rights" of the Constituent peoples" and "nationalities".
No, you're thinking of the nation of cowards that is France where peace will only come when the territorial claims of the descendents of the Franks, meaning the cheese-eating surrender monkeys, are at long last rejected by their new Muhammedan occupants.
Peace in Kosovo, on the other hand, will only come alongside the Serb army, who will also restore justice.
— The Muslims in the former Yugoslavia are invaders, not native people whose ancestors converted to a mild form of islam.
— None of them is anything but an Islamo-fascist so that every violence meted out to them is legitimate self-defence
— Those who defend their rights as innocent human beings are therefore accomplices of Islamo-fascism or in the pay of liberal do-gooders.
— There is no objective truth: every statement by the member of a tribe is due to the fact that he or she is a member of that tribe. What my tribe says is true because it is my tribe, and therefore…
— Every territorial claims by the Serbs is legitimate, including countries which were never part of a Serbian state or where the Serbs are only a tiny minority.
Beyond those statements, every one of which is the opposite of the truth, you have nothing to say.
Why repeat yourself?
The political principle at the root of Western, and particularly American, civilization is that every human being naturally has rights to the extent that he does not violate the rights of others.
You are not part of that civilization: the principle which drives you here, that you may say anything you wish and do everything you want to others if you claim to have the right religion, that is if you belong to the right tribe, is the Oriental principle at the core of Islamo-fascistm.
That is why you cannot be an ally, but are actually a hindrance in the struggle against it, and your claim to defend "Christianity" is an embarrassment to all real Christians
Considering that you made each one of them up, monkey-boy, what makes you think you can make me claim any of them since they are not what I said?
Shouldn't you be surrendering to someone by now?
If you didn't agree with some those statements, all you had to to is indicate which ones.
Actually, I didn't have to do anything of the sort. Like seeing dog crap in the road, there's just no reason to get involved with it.
All of the statements were nonsense and the suggestion that any of our anti-Islamofascist posters said anything of the sort is pure dog crap.
Surrender now, monkey, and fulfill your destiny!
Actually, their ancestors were native people that converted to a very brutal form of Islam! Unless, of course, you consider having your children ripped from you and sent to Turkey as "mild"!
You really should educate yourself about the brutality of Islam in the Balkans.
And after that Spain, wasn't it, from a post here quite some time ago, also used to be part of a muslim nation...
What we really need is that muslim expansionist map that used to be posted here rather frequently. So we can see if there are any countries not targeted for the return that we can possibly inhabit. Hopefully we can all squeeze in to those few places that still exist that were not originally muslim.
And I guess I can forget visiting Georgia again, because certainly the entire Caucasus was originally a very ancient chechen/muslim nation.
In a few years we will be able to learn about how the US was actually a muslim nation at one time.
There are no "equal rights" here. Mrs. Branka Magas has obviously no clue what she's talking about. The right to self-determination was granted to the constituent nations only.
Kosova and Voivodina were actually established before Serbia: Kosova in January 1944, Voivodina in March 1944, Serbia only in November 1944.
What a load of crap. Serbia was established in 1878 at the 'Congress of Berlin'.
‘Why do Western governments assume that the wishes of Republic of Srpska’s inhabitants are insufficient grounds for recognizing its independence, and that such a step requires also Sarajevo’s acquiescence?’
The Western assumption that Muslim Bosnia enjoys sovereign rights over Republic of Srpska, however, is as fictitious as the Western myth that democratic, civilized society based on human rights and rule of law can exist.”
Now that is more like it.
Most of Christian Albanians live outside of Kosovo in Albanian proper and yes in USA. They are much more civilized, law abiding and peaceful.
Yes, the very same constitution that made the break-up of Yugoslavia inevitable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.