Six Little Reasons

On the anniversary of NATO's bombing of Serbia, March 24, 1999 - March 24, 2008

By Slobodan Antonić

(translated by GrayFalcon; all flaws and mistakes mine. Original at NSPM)

Serbia is the only European country that was bombed by NATO. The bombing was illegal, without UN Security Council authorization. While bombing Serbia, NATO committed atrocities against civilians. This is why Serbia cannot just join NATO. That might be possible only when Serbia receives a clear apology from NATO leaders, even if only for the “collateral damage” it suffered in 1999.

Such an apology has not come. Quite the contrary, NATO and U.S. officials incessantly repeat that the 1999 aggression was “necessary,” and don’t mention atrocities at all. Numerous NGOs in Serbia, receiving a steady stream of funding from the U.S. and other NATO countries, keep telling the Serbian public that all Serbs must atone for crimes. Meanwhile, NATO is not only not atoning for its misdeeds, but considers it somehow rude of Serbia to even mention them.

This made it possible to have a welcoming ceremony for an U.S. Air Force Major in Belgrade on July 13, 2006. As a member of the 555th Squadron, Maj. Andrew Wiles took part in the NATO attack on Serbia; some Serbian media even claimed that it was his plane that cluster-bombed downtown Nis. That did not bother the Serbian Minister of Defense, who greeted Maj. Wiles and welcomed him to Serbia. It seems like the “Euro-reformers” in Serbia agree with U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter, who told the weekly Evropa (November 22, 2007): “We believe that [the bombing of Serbia] was hard, but also necessary. It was needed to depose Milošević.”

Due to this belief, the “Euro-reformers” in Serbia have systematically endeavored to repress the memories of NATO’s crimes. Today we remember only the bombing of the Serbian Television – and that not as a crime committed by NATO, but something for which a Milošević official was blamed. Even the memory of crimes has been subject to spin and political manipulation.

Serbia must clearly recall six “little” crimes of NATO, become aware of them, and challenge NATO to recognize them. Only after there is an explanation, Serbia and NATO can talk again. These six “little” NATO crimes are the six “little” reasons that Serbia, under current circumstances, should not join NATO.

The first “little” reason is the 2-year-old Marko Simić. He went for a walk with his father Vladan, on May 31, 1999 at noon, in his hometown of Novi Pazar. When they reached the apartment building at Stefana Nemanje 74, there was an explosion. The building was struck by a missile probably intended for the nearby bus station. (Why the civilian bus station was targeted still remains a mystery.) Besides Marko and Vladan, nine more civilians were killed. Shortly after this tragedy, Marko’s mother gave birth to a girl. When she grows up, maybe she will read the monograph “NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia” and find a photograph of her little brother, on a hospital bedsheet, his face bloody and his left leg gone.

The mother of 11-month-old Bojana Tošović, another “little” witness of NATO’s un-atoned crimes, was six months pregnant. Then her house in the village of Merdare (near Kuršumlija) was hit by a bomb on April 10. Her husband Božin was holding Bojana when the ceiling caved in. Mother Marija could only watch helplessly as her husband, crushed by the concrete ceiling plate, died slowly with their daughter in his arms.

Three-year-old Milica Rakić, of Batajnica, is our (and God’s) third “little” witness. On April 17, around 9:30 PM, she told her mother Dušica she needed to go potty. Dušica took her to the bathroom, put her on the chamber pot, and went to make the bed. They felt safe, because their house was four kilometers away from the military airfield. Then a bomb hit near the building. Right away, father Žarko ran into the bathroom. Milica lay there in a pool of blood, hit by a shrapnel from the bomb. They took her to a nearby emergency room, but she was beyond help. She, too, was photographed on the hospital bedsheet. The photo shows her bandaged left leg, and her deathly pale face, beautiful and gentle. The angelic face of a murdered child.

There is no picture of the dead Branimir Stanijanović, age six, of Aleksinac. With his father Vidosav and mother Divna, he was on a train that found itself on a bridge at Grdelica on April 12, twenty minutes before noon. The pilot, NATO officials later said, had the mission to destroy the bridge, but he saw the train too late. I guess that’s why he came back a few minutes later and hit the train again. Not the bridge – the train. And in the same spot, cars number two and three. The entire Stanijanović family perished, along with another fifteen or so passengers. There is no exact count of the dead, since their charred bodies fell into the depths of south Morava River. Branimir’s body was one of them. If the pilot who did this, and NATO spokesman Jamie Shea – who disavowed any blame for these deliberate murders – are interested in knowing whom they’ve killed, there is a picture of Branimir in existence. It shows him at a school pageant, serious, smartly dressed, with a bow tie. Maybe that is what he is wearing that now, walking in God’s garden?

Eight-year-old Stefan and his sister, five-year-old Dejana Pavlović are in that garden now as well. They were asleep in their family home, in Ralja near Belgrade, when it was hit by a bomb on May 26. It remains unclear what target of any military importance could have possibly been nearby. Father Vladimir died with his children. Mother Branislava survived. Her only memory of her family, snuffed out in the blink of an eye, is a photograph. It shows the children in colorful pajamas, laid out on the blue bedsheet. Dejana’s nose is slightly bloodied. Stefan looks untouched.

Those are the six “little” witnesses of NATO crimes, six “little” reasons why Serbia has to demand an explanation from NATO leaders. The explanation is simple. At the Tašmajdan park, there is a monument to children killed in the NATO bombing. (It is falling apart – of a statue of a girl with butterfly wings, only the wings remain. Perhaps some day the Belgrade authorities will set aside some funds to restore the monument; if they don’t have enough, they should say something – the people will pitch in.) So, NATO Secretary-General Jap de Hoop Scheffer, or another NATO official, needs to come before this monument and clearly say, “Forgive us.” We don’t need him to kneel, or light a candle. All he has to do is bring one flower and ask forgiveness. And Serbia will forgive.

Until then, there’s nothing to talk about. Not in Belgrade, not in Brussels, not in Ohio. One flower at Tašmajdan – that’s the condition for any further talks. One flower at Tašmajdan – and only then can both we and you be human again.

A symbol of something else, now

It is nothing short of incongruous that the government of Serbia and the Serb Republic in Bosnia (RS) have both adopted a design for their press rooms copied from the USA. The outline of the government building, the font, the colors - it's more than a homage to the U.S. government, it's outright mimicry.

Belgrade adopted the "American look" during the rule of Zoran Đinđić (2000-2003), who was ideologically closer to European socialists. Vojislav Koštunica, who at the time presided over Yugoslavia, was a scholar of American politics and philosophy; he had translated the "Federalist Papers," published a study on De Tocqueville's "Democracy in America," and praised Hannah Arendt's "On Revolution," a paean to the American revolution and republican spirit.

Many other Serbian politicians, philosophers and intellectuals have been fascinated by American values and ideals. However...

Everything changed with February 17. The majority of the Serbian political class and intelligentsia now thinks ill of the USA. Having any sympathy for American policy is considered a sign of feeble-mindedness (or lack or morals). Even classic American values, from liberty to rule of law, are seen as having been betrayed by the Americans themselves. The minority voices that advise the Serbs to stop opposing U.S. policy invoke "pragmatism" and "realism" - i.e. the argument of force – rather than some moral or political superiority of the American position.

After everything that happened in 1995, 1999 and 2008, the United States have no true friends in Serbia. There are spokesmen and followers, yes, but no friends - no one left who believes we share the same values. Once, American friends in Serbia shared the ideals of freedom and democracy. Today, American "friends" in Serbia mostly share American money. That's symbolic, in a way. The eager translator of the "Federalist Papers" and the commentator on "Democracy in America" is today dismissed by the American government as a "hardline Serb nationalist." Meanwhile, Washington praises the politician who restored the notion of the "iron broom" into domestic political discourse as a "young and dynamic pro-Western leader." Again, that's symbolic."

(Slobodan Antonić, writing in Politika, March 20, 2008)

Something will have to change, Antonić concludes: either the sign, or the U.S. policy towards Serbia. His bet is that after the May 11 elections, there will be a new symbol in the Serbian government's press room. I would not be surprised.

The one people in the Balkans that actually believed in American values, that actually admired America, whose community in America has always proudly served in the military (leading the way in Congressional Medal of Honor recipients, for example) and took pride in being the ally of America in two world wars... and that's the people Washington picked to demonize, embargo, besiege, bomb and occupy? It almost beggars belief.

This - rather than oil prices, or deficits, or the falling dollar - is why America won't be a great power much longer. It has betrayed its own principles and values in pursuit of power.

I notice that no one in Washington is asking "Who lost Serbia?" they way they asked about China, Korea, or Vietnam. Maybe because they know the answer. And maybe because the question isn't who lost Serbia, but who lost America?

They know the answer to that, too.

Servility

(Update 2: corrected for Canadian FM's gender)

The roll of shame has several new additions this week: Canada and Japan both recognized the "independence" of Kosovo, followed by Croatia, Hungary and Bulgaria.

Canada's FM Maxime Bernier demonstrated his mastery of wishful thinking when he said that "unique circumstances which have led to Kosovo's independence mean it does not constitute any kind of precedent."

Hey, whatever you tell yourself to be able to sleep at night, Max. But how many are willing to wager that the Quebecois will also claim to be "unique" (hey, isn't everybody?) and go on their merry way?

Japan - which is still under U.S. occupation, following the 1941-45 war - expressed hope that recognition will "contribute to long-term stability in the region" (IHT/Reuters). Right. Because seizing a part of a country's territory is stabilizing. Remember Manchuria?

Japanese FM Masahiko Komura said, "Our country has traditionally been on friendly terms with Serbia, and by this recognition of Kosovo it is not our intention to disturb our relations with Serbia."

Just like it wasn't the Americans' intention to disturb their traditional feelings of friendship for the people of Japan by nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I guess. What's a little tough love among friends?

If Komura-san had any honor, he'd be polishing a sword with his guts right about now.

Canada's Bernier also claimed that recognizing the Albanian quasi-state meant joining "the international community". What community - some 30-odd countries? And all they have in common is that, when Washington says "Jump!" they answer with "How high?" More than anything else, a country's recognition of the Kosovo monstrosity is an indicator of whether it is truly independent, or a satellite of the Empire.

Canada and Japan have just made their choice.

As for Hungary, Croatia and Bulgaria, I'm not wasting words. All of a sudden the "satellite" comment is more apt than ever; these three countries were also on the side of "European integrations" at the Serbs' expense back when a certain Austrian corporal was behind the endeavor.

Remember

Four years ago, the terrorist KLA demonstrated precisely how it envisions the future of Serbs in Kosovo. Hashim Thaci, Agim Ceku, Ramush Haradinaj and the like can make all the proclamations of democracy, tolerance and human rights they want. By their deeds you shall know them:

• Kosovo Pogrom


• Kosovo Burning (Antiwar.com, 3/17/2004)


• Rummaging Through The Ashes (Antiwar.com, 3/25/2004)


• Saying It Ain't So (Antiwar.com, 4/1/2004)

Remember.

"It has no drive..."

One of Arthur C. Clarke's "laws of prediction" is that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

For some reason, it's the opening scenes of Clarke and Kubrick's 2001:A Space Odyssey that first come to mind reading this account of stumped TSA agents hassling a traveler because they could not grasp the existence of a MacBook Air:

"There's no drive," one says. "And no ports on the back. It has a couple of lines where the drive should be," she continues.

A younger agent, joins the crew. I must now be occupying ten, perhaps twenty, percent of the security force. At this checkpoint anyway. There are three score more at the other five checkpoints. The new arrival looks at the printouts from x-ray, looks at my laptop sitting small and alone. He tells the others that it is a real laptop, not a "device". That it has a solid-state drive instead of a hard disc. They don't know what he means. He tries again, "Instead of a spinning disc, it keeps everything in flash memory." Still no good. "Like the memory card in a digital camera." He points to the x-ray, "Here. That's what it uses instead of a hard drive."

The senior agent hasn't been trained for technological change. New products on the market? They haven't been TSA approved. Probably shouldn't be permitted. He requires me to open the "device" and run a program. I do, and despite his inclination, the lead agent decides to release me and my troublesome laptop. My flight is long gone now, so I head for the service center to get rebooked.

Here's the tragic part. The author of this post has surrendered so much of his humanity, having to deal with TSA (and hotels and other trappings of frequent travel) so often, that he titled his post "Steve Jobs made me miss my flight."

How is the appalling behavior of TSA goons (or do I repeat myself) Steve Jobs' fault? Did Apple force this traveler to purchase their product? Is it somehow their responsibility to educate government troglodytes that computers don't need a hard drive any more? Or could it be, just possibly, that the real problem here are the TSA agents who enjoy near-absolute power over the helpless travelers? Just a thought, there.

(hat tip to Manuel Lora at the LRC Blog)

Kosovo Catastrophe

Conservative magazine Human Events published a piece by UPI editor Martin Sieff yesterda, criticizing (well, more like blasting) the Empire's idiotic policy in Kosovo. Sieff's piece is good, with one exception: he seems to believe that the Russian mafia and security services will organize a wave of attacks against EU and U.S. interests in retaliation to the recognition of Kosovo; I think this is extremely unlikely.

For some reason, I looked at the comments posted under Sieff's article. As of the time of this posting, there are about three pages of comments, ranging from isolationists who don't care and Albanians who shower Sieff with ad hominems, to those who claim Serbs should be given a free hand to fight against the jihad.

One comment, on the bottom of the first page, caught my eye. I reproduce it here, because there is no direct link to it. It is from PaulAndrewKirk of Redmond, Wa.:

I have served two tours in Kosovo with the US Military and I can tell you the following as factual:

1. Almost all facets and levels of the provisional government in Kosovo are corrupt. In fact its the worst I've ever seen and I've had to deal with some pretty corrupt governments during my career.

2. Supervised independence or even full independence will not improve the miserable lives of the ordinary people of Kosovo. Partly because of what I've listed as fact "1"., and partly because it will take decades of imense amounts of foreign aid throughout economy in order to bring Kosovo into a functioning state that wouldn't need foreign assistance for its survival.

3. Ethnic cleansing is still a common occurence in Kosovo but, this time its the ethnic Albanians ethnically cleansing the Serbs, Roma, Ashkali, Croatians, and Turk minorities through intimidation and at times outright force. I have personally witnessed this on many occasions.

4. No amount of foreign investment will provide enough jobs for the amount of unemployed people in Kosovo. The only way for Kosovo to maintain stability is for the EU to open its borders for an influx of foreign workers from Kosovo.

5. Islamic extremism is on the rise in Kosovo. KFOR soldiers have been attacked in Gjilan [sic: Gnjilane], Ferizaj, [sic: Urosevac] and Prizren when I was there. You just won't see or hear about it in the news. More Mosques have been built in Kosovo in the last five years than schools, roads, health clinics, and all other santitation project combined. Compliments of Muslim charities from the Middle East.

6. Mass graves of Kosovo Serbs and Roma have been found during my rotation and reported to the UN. Yet nothing has been done. Why? When we posed the question to our UN contacts in Pristina they replied: "During the transitional stage of Kosovo this would be destablizing. We'll wait until there is a final resolution before we proceed." All those journalists interested in a real story...start looking in around Novo Brdo.

7. The US Government along with key EU allies never had any intention of allowing Serbia a fair opportunity to negotiate with the Kosovar provisional government on the possibilities of a workable settlement that might have been permanent. I was party to a couple of meetings where US Government officials point blank told the Kosovar representatives that no matter what, the US will support independence and that going to these conferences in Vienna were just to give a favorable impression on the world opinion.

These are the facts. Some people might be outraged and some might be supprised [sic] however it really doesn't matter in the final analysis of all things considered. Superpowers will do what they want.

Kosovo independence will do nothing for stability of the region, in fact, the opposite will occur.

The Kosovar Albanians are now joyous they will have a new nation but, when all the partying ends and the dust clears, all that will exist is another backward, poverty stricken, underdeveloped, internationally protected country in an area of hostile neighbors thats todays news story and tomorrows breeding ground for extremism and resentment.

There you have it. The Empire-sponsored "Republic of Kosovo" is a crime, but also a mistake.

Empire's Ostpolitik

It's a rough time to be an American Serb. (For the sake of clarification, I'm an ethnic Serb who lives in America, but I'm not a U.S. citizen; I just happen to live here for the time being, resentful that the taxes bleeding me dry are funding the Empire but not having much of a choice in the matter.)

First there is the matter of the U.S. being the principal sponsor of the "independent state of Kosova," the illegally occupied and severed province of Serbia. Listening to lies and hatred coming from Daniel Fried and Nicholas Burns, and knowing it is official U.S. policy, has to be infuriating.

Worst of all, though, is the awareness that all three front-runners for the post of Emperor this fall share the dreadful Serbophobia that governs America's Ostpolitik.

Hillary Clinton is, well, a Clinton. She is fully behind her husband's illegal 1999 war, and eagerly uses the Albanian term for the new false state, "Kosova" (even though the Albanians actually declared recognition as "Kosovo," the province's proper name). Riding on her coattails (petticoats?) are Madeleine Albright, Wesley Clark, and Richard Holbrooke, war criminals we all know and love from the 1990s.

John McCain is an enthusiastic supporter of the Albanian cause, and specifically the terrorist KLA. 'nuff said.

What of Obama? Surely, he's got to be better than these two, right? Not so fast.
As Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com puts it today, "there is a problem with Obama's foreign policy stances, and I can boil it down to two words: George Soros."

Kosovo is proof positive that there's no shred of difference between the two major parties governing U.S. affairs. American Serbs voted for George W. Bush in 2004 not because they approved of the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, or anything else he and Darth Cheney have inflicted upon the world, but because John Kerry was in bed with the KLA. Unsurprisingly, though disappointingly, the lesser of two evils turned out to be, well, evil.

"It seems to me," comments Raimondo, "that the division of labor between the two wings of the War Party is, to a large degree, geographical." While the Republicans focus on the Middle East, the Democrats obsess about Europe, and more specifically, Russia. Now, Raimondo holds out some hope that Obama is not entirely in Soros's pockets yet, and may be using Soros as a means of getting to power. So far, however, he seems to be following the same Soros playbook Clinton, Albright, Holbrooke and Clark played by a decade ago.

As Daniel Larison of the American Conservative points out:

Recognizing separatist states... is how the Balkan Wars of the ’90s became international conflicts that drew in outside powers. It is how the West could make the wars of Yugoslav succession into an occasion for isolating and humiliating the rump Yugoslavia [i.e. Serbia] and backing up the historic proxies of… Germany, bizarrely enough. It is through the persistent mistaken belief that outside powers have some stake in the conflicts of the Balkans that great powers collide with one another and risk a more general war.

One question a whole lot of Serbs are asking right about now is WHY the Empire is so hell-bent on supporting Greater Albania and dismembering Serbia? To say that atrocities - both real and quite made up - were the actual cause of Imperial intervention in the Balkans is folly; they were an excuse - hence all the fabrications - nothing more. Ignoring the real genocide in Rwanda while making up a genocide in Bosnia; imposing a UN blockade harsher than the one against Iraq because of alleged "Serb aggression," then launching aggressive wars of its own (1999, 2003); condemning "ethnic cleansing," but sponsoring the largest instances thereof (half a million or so Serbs from today's Croatia and Kosovo) - how much more proof do we need that the Empire does not have a moral compass?

Almost 2000 years ago, Apostle Paul wrote, "there is nothing new under the sun." That is certainly a good description of American foreign policy. Its Russophobia is British in origin; its dislike of Serbs appears to be borrowed from Austria-Hungary and Nazi Germany (as is its choice of "allies" in the region). But the sheer stupidity of demolishing the international order over a patch of land utterly insignificant to anyone but the Serbs and the Albanians... that's 100% Made in America.

They should have outsorced it. Seriously.

KV

"Balkan Insight," publication of the Imperial propaganda mill otherwise known as IWPR, reported the other day that the new "Independent State of Kosova" has been assigned an international indexing code by the U.S. bureaucrats. The code used for this abomination will be "KV."

I find that somewhat ironic. No, make that especially ironic. In a recent film version of Richard Matheson's novel I Am Legend, KV is the name of a retro-virus engineered by Dr. Alice Krippin (hence, "Krippin Virus") as cure for cancer. That it did. The "side effect," however, as to kill 90% of humanity, and turn the rest into vicious, rabid killers.

The creation of "Kosova" was supposed to win the Empire brownie points in the Muslim world and finalize the conquest of Europe by subjugating the stubborn Serbs. Instead, it tore up international law. All bets are off now, and God only knows how this will end.

"KV," indeed.

Pseudo-Bourgeois Parasites

I've called them "missionaries" and "neo-Jacobins" before, but I think I've finally found a really good description of the rats that have been gnawing on Serbia for decades. Quoting extensively from a splendid text by Saša Gajić of NSPM, titled "Serbian Pseudo-bourgeois Narcissism" :

"Our pseudo-bourgeois elite originated in Communist times, having supplanted the old bourgeois class that was by and large physically exterminated. They grew into a semi-parasitic class of eager political cronies, drawing constant benefits from their privileged position. When the old system collapsed, these circles simply switched to a diet of foreign donations.

For decades, the pseudo-bourgeois have been reinforced by ambitious arrivals from the countryside, mostly students, who compensated for their superiority complex (accompanied by an actual inferiority complex) and hatred for their home towns by artificially "civilizing" themselves through adopting whatever was considered modern in city culture, all in the service of a fanatical desire never to return to the countryside and "succeed in the city"...

If, during their conceited efforts to "rise above the average," they somehow managed to travel abroad, mostly through one or two summer internships in the West, they became convinced of possessing all the wisdom of the world, which set them apart from the "unenlightened" masses.

Members of this caste are not only incapable of performing the functional role of the traditional societal elite, but are ideologically and intellectually mired in a handful of vacuous beliefs drawn from the image they are trying to present and former ideological convictions. They are incapable even to soberly observe current developments in the world, nor perceive the tendencies therein. Although with eyes wide open to the "great world" they've seen as tourists or interns, domestic pseudo-bourgeois have in fact adopted only a load of obsolete prejudices, and have no real clue about the world they claim to value so much. Indeed, they are incapable of actually making their way in the world, because they are essentially incompetent to make an effort, change their mind, or engage in honest work. Their unearned privileges and social status are only possible here, and are maintained not by constructive social engagement, but by direct or indirect service to outside interests."

(Original here; any translation errors are my own)

Apt Comparison

One would think that, for an analysis titled "What Kosovo means to the Serbs," Olivia Ward of the Toronto Star would have talked to, you know, an actual Serb or two.

No such luck; the story quotes two (!) officials of the International Crisis Group, and former NATO commander in Bosnia Gen. William Nash, now at the Council of Foreign Relations. The rest is a rather familiar dish of boilerplate serbophobic rhetoric wrapped in distortions of history.

And yet, I cannot help but wonder what James Lyon (ICG's man in Belgrade) was thinking when he said:

"Kosovo plays an integral role in Serbian identity," says Belgrade-based James Lyon, senior adviser on the Balkans for the International Crisis Group. "Without Kosovo, they suffer an identity crisis that is much more serious than just losing territory."

But he added that "the overriding factor is how easy it is to mobilize the crowds. You could compare it with mobilizing an anti-Muslim rally in New York the day after Sept. 11."

Yes, he did just compare the U.S. recognition of Kosovo to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Perhaps now it will be easier for Americans to understand why the Serbs are so upset.

Perhaps.

Moment of Transition

Everyone, including the Serbian government, has condemned the rioters who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade the other night, burning a portion thereof. How ironic, observes Dimitry Gornostayev, commentator the Russian news agency RIA Novosti:

The Department of State has justifiably appealed to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. But what about the UN Charter, which guarantees territorial integrity of sovereign states? Having recognized Kosovo's independence, Washington has openly violated Serbia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. So, why is it angry at a Serbian student who did a similar thing to the U.S. Embassy? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Don't blame Belgrade officials, he says. After all, they can't protect their own country's territory; how are they expected to protect that of the U.S.?

This is not a good prospect for President Boris Tadic, who talked about European prospects for Serbia, or for Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic, a graduate of Cambridge and Harvard. They are not ready for any responsibility.

With all the talk of democracy, friendship and integration coming from the EU and the U.S. for years now exposed as meaningless, false and empty, those political options in Serbia who've staked their entire credibility on serving the West unconditionally are now facing popular ire. For the past seven years, the occupation of Kosovo was blamed on Milosevic (between the Imperial and Serbian quisling media, that wasn't hard; nor was it difficult not to blame NATO and the KLA, the real culprits in the matter). However, the "official" separation of Kosovo took place now, under the "democratic" government and after years of Serbian authorities catering to Empire's every whim. The official line from the West, that this is just desserts for Milosevic's (alleged) crimes, may have possibly worked in 1999, but simply won't fly in 2008. Furthermore, Serbs are so fed up with years of humiliation and demonization, even if they hadn't cared about Kosovo so far, now that it's being taken away - they are beginning to.

I cannot resist thinking that the embassy story is being blown out of proportion, in order to divert attention from the actual violation of international law - namely, the illegal, illegitimate and immoral declaration of an "independent Kosova."

Gornostayev isn't fooled, though:

Responsibility for the humiliated stars and stripes rests with American diplomats and officials - Burns, Condoleezza Rice, Richard Holbrooke, Zalmay Khalilzad, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Madeleine Albright - all those who have created this unique case and have not yet realized how unique it really is.

As Diana Johnstone put it, once you get rid of the law, everything's just one unique case after another, isn't it?

While the mainstream media have given a lot of coverage to the noise coming from Foggy Bottom, they are noticeably more reticent about one aspect of the embassy burning that doesn't fit the "evil Serbs attack sacred American territory" narrative.

One badly burned body was found inside the embassy; it was identified yesterday as Zoran Vujovic, age 21, a Serb refugee from Kosovo.

So it wasn't some sinister agents acting on the orders of the Serbian government that went after the symbols of Empire in Belgrade the other night, but a young man whose home the Empire had stolen, taking out his anger and frustration. Whether he blundered and died by accident, or intended to immolate himself in protest like Jan Palach, isn't clear.

I agree with Gornostayev; the Empire has no clue what it has just unleashed. I don't think anyone knows, honestly. More so than in March of 1999, or March 2003, the world finds itself in a moment of transition. The way it started, it doesn't promise anything good. And it's getting worse by the day.

Embassies, and the Torching Thereof

I'll start off by saying that I don't approve of destruction of property, even if it's government property. Even if that government has just committed what's effectively an act of war, by recognizing the declaration of independence by a terrorist gang occupying the host country's province illegally.

After all, that's just descending to that government's level.

But for that government to actually react with righteous indignation to such an expression of ire? That takes some nerve.

The U.S. government is "furious" over what happened to their fortress in Belgrade. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack says:

We are interested in a political dialogue with the Serbian government. The European Union is interested in a political dialogue with the Serbian government. It is very clear there are differences with respect to the action that we took to recognize Kosovo and the action that others have taken to recognize Kosovo. We can talk about that. But none of that, none of those disagreements are an excuse or justification to incite others to violence.

Hogwash. Neither the U.S. nor the EU are interested in "political dialogue"; they demonstrated that by organizing and recognizing the secession of occupied Kosovo. "Differences"? Is that how we're calling it now? Well, Mr. McCormack, I have a feeling that the angry young men who threw a Molotov cocktail at your embassy thought they were engaging in political dialogue over their differences and disagreements with the U.S. government, in a fashion that very government taught them was the right and proper way of doing things. I mean, when Washington has differences and disagreements with people, there's usually blockade, bombing and occupation in those people's near future.

Washington engages in violence, then protests when the victim engages in some violence of their own? Again, I think attacking that embassy was wrong on principle. But the sheer gall of Foggy Bottom protesting it...?

Have you no sense of decency left, Mr. McCormack? Have you left no sense of decency?

Good Point, Even If In Hindsight

Reuters today quotes the Sri Lankan ambassador to the UN, Dayan Jayatilleka, who said "Serb forces should have held their ground in 1999 and fought NATO troops back." (Update: Here's a link to Jayatilleka's article)

Actually, they did. NATO did not "force" the Yugoslav Army out of Kosovo, nor was the Kumanovo agreement a capitulation. That NATO and its press corps interpreted it that way and acted as if Serbia had unconditionally surrendered is a whole 'nother matter.

One could argue that NATO was cracking at the seams, that its escalated terror-bombing of civilian targets was a sign of desperation, and that had Serbia held out just a few more days... Well, it's not exactly clear what then. According to testimonies by Russian military and diplomats involved in the talks that resulted in the Kumanovo agreement, Moscow had caved in at the crucial time and accepted all of Washington's diktats. It is entirely possible the deal Milosevic thought he was getting sounded a lot better than what actually happened. Compared to NATO's demands in Rambouillet and at the start of the war, the Kumanovo MTA and UNSCR 1244 could technically be seen as victories for Serbia. The "only" trouble is that NATO had no intention of honoring the deal. Russian paratroopers were supposed to be a check on that; sadly, for whatever reason, Moscow failed to deploy them in force. (I have a theory that these two failures of the Yeltsin regime are what eventually brought it down, and represent a powerful motivator to the current Kremlin leadership not to screw the Serbs).

Back to Ambassador Jayatilleka:

"The...independence of Kosovo is the result of the failure of political will on the part of the ex-Yugoslav leadership," he wrote in a Sri Lankan newspaper, drawing lessons for his own country, where government forces are launching an assault into rebel territory where Tamil Tigers run a de facto state.

"Never withdraw the armed forces from any part of territory in which they are challenged, and never permit a foreign presence on (your) soil."

Hindsight or not, that ought to be elementary logic.

As I've pointed out before, any time the Serbs made any sort of deal with the EU, UN or NATO, they ended up being double-crossed: the Vance Plan, Dayton, the Kumanovo MTA. But of course, it was always the Serbs being accused of "negotiating in bad faith." Classic switcheroo.

It is clear that the assumption of bad faith has to be made in any dealings with the countries that recognized "Kosova." Anything short of that would be criminally stupid.

At last, understanding

Not to say that this weekend's proclamation of the Albanian state of "Kosova" is by any means a good thing (I'm refraining from posting much about it yet, saving it for an Antiwar.com exclusive this Thursday), but if one were to look for silver lining, it would be the rising awareness among the Serbs that they've been played for idiots these past years, deluded by the tales of "democracy", "integrations", and "friendship" with the Empire.

Oh, there are some who've cheered "Kosova" (atrocity pornstar Natasa Kandic, for one, as well as B92 drones), and many others who still think Serbs should bow down to the "inevitable" and serve the Empire instead of resisting. There's no saving the former, but the latter may still be redeemed.

Because, you see, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Serbs have faced similar tribulations in the past. Some passed the test. Others, not so much. I think Djordje Vukadinovic of NSPM said it best, on Monday in Politika:

It is said we are all descended from those who deserted from Kosovo.... That's not really true. Actually, we all descend from people who, in previous "unofficial referenda", made the choice of "isolation" - in the mountains, hidden valleys and exile - instead of the integrations then on offer (of the "Eurasian" variety) that also seemingly "had no alternative." Many chose otherwise, embraced the "kingdom of earth", "realism" and integrations. We should not begrudge them. But when I look at them, scattered from Cazin to Anadolia, it doesn't seem they've done particularly well, or gone very far.

All I want to say is that there are always choices, and that they are often difficult. And that we can never be entirely sure where the road may take us. And that what may have seemed "pragmatic" or "realistic" in 1389, 1804, 1914 or 2008 has not been, and doesn't have to be, the best choice.

Isn't Albania Enough?

The inimitable Taki Theodoracopoulos does a drive-by assessment of the Empire's Kosovo policy in his most recent column:

Even worse is the issue of Kosovo. With a few prominent exceptions, NATO, the EU, the USA, and the UN all favor speedy recognition of a rogue state led by drug dealers and terrorists and militant Muslims. What the hell is going on here? Why must we have a second Muslim state in our midst? Isn’t Albania enough?

Of course it's not enough to those who see "Kosova" as just the first step in annexing parts of Montenegro, Macedonia, Greece, and even more of Serbia. And after that, who knows? If one believes the 19th-century canard about Albanians descending from ancient Illyrians, it's only a matter of time before some "reputable expert" asserts that all of the Balkans is actually "ethnic Albania." And why stop there? There's Albanians in Switzerland, Britain, New Jersey...

Anyway, at this stage slogans won't do Serbia much good. The people dismembering her, Czechoslovakia-style, seem to believe only in coercion. When dealing with aggression, polite arguments can only get one so far. Maybe it's high time to start doing some coercin' right back.

Yep, Hoppe sure was right

To be fair, I was hedging my bets. The election really could have gone either way. On Friday I wrote:

"Tadic and the Democrats have turned to spreading panic and fear.... it could work, given that Serbs have been brainwashed not for years, but for decades, to feel inferior, guilty, and unworthy of their rulers. Having gone from blockade to postmodern, credit-funded consumerism, Serbians feel they are living better, and may fear to lose it. Yes, the whole selling out for a mess of pottage thing comes to mind here, but how does one argue that with someone who's mortgaged his soul for the sake of a suburban apartment and a mid-sized car?"

On Sunday this turned out to be the case.

Many are now saying that it was decided by ethnic minorities' disciplined turnout. And no, before the professional and amateur Serbophobes pipe up, it's not the Radicals engaging in baseless accusations; it's the minority politicians themselves claiming credit for Tadic's victory.

I don't think it matters as much, though. Sure, these communities fail to appreciate that Serbia treats them better than EU chairman Slovenia treated its minorities (think of the outrage if Serbia had "erased" people), but how can anyone expect other people to respect the Serbs if the Serbs can so manifestly fail to respect themselves?

Hoppe Was Right

A prominent place on my "history, philosophy and politics" bookshelf is occupied by an autographed copy of "Democracy, The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I think of it every time I read or watch anything related to the current elections in Serbia. So much of what passes for debate there is just such pure, unadulterated nonsense.

On Sunday, Serbian voters will have a choice of two presidential candidates that made it into the second round: the incumbent Boris Tadic (Democratic Party, DS) and the challenger Tomislav Nikolic (Serbian Radical Party, SRS).

Nikolic runs with a simple message that has the benefit of being true: Tadic represents the forces that have run Serbia since October 2000, beholden to foreign powers, corrupt and craven.

Of course, one could hold it against Nikolic that his party was once allied with Milosevic (then again, professional Milosevic-hater Vuk Draskovic was once a minister in a Milosevic government...), or that its leader is in The Hague on trial for war crimes. Except, the charges against him are pretty much for "inciting hatred," i.e. crimethink, and not any specific action. People tried by the Inquisition are political prisoners; Seselj is more so than most. Nikolic is a Russophile; he once famously expressed regret that Serbia was not a Russian province. Instead, one supposes, he should have been ecstatic that Serbia is actually a whipping boy for the US and the EU?

What bugs me about Nikolic is that the Radicals don't mind the modern omnipotent state at all; they just think it would do better with them in charge. To the extent that a hypothetical Radical government (the president is the ceremonial head of state, nothing more - Tadic's power comes from being the Democrats' party leader) would not serve the Empire, that is correct; but would it really serve the people of Serbia?

It's not hard to be patriotic in comparison to Tadic, Ceda Jovanovic, and a variety of other quisling types currently riding on the backs of Serbians. But would the Radicals steal (i.e. tax) any less? Would they not support oligarchs? Would they not sell off government property to their preferred investors (Russians, rather than Germans or Americans)? Would they actually try to restore the property stolen from Serbs in 1945? Ha! That will be the day.

Tadic, on the other hand, is desperate. For years he has spoken of "Euro-Atlantic integrations" as a "path that has no alternative," promising Serbians a better future in the EU and NATO. Thankfully, the NATO part died somewhere along the way (the fact that it was even mentioned, after what happened in 1999, is depressing enough). The EU part is equally incongruous; far from being a haven of prosperity, the EU is a reincarnation of the USSR. Its totalitarianism may be more polite, but it's there nonetheless.

Then, of course, there's the demonstration of EU's true colors, as the Brussels Leviathan openly declared its support for the Albanian separatists and decided to take over the occupation of Kosovo. The EU has gone past demanding Serbia's acceptance of its dismemberment, to simply ignoring Serbian opinions altogether. Brussels isn't even making the indecent proposal of trading Kosovo for EU membership any more; the EU intends to detach Kosovo anyway, and maybe negotiate with Serbia about annexing it in some distant future. Just the kind of beacon of civilization one should aspire to, isn't it?

With his promises thus shown to be hollow, Tadic and the Democrats have turned to spreading panic and fear. If they don't hang on to power, they say, Serbia would return to the "dreadful nineties," isolated, blockaded, besieged, even bombed (though they aren't saying so explicitly). It amounts to a "lesser of two evils" approach: If you think we're bad, wait till those guys come to power! Such brazen arrogance may well drive voters to Nikolic's camp, if nothing than out of sheer Serbian spite (inat).

Or it could work, given that Serbs have been brainwashed not for years, but for decades, to feel inferior, guilty, and unworthy of their rulers. Having gone from blockade to postmodern, credit-funded consumerism, Serbians feel they are living better, and may fear to lose it. Yes, the whole selling out for a mess of pottage thing comes to mind here, but how does one argue that with someone who's mortgaged his soul for the sake of a suburban apartment and a mid-sized car?

After October 2000, the "elite" that imposed itself on Serbia (with a little help of Uncle Sam) has been a textbook definition of "transnational progressivism" in action. My own distaste for this sort of people and their politics requires a rant in its own right; suffice to say that I would shed no tears if they were thrown out on the curb and forced to make an honest living (they'd whore themselves out to the Empire elsewhere, though; it's just what they do).

Whoever becomes president on Monday, it won't make the slightest bit of difference when it comes to the Empire's project of Serbia's dismemberment, or Moscow's support, or the pathological hatred of Serbs harbored by Albanian separatists and others in the region. It may make a difference in how the Serbs respond to it all. If Nikolic succeeds in toppling Tadic, it may mean a shift in Serbian politics not favoring the Tranzis, but it won't really change the essence of the problem. Until Serbia can somehow wipe off the fetid muck of statism, it will be neither strong, nor prosperous, nor free.

The Sellout

In the early hours of January 23, Chinese news agency Xinhua carried a story with the following title: "FM: Serbia supports Europe's engagement on its territory under int'l law"

The story quoted a statement by Vuk Jeremic during his visit to Romania, when he reportedly said:

Our conviction is that the EU, in accordance with the international law, or with a new U.N. resolution, will send a mission to Kosovo and this will clear off all issues linked to such an engagement's legal conformity."
(NB: by "this" Jeremic is most likely referring to the SAA, which Serbia is supposed to sign next week)

Prime Minister Kostunica, who is supposedly Jeremic's boss (it's no secret that Jeremic actually works for President Tadic), has said that an EU mission to Kosovo would be a violation of the SAA. So, unless Kostunica secretly changed his mind, this statement by Jeremic is direct opposition to the established government policy.

Both Kostunica and Tadic have denied reports that they have struck a deal before the second round of presidential elections; according to these rumors (published by Blic, a foreign-owned tabloid with open sympathies for Europhiles, "democratic reformers" and other transnational progressivists), Kostunica demanded rejection of the EU mission to Kosovo as the condition for supporting Tadic against the Radical challenger Tomislav Nikolic. To even have a fighting chance in the runoff, Tadic absolutely needs Kostunica's support; but will Kostunica lend it, if Tadic's pet diplomat is actually inviting the EU to Kosovo?

Taken at face value, assuming it was correctly translated and properly quoted (Not to doubt Xinhua, but Jeremic speaks decent English, and ought to know better than to say "clear off" when he means "clear up."), Jeremic's statement is an invitation. He doesn't say the EU can only send a mission in case of a new UN resolution; that would be acceptable, since any UN resolution on Kosovo replacing 1244 would have to get Russian approval, and Moscow is a more principled advocate of Serbian interests at this point than certain members of the cabinet in Belgrade.

What he does say is that Belgrade ("we") expects the EU to send a mission anyway, and that the SAA would "clear off" any questions about the mission's legality.

George Lucas's otherwise execrable "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" (1999) had one redeeming scene. At one point, the Sith lord, who is orchestrating the downfall of the Galactic Republic by instigating a conflict over a small planet, commands his proxies:

Darth Sidious: This turn of events is unfortunate. We must accelerate our plans. Begin landing your troops.
Nute Gunray: My lord, is that... legal?
Darth Sidious: I will make it legal.

And this just in: Hashim Thaci, leader of the terrorist KLA and now "Prime Minister" of occupied Kosovo, announced today after meeting with EU and NATO officials that a declaration of independence was a "matter of days."

Coincidence? No way.

The American Jihad

I've been meaning to go see Charlie Wilson's War, mostly because I'm a big fan of Aaron Sorkin's writing style (our politics differ substantially, but the man is a writing genius). I had no illusions about the veracity of the film; unlike most folks, I actually knew that President Carter authorized the arming of jihadists six months before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, on advice of Zbigniew Brzezinski, with the goal of provoking Moscow. And from my own experiences in the Balkans (and in Washington, DC) I know that many policymakers in the Imperial establishment even now see militant Islam as a potential ally, or at least something that can be used as a weapon.

But it took reading an excellent review by Chalmers Johnson (author of Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire and Nemesis) to really connect the dots.

Furthermore, in his introduction to Johnson's review, Tom Englehardt mentions an important detail about former CIA director William Casey:

...William Casey, the "Catholic Knight of Malta educated by Jesuits," who "believed fervently that by spreading the Catholic Church's reach and power he could contain Communism's advance, or reverse it." And, if you couldn't have the Church do it, as in Afghanistan in the 1980s, then second best, Casey believed, were the Islamic warriors of jihad, the more extreme the better, with whom, in his religio-anticommunism, he believed himself to have much in common. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend, after all.) Casey was, in fact, an American jihadi, eager in the 1980s not just to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, but to push "the Afghan jihad into the Soviet Union itself."

I still want to see Charlie Wilson's War, but I think I may wait for the DVD.

Desperation

I am almost certain that there is an inverse relationship between the actual level of Empire's power and the hysteria of its propaganda cadre. Never mind that we're constantly bombarded with the mainstream media's proclamations that an independent "Kosova" is just around the corner, about to happen any minute, etc. - but as the propaganda leverage on Serbian minds continues to slip, the propaganda is getting shrill to the point of absurdity.

One amusing case study is Vesna Peric-Zimonjic, a long-time correspondent for the Independent and Inter Press Service, who easily gives Marlise Simons a run for her money as the worst Serbophobe of the West.

I could spend a sea of pixels and hours of your time dredging up examples of VPZ's Serbophobic rants, but I won't. There's Google, there's your keyboards, give them a workout. Suffice to say that I'm plenty convinced of the veracity of my statement above.

So when I read this, I could not help but laugh. Heartily. Propaganda doesn't get more pathetic than her December 26 piece, pompously titled, "EU Abandons Borders, Serbia Wants Them."

VPZ uses the occasion of the EU officially abolishing its internal Iron Courtain towards the Eastern members to blast Serbia for threatening to blockade its occupied province of Kosovo if it secedes. Never mind that Kosovo's secession would be contrary to Serbian and international law, or that the Serbian blockade would be a legitimate response. I mean, here's the United State, self-proclaimed champion of democracy and human rights, blockading Cuba since 1959. You don't see VPZ criticizing that, now. Might interfere with the paycheck.

To support her claim, VPZ quotes several personages - each and every one belongs to a tiny sliver of Serbian political and media spectrum, the self-proclaimed "liberal democrats" (a.k.a. the Red Guards of Globalization). She starts off citing an op-ed by Vladimir Gligorov (whose father, Kiro, was president of Macedonia, but Junior likes it better being "citizen of the world") in the "largest circulation daily" Blic. What she doesn't say is that Blic is a German-owned tabloid paper, whose circulation may be large but reputation is certainly not.

She also quotes "historian" Nikola Samardzic, who scoffs at Russia, conveniently omitting the fact that he's a high-ranking member of the Liberal Democratic Party. At the end, she gets a statement from a 43-year-old shopkeeper, which sounds as if written by Samardzic, and passes it off as the opinion of "many Belgradians."

I don't really have to explain the incongruity of these people objecting to a blockade of Albanian separatists and a friendly policy towards Russia, even though they used to call for a Western blockade of Serbia and still continue to argue for utter submission to the West. That's self-evident.

VPZ's cheap tricks can't fool anyone remotely acquainted with the situation in Serbia. But that isn't her target audience anyway; she's after the average Westerner, in whose mind the Empire has to replant the notion that the Serbs are somehow extraordinarily evil, so they deserve to have their country occupied and partitioned. For that purpose, it uses "Serbs" such as VPZ, Gligorov, Samadrzic, and other "liberal democrats," who serve willingly and enthusiastically. They have less decency than Judas; after all, he tried to give the 30 pieces of silver back.

Manufacturing Guilt

Commenting on Shirking Duty, Predrag writes:

The Serbs are generally conflict shame [sic] people, which will say it is very important for us not to offend even our enemies (up to a certain point). It may sound ridiculous but here are a couple of examples.
Even after all this wars that happened during the past decade I still have some “friends” of other Balkan nations. When I visit them at their homes, it is totally normal for them to have dozens of items showing their national insignia in their homes and they are proud about it. Serbs are different, when they are having a visit from a friend of another Balkan nationality; they tend to hide their national insignia so their visitor is not offended by it.

I've observed this phenomenon firsthand. It's perfectly OK to be a Slovenian, Croat, Albanian, "Bosniak" (whether with the lilacs or with the crescents, "Montenegrin" (of the Doclean kind) or whatnot, but God forbid you have an icon on the wall, let alone a flag or anything actually remotely national. It's perfectly OK for them to talk how they were "oppressed" and "victims of genocide," but when a Serb mentions politics that's "hurting their feelings."

Well, too bad. For them, I mean.

Here's how I riddle this. The whole conflict-avoidance/shame thing is an inferiority complex manufactured after WW2 to make the Serbs governable. Historically, Serbs are a tough lot to rule. Those princes and kings that ended up merely in exile were fortunate.

Consider also that the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had an overtly anti-Serb platform; their principal enemy was "greater Serbian bourgeoisie," i.e. the crown and the merchants/free peasants that supported it. Originally (at least since its 1928 congress in Dresden), the CPY championed the abolition of Yugoslavia and the "liberation" of Croats, Slovenians, Macedonians, Montenegrins... oh, and the annexation of "Kosova" to Albania (that's a subject for another article...). The Nazis did exactly that in 1941, but by 1945 - thanks to Soviet and British support - the Communists found themselves in possession of Yugoslavia. Suddenly dividing it up did not seem like such a good idea. But how could they hang on to power in Serbia, where they were extremely unpopular?

The answer was to manufacture guilt. Long before the term "moral equivalence" was coined, the children in socialist Yugoslavia learned that Chetniks (Serbian royalists who fought for the king) were no different than the Ustasha (Croatian Nazis who conducted a mass extermination of Jews and Serbs so brutally even the German Nazis were disturbed by it). Anyone familiar with "political correctness" of today will recognize the matrix along which the Serbs - defined as "oppressors" of everyone else by the virtue of their existence - were treated in comparison with Slovenes, Croats, Macedonians, Muslims and Montenegrins (the latter three given nationhood by Tito).

The reason Slobodan Milosevic became so wildly popular in the 1980s is because he dared challenge that matrix. When he said "No one is allowed to hit you" to the Serb demonstrators in Kosovo Polje (at the time getting clobbered by ethnic Albanian police) April 1987, Milosevic tapped into a vein of popular resentment that ended up bringing him to power.

Ironically, the West labeled Milosevic "the last Communist" and answered him with - Communist propaganda! The whole "genocidal Serbian aggressor" line, peddled since the early 1990s, reeks of it. Considering it originated with Slovenian, Croat and Bosnian Muslim separatists (who were the product of Tito's system), that should not be surprising.

Currently the torch-bearer for the notion of Serb Guilt are the so-called "reformers" - the media, NGOs, and political parties composed of erstwhile Reds who simply switched masters, and now work for the Empire (or the EUSSR). Every day, in every way, they peddle the line that Serbs are evil as a people, that they need to "reckon with the past" and "embrace the future" and atone and apologize and repent...

For sixty years (at least) the Serbs have been trapped in a matrix that insists their very existence is evil, abominable and shameful. This is how they've been kept enslaved. No man or woman who accepts being inferior can truly be free. But they are not kept in bondage by chains and whips, but by the force of ideas implanted into their minds.

Only by rejecting this manufactured guilt and by understanding who made it and with what purpose can the Serbs begin their path to freedom.

Archive: Serbia's Missionary Intellectuals

(originally published on Balkanalysis.com, 3/16/2004)

Serbia's Missionary Intellectuals

A guest article on Serbia’s politico-intellectual heritage from Nebojsa Malic.

Alter the victory of the Radicals in the December elections, a chorus of condemnations arose from Western governments, press and think-tanks. Serbia was going “fascist,” they said; the Radicals’ strong showing was a “return to nationalism” and a “turning back the tide” of progress achieved under the ever-so-pure DOS. Reality, of course, was nothing of the sort. Certainly, organizations and governments with vested interest in perpetuating certain policies in Serbia might have been expected to react this way. But such proclamations also came from people who fashion themselves Serbia’s “intellectual elite” � the self-proclaimed activists for democracy, human rights, and peace who happen to be just the opposite. Similar groups exist in most post-Communist societies, composed of people who replaced their erstwhile Marxist zealotry with similar fervor in propagating “open society” and other dogmas of the modern managerial state. This phenomenon, like many others, is simply more pronounced in Serbia.

Extremists in Defense of “Virtue”

Prominent sociologist Slobodan Antonic wrote about a year ago [Serbian original here] about the phenomenon of “Missionary intellectuals,” which he described as “a group that perceives itself as missionaries of the Atlantic world and its values in Serbia.” He offers examples, among which are - unsurprisingly - people such as Sonja Biserko and her entourage (Teofil Pancic, Latinka Perovic, Nebojsa Popov, etc.) known for almost pathological disdain for Serbian ethnicity, tradition, history and culture.

Antonic underscores several character traits of the Missionaries. Their dogmatism produces “intolerance towards criticism, and even any disagreement, however reasoned… all those who exhibit even the slightest differenceof opinion are politically demonized, while the debate about ideas is replaced by name-calling denunciations.” Their “cognitive exclusivism” takes after Marxism, so “their epistemology is so epistemologically superior it is beyond criticism… They are immune to criticism because they have defined all other positions as nationalist [and therefore evil] by definition.” And their language is that of intolerance (surprise!), exemplified by streams of invective aimed at political opponents (i.e. just about everybody who is not “worthy” of their elevated wisdom), e.g. “selfish, fucked-up bastards in the Silent Majority”, “feeble-minded advocates of anti-democracy, nationalism and chauvinism,” etc. The last, but not least, is their call for increased repression, such as banning books, political parties, music and organizations whose authors and ideas they disapprove of. Obviously, here’s a group that believes extremism in the quest for “Atlantic values” (whatever they may be) is no vice, but the highest virtue.

Antonic’s analysis is the best explanation yet of this particular movement in Serbian society (which is also present in other countries in the Balkans, and generally anywhere the Empire has promoted “civil society”). It does suffer from one serious flaw, which is that Antonic shares the missionaries’ values, and objects only to their methods. He describes them as people who “truly want the best for their environment, and desire to share the best values with their community.” Yet they have a mighty strange concept of “sharing,” as Antonic notes just a little further down in the text:

“Their lives end up being spent in constant, tedious and fruitless denunciation of their own people (town, or province), or even in openly calling for occupation by ‘civilized foreigners.’ Unfortunately, if such occupation does come, and they get a chance to participate in the government, their zealotry in violence, prohibitions, impositions, persecution and exclusion is matched by no one…”

Reading between the lines is not necessary here: Antonic clearly believes that the DOS regime was the equivalent of foreign occupation, where the Missionaries ran amok with overt support of the authorities (and in some instances, they were the authorities).

The “Mondialist Pasdarans”

It is worth noting that the article originally appeared on the pages of Vreme (Time) weekly, a paper known for its backing of the very globalist “liberals” that Antonic criticized. In fact, this was a public manifestation of the conflict between the zealous liberals (e.g. Biserko, Kandic, et al.) and their more “moderate” brethren, who felt uncomfortable with their violent and hateful rhetoric. While the “moderates” are still the majority of Serbia’s globalists, the West continues to pay attention to the fringe - but oh so very loud - proclamations of the “Mondialist Pasdarans” (as Antonic dubs them, referring to the fanatical Iranian Revolutionary Guards).

Antonic’s critique of Missionaries appeared in February 2003, in the midst of a clash between these extremists and the mainstream Serbian “liberals” (counterparts to American and British parties of that persuasion, not the true, classical liberals of the XIX century or today’s libertarians). Just over a month later, Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic was assassinated, and the Missionaries took over the helm of government. But while they seemed triumphant in the debate (which, of course, was nothing of the sort) the repression and naked power grab they indulged in over the next nine months demonstrated to Serbians the true colors of their would-be “saviors.” Those who called most loudly for “de-Nazification” of Serbia turned out - unsurprisingly, if one may note - to be most like the Nazis in their thoughts and deeds.

Unfortunately, such is the delusional character of their fanatical dogmatism that they absolutely did not understand the message Serbian voters intended to send them, when they threw out the DOS regime in the December elections. Instead, the crushing defeat of the Missionaries’ nine-month dictatorship was condemned as the “return of fascism.” Today, the missionaries spout identical nonsense as they did a year ago. Entrenched in their contempt of reason and dialogue, they seem to be completely beyond persuasion.

A Communist Origin

While similar groups can be found throughout the former Communist bloc, the “missionaries” in Serbia have a peculiar distinction in their overt hatred of their own ethnic identity. They explain it in terms of shame over the atrocities allegedly committed in the wars of the 1990s, but that does not explain why they choose to believe the foulest atrocity stories even after they’ve been proven false. Antonic’s explanation, linking their dogmatism to Marxism helps clarify things a bit. Having come from that system, most of these “intellectuals” have never abandoned Communism except in name. Latinka Perovic, for example, was a major figure in Serbian party leadership in the 1970s, when she was purged for ostensibly “liberal” tendencies (which bore little resemblance to actual, classical liberalism). Other major figures in the missionary movement are all scholars of social sciences who were educated by the Communists, and retained Marxist methods of thinking and even many Marxist beliefs, albeit under different names nowadays.

What’s important to note at this point is to which extent Yugoslav Communism was anti-Serb in nature, ever since the Yugoslav Communist Party emerged in the 1920s under Moscow’s aegis. Soviets hated Yugoslavia - and its Serbian monarchy - for the support and refuge it offered the Tsarist “Whites.” They resurrected the Austrian bogeyman of “Greater Serbian hegemony” in an effort to destroy the country and the Serbian monarchy in particular, in order to re-create a miniature Soviet Union on its ashes. To that purpose, the Communists backed Croat fascist separatists (Ustashe) and Kosovo Albanian irredentists, and even applauded the Nazi invasion of 1941, which resulted in Yugoslavia’s dismemberment (it helped that Hitler and Stalin were still allies, too). The Communists’ virulent Serbophobia was somewhat tempered by Tito, who needed Serb support to fight the Germans, but he nonetheless proceeded to re-create Yugoslavia precisely along the pre-war lines of Sovietization. One important difference was that Stalin and is successors sought to Russify the USSR and crush individual ethnic identities in an effort to stamp out regional resistance and head off Russian opposition, while in Yugoslavia the drive was in the opposite direction, encouraging ethnic nationalism of others at the expense of Serbian identity, which was perceived as the primary peril. Slobodan Milosevic was vilified by leaders of other ethnic Communist parties precisely because he dared question the sacred precept of Tito’s Yugoslavia that everything was somehow always the Serbs’ fault. The accusation that he was a “nationalist” originated not with Franjo Tudjman and Alija Izetbegovic, actual nationalist leaders of Croats and Bosnian Muslims, but with their Communist predecessors!

Therefore, when Serbia’s missionary intellectuals violently loathe the Serbian ethnicity, culture, tradition, history and faith, they are drawing on almost eight decades of Serbophobia nurtured by their ideological forefathers. Back then, they invoked it in the name of Socialist Revolution; today, they use it in the name of “democracy” and “Euro-Atlantic integration,” but the change is purely cosmetic.

Another One Bites the Dust

AKI reports:

Deputy chief of the United Nations administration in Serbia’s breakaway Kosovo province, Steven Shuck [sic] who is being probed for corruption and 'unprofessional behaviour' has stepped down from his post...

Shuck, a retired American general, is being investigated by the UN internal commission over his alleged ties with some Kosovo businessmen, politicians and sexual relations with UN staff as well as two ethnic Albanian popstars, the reports said.

Further citing local (i.e. Albanian) media, AKI claims that Shuck [edit: the name is spelled "Shook"] was close to KLA commander Ramush Haradinaj (one of the rare KLA leaders indicted by the Hague Inquisition), and had "suspicious dealings with Kosovo energy minister Ethem Ceku in connection with a multimillion dollar project to build electric power plants."

As Lord Acton famously wrote, absolute power corrupts absolutely. As occupiers of the southern Serbian province, UNMIK officials had as close to absolute power as one gets in this day and age (except, perhaps, the viceroy of Bosnia). Their lavish wages and connections with the Albanian mafia and separatist leaders (or am I repeating myself?) ensured unlimited access to pleasures of the flesh. No wonder UNMIK officials have become the very paragon of corruption.

It's unclear whether Shook's departure will halt the UN investigation. Allegations of his wrongdoing (and knowing UNMIK's modus operandi, this is probably just the tip of the proverbial iceberg) are too serious to just be dropped. No matter what the punishment, it will not fit the crime of occupation, with all the ills it has brought. Even a morsel of justice, however, is better than nothing.

Albanian "Truth"

I can expend thousands of words and millions of electrons trying to explain what Albanian separatists think, say and do. Ultimately, those who do not wish to believe me will merely shrug and say "Well, you're an ethnic Serb, so how can you be objective?"

Fine. Don't listen to me. Listen to an Albanian instead. Here's a commentary written by one Mehdi Hyseni (who may or may not be related to Skender Hyseni, spokesman for the provisional government). Hyseni currently lives in Boston, Mass. (USA) where he moved in 1999. Prior to that, he "earned a doctorate in international affairs at Pristina University" and "held professional positions in the Department of Translation, Information and Foreign Affairs in Belgrade" from 1978 to 1999, according to a 2003 bio.

It was posted in a Serbian translation by Nova Srpska Politicka Misao (NSPM), which often publishes opposing viewpoints, without editorial guidance. I'm not that magnanimous, so I'll note beforehand that Hyseni not only had access to a doctoral degree under the "evil Serbian regime," but he also worked for the said regime even after 1989, when thousands of Albanians were supposedly disenfranchised and sacked from government jobs. And in Belgrade, no less. Keep this in mind as you read on.

The translation from Serbian is mine, and is faithful as far as I can attest. If there are any discrepancies between the Albanian source material and the Serbian text, talk to the NSPM translators.

Without further ado, here's Hyseni:

KOSOVO BETWEEN TWO PHILOSOPHICAL AND POLITICAL EXTREMES

Mitrovica PRESS – Mitrovica

Boston/Mitrovica, December 10, 2007 - The first extreme is the "philosophical and political" thesis of Serbian ethnocentrist (nationalist, racist, fascist, colonialist and genocidal) collective paranoid notion that "Kosovo belongs to Serbia", while the other reflects the abstract nihilism of official Tirana that "Kosova belongs to Kosova," instead of at least saying it belongs to Albania.

Both of these contradictions will be clarified only when Kosovo achieves independence.

The polished philosophical, utopian, decadent, existentialist and conceited speculation by dilettante analysts, reflected through the spirit and times of Communist philosophy of "brotherhood and unity" (that is, the Tito-Rankovic Yugoslavian "brotherhood and murder"), one cannot correctly interpret, or understand, let alone fight the colonialist and genocidal Serbian policy aimed against Albanians and ethnic Albania. Rather, it further clouds and obscures the theory and practice of the practical historical, political, philosophic, diplomatic and legal justifications for the solution of the colonial Albanian question in the Balkans.

We should clearly understand the fact that decadent political philosophy cannot achieve the liberation, freedom and independence of Kosova and other territories of the colonized ethnic Albania. It is now a decisive historical moment (as Hasan Prishtina, our famous patriot and fighter for the liberation and unification of ethnic Albania, once said) for the president of Albania Bamir Topi and Prime Minister Sali Berisha openly say to Belgrade's face that "Kosova is Albania, not Serbia!" Otherwise, Serbia and the Greaterserbs will not stop howling and will never give up their anti-Albanian thesis that "Kosovo is Serbia."

Until Albania officially declares that Kosova is Albania, both Kosova and Albania, as well as our loyal ally and savior the United States, will have disputes, misunderstandings and serious problems with the colonialist Serbia and the racist, fascist Greaterserbs, who believe "Kosovo is Serbia."

That Belgrade and the Greaterserbs make the colonialist and genocidal claim that Kosova is Serbia does not surprise us. However, that some Albanian "philosophers" in power still lack courage to defend the truthful counterclaim that Kosova is Albania, both to Serbia and to the world, not only upsets us, but urges us to suspect that the Albanian political philosophy still fails to understand that the cruel colonial and hegemonic Serbian rule cannot be rejected through pseudo-philosophical declarations that Kosova "belongs to those who live there"! Such political and national hypocrisy! Such an euphemism! Philosophical colorblindness! It is a lack of human and national consciousness, this lack of courage to tell the truth that Kosova does not belong to Serbia, but ethnic Albania.

This truth needs to be defended by all legitimate legal, national and international means.

The unmasking of many centuries of Greaterserb history, politics, propaganda, diplomacy, colonial and genocidal practice against the Albanians and ethnic Albania in the Balkans cannot be accomplished through thumb-twiddling and empty talk, using dilettante euphemisms and disgraceful, anemic, terrifying, speculative, moralizing, anti-philosophical, unrealistic and anti-pragmatic vocabulary. They need to be revealed before the world and called by their proper names, fully describing their anti-Albanian character.

No people in the world achieved freedom and independence through the exercise of speculative concepts of colorblind and decadent philosophy, fed to the readers of mass media. So long as we Albanians in the Balkans are happy to be fed such anti-philosophical and anti-realistic produce (which are essentially nothing but imaginations of a false, romantic ,symbolic, "dialectic" philosophy of Nietzche's absolute individualist concern), we will live with slavery and Serbo-Slavic colonialism in the Balkans.

No one in the history of Serbia and Serbs has ever given a more objective, humane and precise definition of Serb ethnocentrism than the great French philosopher Andre Glucksmann, when he said, "When Serbs say they are innocent, they express their utmost racism."

This is true in every way - anthropological, historical, psychological, human and propaganda. The entire psychology and practice of world anti-Semitism can evolve, but not that of the Serbs. Its genesis is hereditary, passed from one generation to another and cultivated systematically and through institutions, from the family to the Orthodox Church, the academia, literature, poetry, drama, politics, diplomacy, the military, etc. In other words, Serbian anti-Semitism is not imported, but is an original manifestation of collective Serbian anti-Semitic paranoia, "Made in Serbia".

This is the prime reason the Serbs even today cannot free themselves of the centuries-old muck of their maniacal philosophy that they are supposedly the "most peaceful, most democratic, most just, most cultured, most enlightened, most progressive and most civilized" people in the Balkans. All these negative concepts are organically part of the Greaterserb mythological ethnocentrism.

This essential doctrine and practice of self-destructive, anti-Semitic ethnocentrism and Serbocentrism is the reason Serbia, in its historical, political, colonial and militarist continuity, has committed over ten genocides against Albanians and ethnic Albania (1842-1999).

In this traditional ethnocentric (racist and fascist) style, the propaganda of modern Serbia began an official campaign against the independence of Kosova in Belgrade, on December 4, 2007.

The initiator, overseer and director of this all-Serbian populist campaign, under the slogan "Kosovo is Serbia" is the Serbian government's Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija, headed by Slobodan Samardžić (member of the Serb negotiating team during the shuttle diplomacy efforts of Martti Ahtissari and Wolfgang Ischinger's "troika"), which "forgets" the truth that Kosova belongs to Albania, not Serbia, even though Tirana still lacks courage to say so.

Now, some might say that this is by no means a mainstream Albanian argument, but a rant of a madman. Fair enough. Only trouble is, I've heard these "arguments" over an over from Albanians; they are all over Albanian websites, peddled by Albanian lobbyists and "advocates," openly preached to the general Albanian public (in Kosovo, at least). As far as they are concerned, all of this is gospel truth.

Tell you what. Replace "Serbs" here with "Jews" and "Albanians" with "Germans." See how it sounds to you.

Yeah, I thought so.

Shirking Duty

Robert E. Lee called duty the "most sublime word in the English language," and urged everyone to "Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.”

But as Julia Gorin reminds us, many fall short when faced with what needs to be done:

"By shining a light on our Kosovo mischief, I am merely doing my duty as an American. But there are Americans who have a greater responsibility than I to save the U.S. from this bipartisan treachery, Americans who should be most on the case at this eleventh hour: Serbian-Americans."

So, where are they? I don't count; I'm not an American citizen, just someone who's lived in this country for almost a dozen years. Besides, I've definitely not kept silent, what with having been a columnist for the past eight. Yet I'm an exception, rather than a rule.

Why is this? Julia has a theory:

"I understand the reasons that Serbs shy away from this duty. They want finally to be liked, and more than anything else to fit in; indeed, the modern Serb rejects his Serbhood. As well, a Serb knows he will instantly be painted with the “Oh, but this is coming from a Serb; of course you’d say that” brush. Notice this is never a consideration or stumbling block for the Serbs’ enemies..."

While true to a great extent, it's not the whole reason. I personally know people who fear that any sort of public expression of opposition to the current U.S. policy in the Balkans would have negative consequences to their careers, wealth, property, and even lives. I know people who believe their voice can't change anything. But they are saying something, with their silence: they are saying that their cause is not worth speaking out for, much less fighting for.

I, quite obviously, disagree.

Now, here's the real kicker: most of these Serbs who don't dare so much as whisper in public have no qualms about bemoaning the current situation in private, lamenting the state of the Serbian nation today and wishing for someone to step in and save it. Which brings me to the point I want to make, using the words of a brilliant American playwright:

"Look, if you think we're wrong... then I respect that. But if you think we're right and you won't speak up because you can't be bothered, then God... I don't even want to know you."

Ah Yes, Peacekeepers

I haven't said a whole lot in this blog about my experience in Sarajevo during the 1992-95 Bosnian War. I intend to, eventually - at a time and in a manner of my choosing. Today, however, I was looking for some maps showing the boundaries of Albania in 1941, after the Nazi invasion resulted in what Albanian sympathizers term the "first liberation of Kosova" (sic); while searching, I stumbled upon this:



Source:
Bosnian Army Offensive Operations in Sarajevo Region, June 1995 (238K)
Map N from Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 1990-1995. Central Intelligence Agency, Office of Russian and European Analysis. Washington, D.C. 2001.

What is this? It is the map of the infamous 1995 "summer offensive" by the Muslim-dominated ARBiH that was supposed to break the siege of Sarajevo. Even those most casually acquainted in military arts can see that the direction of Muslim attacks makes little sense: only the 16th Division, attacking from the north, is actually moving towards the city, yet it eventually gets rolled back. Instead of attacking northwards from the city to help the 16th, the 12th Division is striking out eastwards, to... nowhere. And the 14th Division is attacking eastwards as well, to Mt. Treskavica (a barren piece of rock that claimed hundreds of Muslim lives without the Serbs so much as firing a shot). The whole operation was a strategic fiasco, with massive casualties.

Now for the reason I'm posting this. Notice the starting positions for the 14th Division's attack, down south. Two of the arrows start out not from green-shaded ARBIH-controlled area, but from the "UN patrolled" blue area. This was territory captured by the VRS (Bosnian Serb army) in a 1993 counterattack, which threatened to cut Sarajevo off completely from the rest of Muslim-held Bosnia. The Izetbegovic regime howled for help from the West; NATO and the U.S. threatened to bomb the Serbs; Serb leadership offered to cede the territory to the UN peacekeepers and keep it demilitarized. Of course, the moment the Serb troops withdrew, ARBiH forces poured in.

Oh, and did I mention that at this point Sarajevo was supposed to be a UN-designated "Safe area"? Yes, alongside Tuzla, Srebrenica, Zepa, Gorazde and Bihac, Sarajevo was supposed to be a demilitarized "safe haven" for civilians. There's even a 20-kilometer "exclusion zone" for heavy weapons, clearly seen on the CIA map. But see, "safe havens" were only sacrosanct when Serbs violated them; if Muslims deployed tens of thousands of troops, artillery and tanks within those areas, that was just fine.

The hypocrisy is just sickening.

Just wait for them to die off, really

Reuters quotes the present KFOR commander, Lt. Gen. Xavier de Marnhac, from a briefing he gave in Washington yesterday (emphasis added):

In his briefing, de Marnhac also noted the average age of Kosovo's Albanians was 28, while the figure for Serbs was 54.

"In the mid to long term there will be some kind of biological end to the problem here because, you know, one of the population(s) will simply disappear," he said.

No people - no problem. Simple as that. It used to be called genocide, or "ethnic cleansing" (a term first used by a Kosovo Albanian official in a 1987 New York Times story). Now it's "biological end."

Want to take over a bit of territory? Easy! Breed like mad - a dozen kids per family, or more - then when you become a majority, launch a rebellion. If you plead genocide, you may get lucky and the Empire will fight an illegal war of aggression on your behalf, and give you the territory on a silver platter. Bonus points if you've managed to soak the host country for welfare benefits for five decades so you can support your breeding program, making sure all those kids had schools, hospitals, government-subsidized jobs, etc. Anything else would be a violation of their human rights, you know... Once you have the territory, all you have to do is abuse the natives to the point of "biological solution," and there you go.

Seriously, though, de Marnhac's remarks should not come as a surprise. This cold-hearted, bigoted thinking explains how KFOR has "protected" Serbs in the province since 1999 - basically by putting them in ghettos and waiting for them to die off. One must remember, KFOR's function was never to protect non-Albanians from the KLA, but to protect the KLA from the Serbian army and police. They looked the other way as KLA burned, looted, murdered, threatened, extorted, besieged, stole and otherwise abused Serbs, Roma, Turks, Gorani, and other communities in the occupied province, only stepping in when abuses became bad enough to warrant unwanted media attention.

But he is right, you know. Serbs cannot hope to hold Kosovo if they are not willing to live there. They cannot hope to hold Serbia itself, if they don't start having babies. That's one way to make sure de Marnhac's prediction never comes to pass.

A Tragedy of Errors

Đorđe Vukadinović of NSPM had an interesting take on the Kosovo crisis in his latest column in the Belgrade daily Politika. He sees the issue as an outcome of a series of mistakes, on part of Serbs, Albanians, the West... mistakes compounded by errors, compounded by misjudgments. Sure seems that way.

In the piece that I'm extensively quoting below (the translation is my own), Vukadinović lines up the trees, and a forest begins to emerge:

What this is about is a series of erroneous estimates and decisions, on part of many factors and over a lengthy period of time. First of all, the Serbs have generally underestimated the demographic problem of Kosovo, i.e. the skyrocketing growth of Albanian families, that - combined with pogroms during the Nazi occupation and systematic pressures in the half-century that followed - made the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija an absolute minority. Likewise, just before and immediately after WW2, Serbian authorities wrongly believed the problem of Kosovo could be solved through police repression; the Communist regime, starting in the late 1960s, went to the other extreme and attempted to pacify Albanians by giving them broad autonomy and quasi-statehood. Milošević wrongly believed that after reducing the autonomy and establishing a semi-police regimen in the province in the early 1990s he had solved the problem, leaving Kosovo in the hands of inept and corrupt local officials...

On the other hand, the West (that is, the U.S.) wrongly believed - assuming they did believe - that Kosovo was primarily a humanitarian problem, rather than a conflict of two irreconcilable claims, two ethnic groups and two nation-building interests (as well as several regional interests). They erred in bombing Serbia (FRY) because of Kosovo, in the absence of UN Security Council approval, and lacking any legal or sufficiently moral justification. They erred even further when they tried to cover up that error with a claim of "genocide against the Albanians" and their "Gandhi-like resistance", systematically covering up the facts about crimes, atrocities and inhumane treatment of the remaining Serbs in Kosovo.

Additionally, seduced by misinformation coming from their envoys in the field, the West miscalculated the degree of Serb interest in Kosovo, wrongly believed that "Koštunica is just bluffing“, that Tadić would agree to independence, and that Kosovo is "number five or six on the Serbian national priority list“. They miscalculated the Russian position and possible role in the Kosovo crisis, constantly telling Belgrade that Serbia cannot count on a Russian veto in the Security Council, that Putin would make a deal with Bush and that "the Russians will sell you out in the end." Worst of all, this sort of policy and the promises - direct and indirect - that they will get independence as "reward for their suffering under Milošević“, have made the Albanians so entrenched, they reject any offer that falls short of this, no matter how favorable, as unjust.

Finally, a portion of the anti-Milošević opposition took their propaganda about "Kosovo as primarily a democratic issue" too seriously, and contrary to experience and common sense began believing that the problem of Kosovo began with Slobodan Milošević and that it would end with his departure. Part of this opposition corps that came to power after October 5, 2000, saw Kosovo as ballast to be discarded as soon as possible, believing - erroneously - that this would be met with support, or at least acquiescence, by most Serbians, as they become dazzled with European stars and supermarkets. They were mistaken.

Everyone, therefore, erred, and now everyone stands to lose. Serbs most of all, but also the U.S., the Albanians, Western interests as well as the "European agenda" in Serbia itself; let alone the international law and order. I think many now see the status quo ante [2006] as a less-bad outcome for everyone. The question now is if anyone is at the controls, and if there is time for anyone to slow down or change the course.

(From "Is there a pilot on board?!" by Đorđe Vukadinović, 20 November 2007.)