The Western myth of a Serbian Kosova

Bosnian Institute ^ | 29 November, 2005 | Branka Magaš

[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.

[mark502inf]

Well done, Hunden. Good to see a poster on FreeRepublic with your depth of knowledge on Balkans issues.

[ma bell]

A Physical Geography Project we had in college was of a great moment of ignorance. One of the students did their projects on Poland and laid claim that Telsa was Polish. My rebuttal after her presentation shot to hell her crediblity on the rest of her project. Needless to say, my intervention caused a poor grade, "C".

[ma bell]

Serbia had nothing to do with the 1944/5 creation of Kosovo/Vojvodina. That was done by the German-established regime and then eventually the Communists, led by Tito.

It is unfortunate that the modern day Serbia/Montenegro inherited the ill-advised creationed fictitious provinces- Kosovo, BiH, Vojvodina that led to wars and further wars.

You realize that NATO never recognized the Tito-established boundaries of internal Yugoslavia til they found it convenient? Why is it they did not? Due to the non-historicality of those provinces. Those names were of regions and were fictitiously created to usurp the "power away" from the Serbian people. The repositioning of internal borders were structered to further minimize the Serb population powerbase in politics and geo-politics. I can go on and on to refute what you wrote.

It is known to this very day you are Pro-Albanian and a rabid Serb/Jew hater.

[ma bell]

Where have you been? Does hoplite still believe I am you or You are me? lol

[Grizzly Adams]

Actualy Serbia was established in 1217. By Grand Duke Stefan Nemanja.

Modern Serbian state was established in Serb Revolution in 1804, lasted up until Turkish offensive in 1814, than again reestablished in 1815 as christian dukedom in Turkey.

Vojvodina, also serbian for Dukedom was established in 1848 as award for Serb aliance to Austrians.

In 1912 Kosovo anda Metohija were liberated from Turkish occupation, and Vojvodina Voted to enter Serbia in 1918 after Austria collapse. Vojvodina is 70% population Serbs.

That's fine. Really. But I wasn't talking about ancient history and it is clear Serbia was established long before in the middle ages. The EC's Declaration on Yugoslavia offered recognition to all six Yugoslav republics. A blatant violation of international law, by the way, ignoring the FINAL ACT HELSINKI 1975, the UN-Charter, the constitution of Yugoslavia and most af all the right to selfdetermination of the constituent yugoslav peoples. In his reply to the EC on 23 December 1991, Serbia's Foreign Minister recalled that Serbia acquired `internationally recognized statehood' as early as the Berlin Congress of 1878 and on that basis had participated in the establishment in 1918 of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes which became Yugoslavia. He concluded that Serbia `is not interested in secession.

[Grizzly Adams]

Where have you been? Does hoplite still believe I am you or You are me? lol

No time to hang around. Don't know what's up his mind, besides the usual garbage he's spitting around and his open hatred for everything that's serbian.

Ko ga jebe.

[Grizzly Adams]

In his reply to the EC on 23 December 1991, Serbia's Foreign Minister recalled that Serbia acquired `internationally recognized statehood' as early as the Berlin Congress of 1878 and on that basis had participated in the establishment in 1918 of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes which became Yugoslavia. He concluded that Serbia `is not interested in secession.

What is interesting here, is that the other State that participated in the establishment in 1918 of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, was the State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Kingdom of Serbia and the State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, a short-lived state formed from the southernmost parts of the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy after its dissolution at the end of the World War I by the resident population of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, formed the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes which became Yugoslavia. That means, the serbian people west of the Drina, had formed their own state in 1918 regardless of the kingdom of Serbia. In 1991 the constituent serbian people in Bosnia, in Hercegovina, in Dalmatia, in Slavonia, in the Krajina were denied the right to self-determination and the right to form their own state, although they were entiteled to it it by the yugoslav constitution and the fact that they already had their own state in 1918, the state of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

[Grizzly Adams]

Just for graphic support and to make it clear what we are talking about, an ethnic map of the population of the austrian-hungarian empire in 1910:

http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/maps/1910/nepek.gif

[Hunden]

The Germans had nothing to do with the creation of Kosovo and Voivodina as "autonomous regions". Tito did it. But contrary to Serb propaganda lies, he did not take them away from Serbia. They had never legally been part of contemporary Serbia before. As for Bosnia, it is a centuries-old political entity, which had become autonomous from Croatia in the 12th century. It even existed as a separate administrative entity of the Ottoman empire for the 350 years during which Serbia had disappeared in its midst.

Tito also understood that Serbia's pseudo-nationalism, with its outrageous territorial claims on its neighbours, was the main threat to the persistence of Yugoslavia, but he did not go far enough in refuting those claims. He should have made Kosovo a Republic, moved the federal capital to Sarajevo, killed not only Mihajlovic but also his followers, rather than allow them to join the Partisans in 1945 and, like Stalin did in the USSR for Russia, prevent the creation of a Serbian Communist party.

That could have prevented the Serbs from destroying Yugoslavia. And it would have been in the interests of the Serbian people, who have lost the most from its demise.

Now, if you are looking for evidence that pseudo-nationalist Serbs are rabidly anti-semitic, here are some links and quotations:

http://SerbianDefenseLeague.com/

http://www.compuserb.com/

http://www.skrewdriver.net/serb.html

"CANONIZING THE 'PROPHET' OF ANTI-SEMITISM: THE APOTHEOSIS OF BISHOP NIKOLAJ VELIMIROVIC AND THE LEGITIMIZATION OF RELIGIOUS ANTI-SEMITISM IN CONTEMPORARY SERBIAN SOCIETY (Part 1)*" By Jovan Byford http://www.rferl.org/reports/eepreport/2004/02/4-180204.asp)

"Holocaust History Misappropriated" by Philip J. Cohen, Midstream: A Monthly Jewish Review,  November 1992. Volume XXXVIII, No.8. http://www.geocities.com/famous_bosniaks/english/jewish_holocaust_serbia.html

http://www.hic.hr/books/seeurope/014e-stefan.htm#top

the Jews, associated with much of the scum of the earth, fled to our country and began to propagate such a better and happier state of affairs in a Communist state. (Chetnik leader P. Bacovic, October 1942)

A Chetnik proclamation of September 1942 claimed that an Ustasha, German, Jew or Gypsy may become a Partisan; in other words anyone willing on behalf of the foreigner to participate in the slaughter and killing of the best Serb sons.

The 9 March 1943 issue of the Chetnik newspaper Vidovdan described the Partisans as bandits led by the Zagreb Jew "Tito" and the Belgrade Jew Mose Pijade.

Nor did Chetnik anti-Semitism stop at words. As Israel Gutman’s Encyclopedia of the Holocaust notes: There were many instances of Chetniks murdering Jews or handing them over to the Germans.

Here are quotes from a Serb "canonized" by the "Serb Orthodox Church" two years ago:

the Devil taught [Jews] how to stand against the Son of God, Jesus Christ. The Devil taught them through the centuries how to fight against the sons of Christ, against the children of Light, against the followers of the Gospel and eternal life (Vladika Nikolaj Velimirovic, Words to the Serbian People through the Dungeon Window1985/1998, 193, quoted in http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/22byford.pdf).

Yet we have to pay respects to the present German Leader [Adolf Hitler], who… in the 20th century came upon Saint Sava's idea and who even though a lay person took upon himself a task within his own nation which is fit only for a saint, genius and hero. (Nikolaj Velimirovic "Nacionalizam Svetoga Save", in Nikolaj Velimirovic San o Slovenskoj Religiji: Odabrane misli i besede, Slobodna Knjiga-izdanja Vladimira Maksimovica, Beograd 1996, p. 36) http://www.kontra-punkt.info/arhiva/resources/nikolaj_citati.html http://www.blogovanje.com/matrix/komentari.php?id=123 http://www.nin.co.yu/2003-05/22/28968.html http://www.b92.net/info/emisije/insajder.php?nav_id=168158&yyyy=2005&mm=05

[Hunden]

The ephemeral political entities self-proclaimed by the Serbs on the states where they were but immigrants cannot be the basis for any territorial claims at the expense of the historical rights of their host nations.

The Serb claim that the right to self-determination applied to "peoples" while ignoring that they could only exercise it within the framework of the Republics and Autonomous provinces made no legal or political sense and that is why was soundly rejected by the "international community", which recognized the borders of some of those constituent entities for what they were according to the Constitution: those of "independent and sovereign states".

[Hunden]

It was Yugoslavia's only chance of survival. Only the Serbs' determination to destroy it killed Yugoslavia.

[Hunden]

The kettle calling the pot black.

[Hunden]

So mild actually that the Muslim converts wanted to be subjected to it, as it was an impressive avenue for social advancement.

[Hunden]

The Georgians are the only Orthodox people whose clerics have not turned them into anti-Muslim and anti-Catholic fanatics. They should recognize the authority of the Pope and thumb their collective noses at Russian imperialism.

They are also the only nation of the world with the dubious privilege of having both Turkey and Russia as neighbouring states. They know that the Russians have been much worse for the Georgian nation.

[MarMema]

They would never agree with you. For one thing they snubbed the pope and loudly protested some sort of agreement with the Vatican. For another they do not like the Turks at all.

[F-117A]

So mild actually that the Muslim converts wanted to be subjected to it, as it was an impressive avenue for social advancement.

While Muslims may not have objected to their daughters being sent to a harem in Turkey, the Christians certainly didn't want that for their daughters. Nor did the Christians want their sons ripped from them, sent to Turkey to be brainwashed and sent back to terrorize them!

[ma bell]

moron, reread what i wrote then rewrite what you posted to me.

words you have chosen are rabidly prejudiced and racial towards the Serbs.

[eleni121]

You post an article from a propaganda mouthpiece supported by leftwing foundations that publishes Communists like Daniel Cohn-Bendit. Wow...groundbreaking (sarcasm)

Better you should read here:

http://www.serbianna.com/

[FormerLib]

The Soros fluffers cheering each other on, what a laugh!

[Hunden]

"Terrorize" them? One of them restores the Serb patriarchate in 1557. Some "terrorizing".
To be sure, the Serbs were then the Otomans' faithful allies, and were rewarded by wide-ranging privileges given to their church.