The Grand Betrayal

On February 14-15, the Kosovo Serbs conducted a referendum that withdrew consent from the quisling regime in Belgrade to sell them out and recognize the abominable "Republic of Kosovo".

Response from Germany (speaking for the EU, no less) greatly resembled Berlin's reaction following the March 27, 1941 coup against the Yugoslav government that had signed a pact with Hitler.

Jumping to please their overlords, the Belgrade quislings ordered their special border police (gendarmerie) to attack the Serb civilians last night, dismantling several roadblocks and cutting off alternate approaches to the province. The assailants were masked and wore no insignia, but the government media confirmed this morning that they were, in fact, gendarmes acting on government orders. By doing so, they basically forced the besieged Serbs to use the NATO/EU/controlled "customs crossings" manned by "Kosovian" police.

Thus betrayed, the Serbs of Kosovo have sent the following plea to Russian Ambassador A.V. Konuzin, presented here in the English translation for the sake of historical record:

"Honored Excellency Aleksandr Vasilevich,
Dear brothers,

Serbs in Kosovo are surrounded on all sides. All alternate routes towards inner Serbia have been blocked.
Our official government is negotiating with the so-called authorities in Pristina.
They are negotiating on our behalf, but we have no idea what they are negotiating away.
All roadblocks on alternate routes to inner Serbia have been removed by masked men with no insignia. We do not know who they were.
The lives of 150,000 Serbs in Kosovo are in danger. We are blocked from receiving aid. We are denied freedom of movement.
We beg Russia to raise its voice against this abuse. We beg Russia to help us, because no one else will.

If someone doesn't act, the occupiers will get their wish: Kosovo will not be Serb anymore, because there won't be any Serbs left in Kosovo." 

Think about this the next time you hear someone in the West preach about democracy, human rights, and intervening to help civilians being abused by their government. Here are civilians, peacefully defending their rights, liberty and property, being systematically abused - not just by their own government (and this is true whether one considers "their" government to be in Belgrade or in Pristina), but by the so-called international community (EULEX, KFOR) as well. But because the abused are Serbs, and the abusers are Albanians, Belgrade quislings and the "international community," that's supposed to be OK.

Well, it isn't. And while Russia may be a bit busy fighting off a NED-spawned "revolution," something tells me Moscow knows that as well.

Are we to be spared nothing?

I understand that diplomacy is the art of saying "Ow!" while stepping on someone else's foot. And I understand that a diplomat is an "honest gentleman sent to lie abroad for the good of his country" (Wotton). But even so, there ought to be a line somewhere.

Here's Hillary Clinton's note to the people of Serbia (right from State.gov):

On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I am delighted to send best wishes to the people of Serbia as you celebrate your National Day this February 15.

The United States and Serbia share a long history of friendship and cooperation based on mutual interest and mutual respect. Today, we stand with Serbia as you work toward European Union integration, and we will continue to support your progress until this goal becomes a reality. I look forward to continuing to strengthen our relationship and deepening our work together in the coming year as we promote stability and prosperity in the region and around the world.

As you celebrate your National Day, know that the United States is a partner and friend. I wish all the people of Serbia and Serbians around the world a peaceful and a prosperous future.

Um, no.

You're most certainly not delighted, Madam Secretary, and it's simply offensive to pretend otherwise.

The U.S. and Serbia had a long history of friendship and cooperation. That history ended on March 23, 1999. And not because of the Serbs, either.

Likewise, there is nothing "mutual" about the current relationship between Washington and the quisling regime in Belgrade. The successive U.S. administrations have repeatedly demonstrated that only the U.S. is allowed to have interests, and only the U.S. is entitled to respect - while anyone else in the world, Serbia included, is not.

To speak of "promoting stability and prosperity" anywhere, while chiefly involved in bombing and occupying countries around the world - or seeking to overthrow their governments through astroturf "popular revolutions" and staged rebellions - surely has to be the pinnacle of cynicism. Especially since the U.S. has done all those things to Serbia over the past 13 years, making it decidedly less stable and prosperous.

If these are the actions of a "partner and friend," who needs enemies?

Serbia's Foreign Minister is in Washington today, and he will smile and nod and shake hands and pretend everything is all right. It isn't. And unlike him, I'm not afraid to say it.

As for those who are missing the whole "National Day" reference, today is the anniversary of the first Serb uprising against the Ottoman rule (1804), as well as the anniversary of Serbia's first Constitution (1835). The quisling regime celebrates it as "Statehood Day" - something they themselves know nothing of. And apparently, neither does Madam Clinton.

War Porn

I've already addressed the dreary slog of Angelina Jolie's Bosnian War movie from the artistic standpoint; now that I've had a chance to observe the promotional efforts and official commentary, I'd like to address its political implications.

The film opens in Mordor-on-the-Potomac this weekend, and Jolie, Pitt and their brood were in town promoting it. Jolie even paid an emotional visit to the Holocaust Museum, and its Bosnia exhibit.

Critics mostly agree that the movie is a stinker. The fact that it's being shown in only a small number of art-house theaters suggests the producers are aware of this too. As Peter Brock (author of the outstanding "Media Cleansing") noted in his write-up, propaganda movies about the Balkans have never done well at the box office.

Then again, moneymaking never figured highly in Empire's motivations to intervene in the Balkans. Whether the goal was sticking it to the Russians, keeping Europeans in their place, enjoying the worshipful groveling of eager regional clients, seeking to impress jihadists worldwide - or any combination thereof - the Empire's white-knighting project in the Balkans has been about power.

Commercial films seek to make a profit. Art films want at least to break even while telling a story. Propaganda films aim to preach; for them, breaking even or profiting at the box office is useful, but not necessary. Jolie's film, a textbook example of "chetnixploitation", is intended to reinforce the official narrative by demonizing the designated villain. So, Serbs bad, Muslims (Croats, Albanians, etc.) good, and the Empire is the shining savior from aggression, rape and genocide. And if not, it should be - so says the Power Doctrine.

The title of the film was outright stolen from photographer Ron Haviv, a major source for Balkans imagery favoring the mainstream narrative. And Jolie herself has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (since 2007), a body behind much of Empire foreign policy.

Lo and behold, all the elements come together in a review in The Atlantic: Jolie "gets the war right", there is mention of the CFR and Power's work, all the memes and motifs are reinforced - and then Jolie is mildly criticized for being less than subtle (!) about hammering them home. Because the Empire is all about subtlety, after all...

To the Imperial establishment Jolie represents, it doesn't really matter that the film stinks. The story is hackneyed. Though the actors do their best (I've seen them in other productions), their lines are just terrible. Even the imagery itself is derivative, trying hard to present the Bosnian War as a re-run of the Holocaust - as seen in movies.

Why now, though? Could it be that, faced with a bleak economy at home and the inglorious end of two foreign wars, the Empire needs to trumpet a "success" to its populace (and oh so coincidentally, one that the Clintons can claim credit for)? Thing is, the Bosnian War ended 16 years ago. Few Americans cared about it at the time, and fewer still care about it now. Worse yet, Empire's white-knighting experiment turned out to be a complete and utter failure. The "rescued damsels" did not respond with gushing gratitude - quite the contrary. So all Jolie's film actually manages to do is underscore the Empire's pathetic disconnect from reality.

As for the whole knights-in-shining-armor rescuing-the-world myth, authentic war footage just exploded that. Professionally produced war porn, just like the actual kind, just cannot compete with amateurs anymore.

Chetnixploitation

Two years ago, a group of film critics launched a blog dedicated to "Chetnixploitation" - a subgenre in modern cinema devoted to the demonization of Serbs. Though in recent years it appeared to have been a passing fad, Chetnixploitation recently made a comeback, from a couple of throwaway lines in the latest Mission: Impossible movie to Angelina Jolie's directorial debut.

So, in the interest of public edification, and having been unable to find an adequate English-language explanation of the term, I've decided to provide a translation of the definition, as offered by the authors:

Chetnixploitation, noun

A common name for primarily cinematic works depicting the wars in the former Yugoslavia in a naive, one-sided, and grotesquely simplified manner; whether out of laziness/stupidity/ignorance or malice, all or almost all the horrors and atrocities are blamed on the Serbs ("Chetniks") while the responsibility of other participants in the wars (Croats, Bosnian Muslims, etc.) is either minimized, dismissed or even denied outright.
Such movies pretend to be art, yet amount to more or less camouflaged propaganda, seeking to "affirm" the black-and-white narrative of the Western media concerning the wars, with rigid roles allocated thus:

- Serbs ("Chetniks") are the aggressors, war criminals, rapists, robbers, murderers, terrorists, sadists. Bearded, with bloodshot eyes, bloodthirsty werewolves.

- Serb enemies (Bosnian Muslims, Croats, Albanians) are the VICTIMS: passive, pitiful, powerless, unarmed, principally women (to be tortured and raped) and children (poor crying orphans), innocent, with tear-washed suffering faces, sheep.

These films exploit the ethnic bigotry and the established imagery of the Serbs as war criminals, seeking to show (or in more sophisticated examples, suggest) their primary or even exclusive culpability for all the horrors of the Balkans Wars.

Iowa

The furor over the Iowa caucuses tonight is an illustration of the sad state of democracy in America. The mainstream media have done their best to create an atmosphere in which the whole process will be dismissed as a fluke if a particular candidate wins. Especially since that candidate is a man they have first ignored, then laughed at, then demonized... And yes, the quote attributed to Gandhi does come to mind here.

Much as it was decided in 2008 that the best heir to Bush the Lesser would be Barack the Blessed of Hopechange, the establishment has decided that the Republican candidate in November shall be Mitt Romney. Just look at the pattern in the GOP race so far: Romney gets treated as the front-runner, while every other candidate is built up and then torn down - a phenomenon Vox Day dubbed the "Romney-alternative-who-is-not-Ron-Paul wheel."

Trouble is, Paul isn't going away. He's a clear alternative to the establishment (as Vox puts it, to "Newt Romney O'Bama"), or to borrow what Phyllis Schlafly said about Barry Goldwater, "a choice, not an echo."

Predictably, the "smearbund" (Murray Rothbard's expression) tried hard to paint Paul as a racist. Unfortunately for them, that accusation has been the first resort of political scoundrels for so long, people have grown tired of it. It doesn't quite work anymore. It also happens to be a lie. So they accused Paul of being an anti-Semite instead. That, too, is untrue.

Today, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post almost called Paul a Nazi, while praising all the Imperial interventions that Paul has opposed. Cohen, by the way, argued passionately back in 2003 that "bagging Karadzic" would show the Muslim world all the white-knighting virtue and love of the United States, and win its never-ending gratitude. Well, Karadzic was "bagged" in 2008, Ratko Mladic last year, the US has created not one but two Islamic states in the Balkans (per Tom Lantos)... where's all the gratitude? Oh wait.

Daniel Greenfield really dislikes Ron Paul. He's convinced Paul's policy of dismantling the Empire is bad for the Jews and bad for Israel, suspects him of Islamophilia, even argues that Paul is working with George Soros. But it is Greenfield that wrote the best rebuttal of Cohen's idiotic rant, by pointing out that the U.S. never actually intervened to stop genocide. Not today, not in WW2, not ever.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I like Ron Paul. Back in 2004, I interviewed him for NIN - then a premier Serbian news magazine, later sold to a German consortium and thoroughly ruined - mostly about his principled opposition to America's illegal foreign wars. To prep for the interview, I did a fair bit of research on his voting record and where he stood on issues. And I have to say, even when I disagree with him (on immigration, for example), I respect him and his integrity. Assuming there is a way to save the United States of America from the consequences of imperialism - and forgive me if I'm not entirely convinced at this point that there is - Paul is the man who might be able to pull it off.

But even if I thought otherwise, even if I disliked the man and his ideas entirely, I'd still be objecting to the obvious problem of his treatment at the hands of the mainstream media and the political establishment. As should we all. Because what we're seeing here is what Philip Cunliffe noted about the 2008 Serbian elections: that democracy means whatever the Empire says it means.

So the Iowa caucuses will be declared legitimate, meaningful and proper only if the establishment's preferred candidate (i.e. Romney) wins. If Paul carries Iowa, it will be dismissed as a fluke, the whole caucus system will be derided as stupid and obsolete, and a host of other excuses will be enlisted to tell the general populace why what just happened didn't matter at all. Nothing to see here, move along, vote Romney O'Bama and the Bank Party in November, thankyouverymuch.

That sounds very much like a diabetic being forced to make a "choice" between Coca-Cola and Pepsi. It's not just that he doesn't get to choose water, it's that either of those will kill him.

A Dreary Slog

I have not seen Angelina Jolie's directorial debut. As I mentioned the other week, the trailer was enough for me to dismiss it as derivative, and the strong opinions of those who have seen it have only fortified my determination not to actually pay Ms. Jolie for the privilege of being insulted.

For better or for worse, the Serbs don't have an ethnic lobby in the US - neither a political pressure group, nor an organization set up to be professionally offended. The only bit of public outcry so far has been on the social networks, as well as this review from the American Serb publisher William Dorich, deservedly taking the film to task for misrepresenting the Bosnian War.

The government in Serbia is so useless, it may well promote the movie to show its commitment to the Empire. Things are somewhat different in the Bosnian Serb Republic, where there have been calls for a boycott and even banning the movie. All things considered, though, a public campaign against Jolie - by the "evil Serbs" no less - could only give her publicity. What to do, then?

As with many problems, this one sort of solved itself. You see, in addition to wallowing in bigotry, the  movie is actually rather terrible. It appears I wasn't the only one less than impressed with Jolie's film-making skills. Last week, the Onion's AV Club dismissed "In the Land of Blood and Honey" as "fevered good intentions gone awry, a dreary slog of a message movie with little but noble if unfulfilled aspirations to commend it," giving it a D+.

Writes critic Nathan Rabin:

"Serbian groups have justifiably complained about Jolie’s glib stereotyping of Serbs as racist heavies. Kostic, for example, emerges as the film’s hero almost exclusively by virtue of being somewhat less terrible than his contemporaries. Subtlety and understatement become collateral damage as Jolie drives her points home as forcefully as possible and the film devolves into a grubby melodrama that fails to edify or entertain."

While Jolie has successfully attracted the attention of the Western public to international atrocities, Rabin continues, "It’s possible, if not particularly likely, that someday she will get around to dramatizing atrocities compellingly as well, though her colorless work here suggests she’s a lot more likely to do that as an actress than as a filmmaker."

There you have it, then. For a much better story about the horrors of war, go see "War Horse" instead.

The German Fixation

Angela Merkel may be an Ossie, but she was definitely channeling American emperors on Monday, telling the German occupation garrison in Kosovo that Germans "should always remember that our security and our peace back home are down to troops serving their country here."

Pray tell, Angie, how does re-enacting the Third Reich's Balkans adventure contribute to Germany's security and peace? It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that such an argument is nonsensical - and then there is proof, too.

Equally obvious is that Germany gets off on bludgeoning Serbia. This goes beyond realpolitik and eternal interests, too. German companies already own much of the Serbian media and the banking sector. If they wanted a client state, Serbia was theirs for the taking - Djindjic was a Germanophile, and the Tadic government literally took groveling to a whole new level. No, there is clearly more at work here than political and economic interests. It could be historical memory - blaming the Serbs for thwarting German designs in both world wars, for example - or, more likely, an attempt to exorcise Germany's own ghosts through transference: if the Serbs are genocidal aggressors, surely the world can stop going to the Nazi well for the standard of villainy, right? (Yeah, good luck with that.)

Part of the trouble is that the victorious Allies chose to impose victors' justice at the Nuremberg trials, rather than try to explain to the Germans why the Nazi ideology was evil. In effect, Germans were to consider the Nazis evil because the powers that defeated them said so - and that's been their ongoing frustration ever since. It wasn't until recently, with Oliver Hirschbiegel's Der Untergang (2004), that the Nazis were approached as three-dimensional human beings rather than cardboard cut-outs, their villainy actually shown and explained. I dare you to watch the part where Frau Goebbels murders her children and make apologies for National-Socialism afterwards. If you are somehow able to do so, then seek help.

Yet it does seem that the Germans have "learned nothing and forgotten nothing", to borrow a phrase from Talleyrand. How else to explain the fact that Berlin, no matter the party in charge, thinks nothing of overtly supporting Hitler's henchmen (see here, with photos, and also here)? Far more troubling is that the British, the French and especially the Americans not only don't object, but actively support such policy. The only ones to object are the Russians - but they are shrugged off as impotent Cold War losers. Indeed, the Soviet contribution to defeating Hitler (90% or so of the war effort in Europe) is routinely minimized, and the Eurocrats are now endeavoring to equate Nazism and Communism. Russian support for the Serbs is dismissed as irrational feelings of ethnic and religious kinship, while Western support for Serbenrein Croatia or Magna Albania is supposedly noble, pure, and the paragon of humanitarianism (!?)

Germans understandably want to avoid constantly being compared to the Nazis. Don't act like the Nazis, then. Bombing Belgrade, supporting a Serb-persecuting chauvinist regime in Croatia and the establishment of a greater Albanian state, occupying Serb territory with tanks and troops, and insisting that Serbia become a member of the "European family of nations" but only if it gives up much land and its own identity - those are all things Germany did not just back in 1941-45, but again from 1991 onwards.

Want greatness again? Remember Bismarck. He wanted friendship with Russia, thought the Balkans wasn't worth the "bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier", and (reportedly) died with "Serbia" on his last breath.

Speaking of grenadiers, I'd like to remind those German (and Austrian) troops in Kosovo that, before they act on any desires they may have to shoot those pesky Serbs refusing to roll over and die, they ought to remember their Bible:

Da sprach Jesus zu ihm; Stecke dein Schwert an seinen Ort! denn wer das Schwert nimmt, der soll durchs Schwert umkommen.(Matthaeus, 26:52, Martin Luther's translation)

And with that in mind, fröhliche Weihnachten!

Havel

There is a particular group of politicians who emerged in central and eastern Europe (as well as the Balkans) in the late 1980s, who played a major role in the dismantling of Communism and bringing about "democracy". Along with Nelson Mandela of South Africa, NATOland has made these people into a fetish of sorts, epic heroes deserving of worship.

It is indicative, though, that in their own countries they are either shunned, or outright reviled (as is the case with Gorbachev, for example), rightfully regarded as people who made out well for themselves and their cronies, but brought widespread misery to everyone else, through the great robbery project known as "transition".

One of these men, Vaclav Havel, died yesterday. His opus as a writer is already pretty much forgotten. Likewise his tenure as Czech president. What Havel may well end up being remembered for is his enthusiastic support for the Imperial doctrine of "humanitarian intervention", which he preached in 1999 as bombs were raining on Serbia. As victims of the original Munich "agreement," the Czechs may also find it ironic that Havel supported its modern-day equivalent. 

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the events of the past two decades were not some sort of "end of history," but rather a temporary distortion of world affairs due to the demise of the USSR and the ensuing vacuum the Atlantic Empire endeavored to fill. What order of affairs will end up replacing this age of transition, I do not know. However, I do hope it won't remember Havel and his ilk as heroes.

Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens built his career on hating. That is why I never really dwelt on his Serbophobia in particular. He hated the Serbs because hating the Serbs was the fashionable thing to do in the circles he moved in, and it is pointless to debate one's tastes in fashion, however ghastly they might be.

Hitchens was perhaps best known for his obnoxious atheism, a hatred of [the Jewish and Christian] God. So I think it most appropriate to cite here the elegant epitaph penned by blogger Vox Day, author of The Irrational Atheist:

The conglomeration of atoms that were, for a very brief moment in history, collectively known by the name Christopher Hitchens, have begun to disperse. The universe continues as before, uncaring and unaware.

Thanks, Angie

It just occurred to me that I haven't posted anything here since mid-November; I've been entirely too preoccupied with my other blog, Antiwar.com, and travel.

So, to recap: the Kosovo Serbs' citizenship gambit failed, when Moscow refused them on a technicality. The barricades remain, however, in spite of all the attempts to get them dismantled. Speaking of which, the German and Austrian complaints about the "violence" - when it was their fully armed and armored troops that initiated violence against the Serb civilians - has to be the pinnacle of cynicism.

It did Belgrade no good to make yet another set of capitulations to the KLA "state" Saturday night; the EU decided to put its candidacy on ice until the formal recognition of "Kosovia", and whatever new demands they come up with thereafter. In a way - and quite unintentionally I'm sure - the Austro-German axis running the show is actually doing the Serbs a favor: had the quisling regime's obsequiousness been rewarded by a candidacy, meaningless and symbolic as it is, they'd have smooth sailing till the April elections regardless of their manifest ineptitude, and the Serb resistance in Kosovo would have been undermined. As it is, the EUrocrats are sabotaging the very people working to please them. Well, no one said they were logical...

So, German Chancellor Angela Merkel deserves a thank-you note for what she did, however inadvertently, to keep Serbia out of EU bondage. I'm sure once the Serbs sort out their politics, that note will be forthcoming in some shape or form.

I'm not so sure about Angelina Jolie, though. Her directorial debut, "In the Land of Blood and Honey" is yet another take on a real-life romance between a Serb and a Muslim during the Bosnian War. Judging from the trailer and the few snippets of footage floating around, it's a derivative and disappointing bit of chetnixploitation, borrowing heavily from movies about the Holocaust. While Bosnia was a nasty (un)civil war, comparing it to the Holocaust is in horrifically poor taste at the very least, if not an outright insult to Holocaust victims.

There have been many films dealing with the Balkans wars in the past twenty years, but none of them have done any good financially. One would think Hollywood would have got the point by now.

In other news, the EU is coming apart at the seams, the Empire is trying to engineer a color revolution in Russia, the Iranians claim to have shot down a U.S. drone, and Pakistan is bolstering air defenses after "NATO" aircraft mauled two dozen of their troops last week. None of that is likely to turn out very well.

The Citizenship Gambit

Pictures of Vladimir Putin have long been part of the Serbian patriotic iconography. But now some Serbs are going a step further, petitioning Moscow for citizenship. Several sources reported Monday that a group of Serbs in the occupied province of Kosovo (illegally declared independent in February 2008 by an ethnic Albanian "government" backed by the US, EU and NATO) sent a note to the Russian government asking to become Russian citizens.

According to RT, the letter was addressed to the legislature, which may not even be the right address for this sort of thing (as a footnote, it could not have possibly come through via the "Russian Embassy in Kosovo" - since such an embassy ought not exist, given that Moscow doesn't recognize the breakaway province). This suggests that the petition is really a publicity stunt. What are we to make of it, then?

First of all, it is clearly a protest against Belgrade. At its essence, any government is a protection racket, and protecting the lives and property of its subjects (or citizens) is its primary function. By this standard, the current regime in Belgrade is a failed government. Not only has it done nothing to help its citizens in the occupied province, it has actively collaborated with the occupation authorities and even the separatist Albanian "government" to surrender any claim to Kosovo (while publicly pretending otherwise).

The Serbs in Kosovo have successfully resisted both the Albanians and their KFOR/EULEX enforcers, and they aren't about to see their success invalidated by a quisling coterie in Belgrade.Now, perhaps these Serbs have an inaccurate understanding of Russia's military and political capabilities, but it is by no means a stretch to argue that any government could do a better job of safeguarding their lives, liberty and property than the current one. And as the American Founders explained in their own Declaration of Independence, when a government fails its people, it is only reasonable for those people to exchange it for another. So, the principle of the proposed arrangement isn't unusual, only the logistics.

It would be going too far, however, to argue that Russia has a "duty" to say yes. The only country that ought to have a duty towards the Serbs in Kosovo is Serbia. By giving citizenship to the Serb petitioners, Russia would take upon itself the obligation to protect them with more than just words. Perhaps that is what the Serbs had in mind - but then they ought to know it isn't a decision to be made lightly.

Caged

Next week it will be two months since the Serbs in northern Kosovo erected roadblocks to oppose the Albanian government's attempted takeover of road crossings into the rest of Serbia. NATO's "peacekeeping" force and EU's "law and order mission" have both backed the Albanian takeover, and continue attempting to coerce the Serbs to submit to the self-proclaimed independent state.

On the rare occasion when Western mainstream media reports on the standoff, it uses terms such as "ethnic clashes". This not only suggests that the Serbs are being motivated by bigotry (following two decades of propaganda claiming that everything the Serbs did was based on bigotry), but also that the two communities are on some kind of equal footing. In actuality, the unarmed Serb civilians are squaring off against the well-armed Albanians, EULEX and KFOR, who in addition to teargas and pepper spray have  even used live ammunition. It is very telling that "ethnic clashes" was the official euphemism for the March 2004 pogrom some 40,000 or more ethnic Albanians perpetrated against the remaining Serbs in the occupied province.

I say "remaining," because hundreds of thousands of Serbs (and others, such as Roma, Turks, etc.) were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo since it was occupied by NATO and handed over to the Albanian separatist KLA in 1999. Over 1000 Serbs have been murdered, countless homes burned, churches destroyed and desecrated, and cemeteries bulldozed. All in the presence of NATO "peacekeepers," all with absolute impunity. Under NATO's "peace," two new Albanian insurrections broke out, in Macedonia and in southern Serbia.

Several pockets of Serbs survive in the south of the province, in ghettos surrounded by barbed wire and "protected" by NATO troops. The great irony is that without those troops, the Albanians would have murdered them by now; yet it was those NATO troops that made the Albanian takeover possible.

In the north of the province, the local Serbs succeeded in halting the KLA takeover in 1999, and have kept a watch on the roads ever since. The writ of the KLA regime does not run there, much to the frustration of the self-proclaimed state. Yet though the areas ruled by the Albanians are almost entirely devoid of non-Albanian inhabitants, while other communities live in peace on Serb-controlled territory, the Western press continues to refer to "Serb-dominated" areas. How about the entire "Albanian-dominated" province? Ah, but they also avoid "Albanian," preferring to use the politically correct euphemism "Kosovar," designed to promote the lie that they are the original inhabitants and rightful owners of the territory.

Recently the Albanian "government" in Pristina and the Albanian government in Tirana signed a deal to share consulates around the world, bringing them a step closer to "Natural Albania" - a state encompassing all territories claimed by ethnic Albanians. Dismissed as "Serb propaganda" in the 1990s, the idea is now publicly promoted by a political party in "Kosovo," and even has the endorsement of a prominent Imperial figure.Yet Imperial propaganda still seeks to dismiss concerns over this as unduly paranoid.

What's disappointing, though, is hearing media that aren't part of the Imperial propaganda mill, such as RT, using the Empire's propaganda phrases. By way of example, in this clip today the presenter used "Serb-dominated" to refer to the north of Kosovo, and reporter Aleksey Yaroshevsky claimed that the Serbs were growing "accustomed to living in the cage they have built for themselves."

Kosovo itself is a cage, not just for Serbs but for everyone else. Even the Albanians who live there are captives of a criminal regime and a bigoted ideology. The Serbs set up the barricades not to seal themselves in, but to keep NATO, EULEX and the KLA "officials" out. Which is precisely what they've done so far, despite all efforts to coerce them into submission. It was a desperate act of a people resisting repression and plans for extinction. They deserve better than to be maligned for it, least of all by people trying to hack the Empire's propaganda matrix.

I guess some people still need to realize there is no spoon.

Reeker's Switcheroo

Most of my predictions about the aftermath of the incident in Sarajevo last Friday have, sadly, come to pass. The Bosnian Muslim media have indeed made an effort to describe the attacker as "Serbian", and even made claims that he was an agent of Serbian intelligence services (!) sent to stir up trouble. Ever expanding the horizons of self-delusion, I suppose.

Some agencies and papers in the West also seized upon the "Serbian" angle, but most were happy to explain away the presence of jihadists in Bosnia as "fighters for independence" that came to fight the (entirely fictitious) "Greater Serbia" plot by the evil Slobodan Milosevic (!). Once again, jihad becomes the Serbs' fault somehow.

Now, this morning, Serbia's official news agency (Tanjug) reported on a press conference given in Sarajevo by the unfortunately named Philip Reeker, deputy assistant Secretary of State. There has been no English-language coverage of it yet, so there is no way of ascertaining what Reeker precisely said and what may have been lost in translation or omitted. However, what is mentioned in Tanjug's report, which again relies on local media, tracks with what I've seen so far. Reportedly, Reeker qualified Mevlid Jasarevic's attack as an "individual act" to be treated accordingly.

If this meant it would be swept under the rug like every other jihadist attack that goes against the narrative, that would be tragic and stupid, but about par for the course. Except it gets worse.

According to Tanjug (again citing the Sarajevo media), Reeker actually argued that Bosnia should use the attention it garnered by the attack (!). Apparently, he thinks this is a wonderful opportunity for Bosnia to press on with reforms that the Empire wishes to see - changes to the Constitution and the peace agreement that would bring about a more powerful (and Muslim-dominated) central government. This is borne out by his remark about resolving the issues over military property, in order for Bosnia to join NATO.

How is that an appropriate subject for a press conference about a jihadist attack? Would Bosnia being a member of NATO have made the slightest bit of difference last Friday? As usual, there is more to this than meets the eye: at issue isn't just the property of the country's joint military forces, but what is and isn't the property of the central government. Again, nothing to do with jihadist attacks - but everything to do with Empire's fetishes and fantasies about Bosnia.

If this sounds absurd and nonsensical, do recall that when ethnic Albanians rampaged around Kosovo for three days in 2004, in a pogrom against the Serbs, this was used by the Empire as an argument to reward them with independence. So why not reward acts of jihad, especially at someone else's expense? Remember, the objective is to make jihadists love the Empire.

Yet that is about as likely as Imperial officials deciding that jhad is not a wonderful policy asset. Which is to say, not at all.

Is it Jihad Yet?

photo: Beta

This is Mevlid Jasarevic, age 23, follower of the Salafi sect of Islam, who this afternoon opened fire on the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo, Bosnia. Jasarevic was subsequently shot and reportedly killed. [Clarification: Jasarevic was wounded and detained by the police.]

Because Jasarevic is from Novi Pazar, a town in Serbia, odds are the mainstream Western media will describe this as a "Serbian attack", or at least identify him as "Serbian citizen." This would be horribly misleading, of course, but that hasn't stopped them before.

Here are some things to keep in mind here, before the spin distorts them:

• Salafi missionaries came to Bosnia during the war, with tacit approval and even assistance of the U.S., to get the "wayward" Bosnian Muslims in line and wage jihad against the Serb and Croat "infidels."
• There are 150,000 or so Muslims in the Raska region of southwestern Serbia (which they call "Sanjak", a term going back to Ottoman days). Their religious leader, mufti Muamer Zukorlic, was appointed by the top Islamic cleric of Bosnia and has been stirring up trouble and preaching violence and hate for several years. In this, he enjoys the support of many foreign governments ("Friends of Sanjak"), including the U.S.
• Jasarevic may technically be a citizen of Serbia, but he is wanted there on charges of terrorism. He left Serbia last year, and settled in the Salafi commune of Gornja Maoca in northern Bosnia. Until it was ethnically cleansed during the Bosnian War, it used to be a Serb village called Karavlasi.

In addition to terrorizing any Christians (Serbs or Croats) they may come across, the Salafi frequently harass ordinary Bosnian Muslims, who by and large follow the Hanafi school of Islam. The Hanafi approach accepts local customs and is what made coexistence with Christians in the past possible in the first place. Salafists dismiss this as heresy and preach absolute intolerance of any who do not follow their ways.

Anyway, just watch: Jasarevic will be described as a lone lunatic, his motives will be "unknown", and there will be no mention of jihad or Islamic terrorism. The notion that the Salafists in Bosnia may be nurturing terrorists who threaten American lives runs counter to the mainstream narrative of innocent Muslims being victims of evil Serbs, and is therefore thoughtcrime.

Update (10/31/2011): Julia Gorin has a post up about this and other jihadist attacks, with links. Lots of links.

KFOR: drowning in own waste

Kurir (The Courier), a government-suborned Serbian daily, published a story this morning claiming that KFOR troops at Jarinje are facing serious problems due to the Serb barricades.

Citing a reportedly well-informed anonymous source, Kurir claims that NATO troops are facing a shortage of firewood, as none of the locals want to sell it to them, and their generators lack power to heat all the tents. Another problem is the accumulation of garbage and human waste, neither of which has been removed for over a month.

People manning the barricades have also noted a reduction in flights of big KFOR supply helicopters to Jarinje and Brnjak, suggesting that the birds are down for maintenance.


The story doesn't say anything about the troops' food supply, but one has to assume it is pretty dire, consisting mostly of field rations (MRE). All these problems combined add up to a growing morale problem, and suggest that KFOR troops can't maintain this state of affairs much longer. On the other hand, the Serbs don't seem to have nearly as much trouble with their logistics. So, trying to wait them out isn't going to work.

That leaves General Drews with two unpalatable options: back off, withdraw from the checkpoints and abort the attempt to install "Kosovian" authorities in the north - or escalate and use force against peaceful, unarmed civilians. KFOR stands to lose face either way, but at least backing off can be explained as abandonment of a policy that was beyond KFOR's mandate anyway. Bonus points if the blame can be shifted to General Buehler - who did, after all, have a personal interest in supporting Thaci's "government".

The question now is whether those in charge of KFOR have enough horse sense to realize they can't win this one. Though the fact that they got themselves involved in this mess in the first place strongly suggests otherwise.

That Terrible Votive Candle

Nooo, a votive candle! ATTACK!

What you see are the "brave" armored German troops (part of KFOR, NATO's "peacekeeping" mission in the occupied Serbian province of Kosovo), pepper-spraying an elderly Serb holding a votive candle. Well, how dare he?! In NATOworld, that's a clear act of aggression against the peace-loving NATO troops, whose mission is a purely humanitarian occupation. Clearly a case of "self-defense", isn't it?

In mid-September, KFOR deployed at two checkpoints on the roads between occupied Kosovo and the rest of Serbia. There, in a clear violation of its mandate, it installed ethnic Albanian police, who were charged with enforcing the blockade of the territory still inhabited by Serbs (and not under the control of the self-proclaimed ethnic Albanian "government").

The local Serbs responded by erecting makeshift roadblocks, trapping the occupiers. They have offered to remove the roadblocks, if Albanian officials and the illegal EU mission withdraw from the two checkpoints. KFOR refused, demanding unconditional surrender. Last night, it launched probing attacks on all barricades.

The occupiers' claim they want to create "freedom of movement" is cynical in the extreme. They are only interested in free movement of themselves, the EULEX, and the illegal ethnic Albanian government - but not the Serbs. No, the Serbs are supposed to accept living in ghettos surrounded by barbed wire, being blown up and shot at for target practice (only one Serb-killer has ever been convicted, and EULEX released him), and suffer beatings, abuse and imprisonment for simply existing (i.e. crossing the "border" with Serbian license plates, or carrying Serbian flags). That's "freedom," KFOR-style. Grandfathers of today's German "peacekeepers" would find it very familiar.

Does KFOR really think the Serbs will surrender? They aren't dealing with the spineless government in Belgrade here, but the people that have nothing to lose and value freedom and dignity more than life itself. Don't they watch their own movies? I haven't the slightest doubt as to who will ultimately triumph in this confrontation. It may take a bit longer for KFOR peacebreakers to figure it out, though.

UPDATE (10/21/2011, 9 AM): I just heard that KFOR commander, German General Drews, claimed that he had "documented" evidence the Serbs had attacked KFOR with teargas! I presume he is referring to the incident where his semi-trained troops gassed themselves while trying to gas the Serbs? (See video here).

Note that the troops in question were Austrian. German and Austrian soldiers occupying Serbia and gassing Serb civilians, 70 years to the day of German (and Austrian) troops shooting thousands of Serb civilians in Kragujevac as "reprisals" for resistance to Nazi occupation; now that's just sickening.

Two Days Till Peace

I have been traveling a bit, hence the light posting. Last week, I was in the Canadian capital, at the promotion of a book.

"Two Days Till Peace" is an extraordinary war memoir, based on the journal kept by Mile Jovicic, the last antebellum director of the Sarajevo Airport. He jotted down the events that unfolded around him as he struggled to keep the airport open and assist with the evacuation of almost 30,000 people from Sarajevo, as Bosnia descended into (un)civil warfare.

Given his duties, Jovicic actually met most of the civilian and some military leaders involved in the early days of the war, who passed through his airport on the way to doomed negotiations and botched prisoner exchanges. His book is a testimony of a chaotic time in early 1992, and the many missed opportunities to avoid the bloodshed that ensued. It is very much a forgotten tale, since it doesn't fit the official narrative, and I'm glad he saved it from oblivion with this memoir.

The headline presenters were Ambassador James Bissett, the last Canadian envoy to the old Yugoslavia, and Maj. Gen. Lewis MacKenzie (Ret.), commander of the UNPROFOR staff in Sarajevo at the time (and chiefly responsible for the airport re-opening eventually). The third speaker was yours truly. All three of us had reviewed the book, and our comments are on the back cover. It isn't often an author can round up three of his reviewers at a book launch!

The venue was pretty full, and the books in the lobby sold out quickly. If you are interested, you can order the book from the publisher website, or through Amazon.

Why It Should Matter

I have a new post up on Barely a Blog, run by the brilliant Ilana Mercer. (Ilana is a terrific writer, superb researcher and a classical liberal par excellence; if you're not a fan of hers, you should be.)

If you want to help others understand why what is happening in the Balkans matters in the grand scheme of things, I've laid it out there, in 700 words or less. I can expand upon just about anything in there, at great length - but that's the gist of it.

As for the why and wherefore, my theory is that it's all about power. As Robert Higgs has documented, the U.S. government has a history of claiming more powers for itself in times of emergency. Not surprisingly, that ends up resulting in a constant state of emergency, with government authority approaching infinity.

Now apply that to the international stage. The Cold War is over, the rules you once agreed upon to constrain your rival (who vanished almost overnight) are now constraining you, and you need to find a new cause to justify your dream of a "benevolent global hegemony". So you find (and just in case, instigate and stoke) a brutal civil war somewhere prominent, which gives you a pretext to posture at white-knighting, and get rid of those pesky laws and rules in the process.

If that happens to replicate the policies of Hitler 50 years prior - who's going to notice? Your people only know Hollywood history anyway. If you can declare your targets the Nazis Reborn, adding insult to injury, so much the better. All for the sake of bringing about the desired End of History...

People who dismiss American exceptionalism don't realize that it actually does exist - albeit not in the way its proponents would appreciate. This may well be the first hegemon in world history that self-destructs by dismantling the underlying principles of its own hegemony, because they are considered inconvenient. The proverbial cutting the branch one's posterior rests upon, as it were.

Humanitarian Intervention - Isn't

The edition of RT's "Crosstalk" that was taped Monday morning was shown last night, and is up on RT's website today.

While I don't have much to say about Ian Williams' boilerplate interventionism, I found myself intrigued by some of the arguments of Isa Blumi. Of course I find the claim that the Empire was somehow in cahoots with Milosevic absolutely preposterous; if that was collaboration, what's hostility like?

Blumi also argued that dictators who can quash dissent quickly aren't picked as targets of "humanitarian" bombs. If true, this would greatly undermine the case for interventionism , since by implication, the Empire isn't noble and caring but rather coldly opportunistic, and only picks safe victims for its self-righteous knight-errantry.Which, of course, tracks with everything I've argued over the years.

However, Blumi's argument founders on the shoal of Kosovo. Milosevic actually had the KLA crushed, not once but twice - in 1997, and again in 1998. The first time it was resurrected by Germany's BND, and the second time the US intervened to save it, by sending Holbrooke to treat with the KLA. Holbrooke, Talbott, Norris, and others have outright confessed that this wasn't about the Albanians at all, or even about breaking Serbia (which did figure into the equation, mind you), but all about establishing dominion in the Balkans and keeping Russia out and down.

Interventionists would have us believe they are knights-errant riding around the world bombing "bad guys" and "liberating" their people from "tyranny." Spare me. They are in it for their own purposes - often for natural resources, but always for power.

And no one, not Williams, not Blumi, not any of the US and EU diplomats, not Blair's chief spin-doctor Alistair Campbell (currently on the blood-drenched payroll of Crime Minister Thaci) has ever managed to explain how "protecting and saving" people is accomplished by killing them.

"We had to destroy the village to save it," an American soldier famously quipped to a reporter in Vietnam.
Well, that's why you lost.

And There Was Blood

On September 16, exactly forty days after their July fiasco, KFOR and EULEX confirmed their outlaw status by repeating the attempt to seize two "border crossings" between occupied Kosovo and the rest of Serbia. Tasked with peacekeeping under UN resolution 1244, the only document making their presence in the province even resemble something legal, both organizations chose to place themselves into the service of Hashim Thaci and his "independent state of Kosova".

As in 1999, they thought it would be easy: they show up with overwhelming force, string barbed wire across the road, install Thaci's "customs agents" and prevent any Serb traffic in or out of the province until they recognize the occupation government. They did not expect resistance. They did not expect the local Serbs, betrayed and abandoned by the government in Belgrade, to block the "peackepeers" in turn - with trucks, concrete blocks, earthen berms, and even their own bodies.

For eleven days, KFOR and the Serbs faced off. KFOR would tear down a Serb barricade, only to find a new one built to replace it. German and American troops - together in a mission of repressing Serbs, how ironic - threatened to shoot, but never dared. Until this morning, when they did.

They claim "self-defense." Sure they do. They claim it was the Serbs' fault. Sure they would. Isn't it always? Yes, by all means blame the local population for refusing to submit to an illegal occupation and its illegal blockade, harassment and repression. Keep in mind that those Serbs who use the Albanian checkpoints routinely get arrested, beaten, or have their vehicles impounded or destroyed - yet KFOR and EULEX do nothing. So much for the U.S. and NATO standing for "freedom". Yes, "freedom" is when you get the right to do as you're told, and nothing else. Dare refuse, and you become a "rogue."

Here is something the "repressive, lawless military occupation force" (in the words of former UNMIK official Gerard Gallucci, an American) doesn't seem to understand: they are up against the people who have nothing to lose but their lives. The fact that they decided to stay and defend their homes, facing down the Albanians, KFOR and even the betrayal of their own government - well, the quislings in Belgrade anyway - ought to indicate these people will not surrender. As did the barricades and the sit-ins.

Serbs passing a cabbage dish to a German soldier at Jarinje, September 18, 2011

Last week, the Serbs at that very barricade shared their food with the German occupiers, in an act of good will. Today, that was repaid with bullets.

KFOR claims it was targeted by "pipe bombs." Amateur Serbs, reporting from the area as they have for the past two months, say the locals used clumps of dirt, rocks and "cheerleader flares" (sparklers used at soccer games). Those are not "pipe bombs." And unarmed people facing off heavily armed troops is not a "clash," but a massacre waiting to happen. KFOR also lied about using rubber bullets. Video evidence clearly shows live ammo.

Apparently it was Americans who opened fire. How ironic. They've effectively changed sides from 70 years ago, assisting Germans and proud heirs of Hitler's allies against their own historical ally.

If you think my invocation of WW2 is improper, consider this: one of the Serbs detained this morning - prior to the shooting - protested (see source account here) his treatment to KFOR by saying that "it's beginning to look like Auschwitz around here" (referring, presumably, to thick barbed wire and armed German guards). KFOR's response was, "Not yet. We don't have gas chambers for you."

For shame, KFOR. If you still have any.

UPDATE (17:30 EDT): I just spoke to RT about the events. Not sure when the video will be available.
Again, these weren't "clashes". This wasn't KFOR acting in "self-defense." It was KFOR being the muscle for Hashim Thaci's illegal government, abusing the population that protested in a peaceful and civilized manner. In 1999, KFOR stood idly by as KLA rampaged across the province, driving hundreds of thousands out and burning their homes and churches. In 2004, KFOR stood by again, letting Thaci's followers expel and burn out thousands more. Now KFOR is assisting Thaci openly, and to what end? Hoping that these last Serbs either submit to Thaci's thug "state", or pack up and leave?

Some "democracy." Some "freedom." Some "law and order."