American Council for Kosovo - News from the American Council for Kosovo

ICJ on Kosovo: Less Than Meets the Eye

The three-hour-long reading of the majority opinion of the International Court of Justice had barely begun when cheerleaders of the pseudo-state hit the world media with their pronunciamentos that the Kosovo question had been settled in favor of independence. Their sole piece of evidence was the tortured holding of ten of the judges that the February 2008 unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) 'did not violate general international law.'

Leave aside for the moment that, on cue, the ICJ's insubstantial observation immediately was morphed � as the ten unworthies knew it would be � into 'Kosovo independence is in accordance with international law' and thence, to 'Kosovo really is a state.'

Leave aside the damage done to the reputation of what had been one of the few institutions of the international system that had been respected as relatively resistant to political pressure.

Leave aside the short-term jubilation of the Albanian mafia kingpins who run Kosovo and their shills worldwide, as well as the comparable disheartenment of not only Serbs but anyone with a decent respect for justice and the very concept of the rule of law.

Instead, ask: what really happened at the Court, and what difference will it make? Short answer to both parts of the question: not much.

As to the decision itself: The majority opinion rambled at length, combining the best of sophistry with the worst of pettifoggery, to justify answering not the question the ICJ was asked, but the one the majority preferred to answer. Specifically, since the (Albanian Muslim) Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG) created under UN Security Council Resolution 1244 obviously had no authority to declare anything valid about the province's status, the majority declined to answer the validity of a declaration of the PISG qua PISG.

Instead, the Provisional Institutions � or rather the same individuals who both issued the UDI and who constitute the PISG, but were somehow not acting as the PISG when they issued the UDI � were transformed by an act of pure invention of the Court into a voice of the people of Kosovo generally (as if such existed), whose declaration was outside of (though not, it seems, in violation of) any identifiable legal constraint. Since anyone can 'declare' anything without impacting international law, which concerns only actions of states, international law was, ergo, not violated.

It is a stunning perversion of any concept of juridical thought. If one takes the time to read the majority opinion (which almost no one actually does � it is enough to refer to it in respectful tones) and compare it to the dissents, the worthlessness of the former is inescapably evident.

More important is what comes next on the international political front. Predictably, the Obama Administration � notably Vice President Joseph Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton � weighed in immediately, the former with a friendly call to Serbian President Boris Tadic, the latter with an appeal to the world community to jump on board the Kosovo recognition train bound for glory and the EU. As for the Biden-Tadic 'come to Jesus' talk, I'll leave the speculation to others. As for the Clinton appeal, we shall see what the real political waves may be. My guess is, again: not much.

To be sure, the global hosannas to the Court included the usual caveats regarding Kosovo's 'uniqueness' and implied notice stamped on the opinion that negative consequences of any principle of law cited herein applicable only to Serbs. Separatists around the world seem not to have gotten the memo, however. Already we hear the 'us too' chorus from Palestinians, Armenians (Nagorno-Karabakh), Ossetians, Abkhazians, Catalans, Basques, Kurds, etc.

To the extent that most global opposition to Kosovo's supposed statehood is generated by fear of separatism, this decision paradoxically will scare many more countries than it convinces. Spain and Romania have already reaffirmed their firm opposition. Slovakia and Cyprus will be unshakable. (Greece, unreliable from the start, is a greater concern.) But when the matter is examined country by country, it is apparent that the decision may prompt another dozen recognitions, a score at most.

This still would not be a majority in the UN General Assembly, and still not a way to get past a Russian and Chinese veto under Chapter Two, Article 4 of the UN Charter, according to which membership is by '� decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.' Not only Russia and China, but the rest of a world where Washington's voice matters less and less will not be swayed but will be even more adamant in their opposition to legitimating separatism: India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico, Ukraine, Georgia, most of Latin America, most of Africa.

What might have been� The real tragedy is that if the independence of the Court � heretofore one of the less disreputable of the UN institutions � had not been subverted, and if a decent decision had been forthcoming, the possible ratchet the other way might have been significant. Some countries � Czech Republic comes to mind � having been bullied into what they know to be an immoral and destructive position, might have used the Court's ruling as an excuse to do the right thing and withdraw recognition. That path to 'walking the dog back,' and perhaps setting the stage for genuine and serious negotiations, unfortunately, is closed for the foreseeable future. What we will have is what we have now: stalemate, tension, and threat of violence.

Viewed in context, the ICJ advisory ruling is a setback, a crying shame, and a perversion of truth and justice. In other words, just more of the same we have seen in the Balkans since 1991 and even before. What it means finally is that the multi-front struggle continues, not only for Kosovo but for simple honesty and decency. So what has changed?

Bishop Artemije Condemns Violent Provocations Against Serbian Elections in Kosovo, Calls on International Authorities for Protection

June 1 -- Bishop Artemije, spiritual leader of Orthodox Christian Serbs in the Province of Kosovo and Metohija condemned violent attacks on Serbs excercising their legitimate democratic rights in local elections held on Sunday, May 30. He called on the United Nations authority and foreign military forces present in Kosovo under UN authority to protect Serbs from violent provocations. He also praised actions by local Serbs and called for the Serbian government to support them.

In an exclusive statement to the American Council for Kosovo, Bishop Artemije said:

"It is clear anyone what is the nature of these attacks. According to media, these 'demonstrations' were launched by so-called 'Kosovo Liberation Army veterans' protesting Serbian local elections to �protect Kosovo's sovereignty.' We must translate this into normal human language: members of a Islamic terrorist organization headed by mafia figures Tha�i, Haradinaj, and �eku, have organized attacks on Christian Serbs holding legitimate democratic elections in their own country for the supposed purpose of 'protecting' the nonexistent 'sovereignty' of an illegal, lawless separatist entity.

"I categorically condemn these attacks and call on all persons in any position of authority to do likewise. When the United Nations and various foreign countries undertook civil administration in Kosovo and Metohija following the illegal NATO war against our country, they also undertook, under UNSC 1244, the moral obligation to protect peaceful people engaged in legitimate pursuits. What can be more legitimate than Serbs voting in Serbian elections in Serbia? Yet this is used as a pretext for violent attacks! The UN and foreign military forces must not allow what are clearly intended as a practice run for a violent seizure of those small parts of Kosovo and Metohija where Serbs still enjoy a minimum degree of security.

"It is important for the Serbian local administration resulting from these elections to be formed as soon as possible, and for it to receive the fullest possible support from authorities in Belgrade. I commend the Serbs of Kosovo and Metohija for the restrained but steadfast manner in which they have resisted these latest provocations."

The Debacle of Serbia's "Lobbying" in Washington

The lobbying contract between the Government of Serbia and Milan Petrovic's firm appears still to be in force, but it is hard to be sure since there are no discernable activities being performed. And of course that is the real scandal, in which the 'yellow' press organs in Belgrade obsessed with my work for Bishop Artemije seem to take no interest. Since the suspension of Bishop Artemije of Ras and Prizren from administration of his Eparchy, efforts have been made by some to use my role as a lobbyist in Washington on his behalf as a weapon in the campaign against him. I already have addressed elsewhere the questions, first raised last week by Blic (parroting an Albanian-American source), about the source of the funds used for lobbying in the U.S. and whether their use for that purpose was legitimate application of the ruling Bishop's discretion.

But the more damaging thing about these attacks is the notion that lobbying for Serbia's right to keep Kosovo was somehow a 'waste' of money, and that there were no results from it. This is more than a belittlement of the efforts that were expended by my firm and those working with us. It is, rather, a suggestion that it is immoral and futile for Serbia to struggle for her interests by lobbying to change US policy.

When we started in the spring of 2006 we were the only professional (as opposed to volunteer) activity lobbying on behalf of the Serbian cause. Our activities, through a US nonprofit organization we created, the American Council for Kosovo, were not confined to narrowly focused lobbying in the form of quiet meetings with American officials and Congressmen. More importantly, we knew we had to change the terms of debate on Kosovo, from a place where the noble West saved innocent Albanian Muslims from evil Serbs, to a place where the criminal, terrorist U�K was committing genocide of Christian Serbs. Most of our activities in the U.S. and elsewhere (Britain, Germany, Israel, India, Italy, the EU, Russia, etc.), often in cooperation with The Lord Byron Foundation and with the support of other volunteers, were focused on public opinion. We forced people to look at "the other side" of the Kosovo story, to the outraged howls of the Albanian lobby that we were trying to "hijack" US policy. While we were not able to overturn an American policy misinformed by decades of Albanian (and Croatian) anti-Serb propaganda, I believe were successful in helping to delay Washington's final push for almost two years, giving Serbia a chance to fight back. Our contract, only a part of which was ever paid, was for $100,000 per month, including (about 40% of the total) cost of advertising, conferences, travel, and other expenses.

In evaluating our degree of success, it might be useful to make a couple of comparisons. A few months after we began our effort under the direction of Vladika Artemije, the Serbian government (under Prime Minister Kostunica) hired another firm, Barbour Griffith and Rodgers, to lobby officially on its behalf. That contract was for $60,000 per month, plus costs. As far as has been publicly disclosed, they were not specifically tasked with lobbying on Kosovo, but such concentration can be inferred. Their activities were entirely closed-door meetings, and they did no public activities to make Serbia's case. They were dropped soon after the UDI in February 2008.

In the summer of 2009, Belgrade (the current government) hired another firm, Chicago-based Advanced Practical Solutions, for $85,000 per month, plus most costs. As a professional lobbyist, I don't generally like to throw rocks at a competitor, but APS seems an odd choice. They have no active website and apparently not even a Washington office. APS's President, Mr. Milan Petrovic, is known mostly as a top fundraiser for former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. According to press reports, when "Blago" was governor APS did a nice little business steering state contracts to its clients, mainly in the healthcare field. The operation fell apart with the Antoin "Tony" Rezko bribery conviction, Blagojevich's resignation, and Petrovic's withdrawal from the Indiana bar to avoid imminent expulsion. Maybe APS was hired by the Tadic government because it's a "Serbian firm," although that in itself means nothing. But an online search of US political campaign records finds several contributions to candidates (all Democrats: Blagojevich, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama) by an APS employee named Shqipe Osmani, which doesn't sound Serbian.

The APS contract appears still to be in force, but it's hard to be sure since there are no discernable activities being performed. And of course that's the real scandal, in which the 'yellow' press organs obsessed with my work for Bishop Artemije seem to take no interest. I wonder why.

I'm sure these figures for lobbying activities in the US must seem astronomical to readers in Serbia, where people are struggling to scrape by. The sad fact is, this is the kind of money it takes to array a battery of experienced media and lobbying professionals, usually with experience as government officials, Congressmen, Senators, and (like me) Congressional staff. These are people who have the access to make a foreign country's - or politician's, or political party's - case heard in Washington's corridors of power.

Many countries a lot poorer than Serbia have made the decision it's an investment they need to make, if only for self-protection. It is a choice Bishop Artemije, to his credit, made when no one else on the Serbian side was willing to step forward. And now there are those who seek to punish him for it, and punish Serbia too. Thats not just a crime, it's a blunder.

An Anti-Serbian Vendetta

Morton Abramowitz and Daniel Serwer call for European countries to join Washington in once again casting Serbia as the source of all problems in the region ("Balkan Troubles," State of the Union, Jan. 6). One would think that, in light of the failure of the very anti-Serbian policies Messrs. Abramowitz and Serwer have championed, they would refrain for calling for more of the same.

Perhaps unconsciously, the authors could not fail to admit that the question of my home province of Kosovo and Metohija remains unresolved. It is quite clear even to them that all the recognition on the part of the U.S. and EU countries means nothing if Serbia refuses to recognize that unilaterally and illegitimately proclaimed independence.

Messrs. Abramowitz and Serwer admit that Kosovo "barely functions" despite the pretense of independent statehood by its ethnic Albanian administration dominated by the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). As they note, two-thirds of the world's countries have refused to recognize this blatantly illegal separatist claim. Even many of the European countries duped by Washington into granting recognition clearly have come to regret their decision, as evidenced by their vote in favor of a U.N. General Assembly resolution in September to refer the Kosovo case to the International Court of Justice. In opposing the resolution, Washington could muster the support only of Albania, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Nauru and Micronesia.

Instead of calling for a renewal of the anti-Serbian vendetta that has characterized Western policy in recent years, Messrs. Abramowitz and Serwer should look into the real state of affairs in Kosovo. For example, the KLA administration continues to stonewall efforts by Serbian prosecutors and organizations like Human Rights Watch to find out what happened to some 300 members of my flock who were kidnapped. According to former Hague prosecutor Carla Del Ponte (hardly a Serbophile), they had their organs removed for the illegal transplant trade and were later killed. Or perhaps a few livers and kidneys are not worthy of notice when the victims are only Serbs.

Bishop Artemije
Bishop of Ras and Prizren
Gracanica Monastery
Kosovo and Metohija, Serbia

Kosovo prelude to Georgia?

In anticipation of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, President Bush said "Georgia's territorial integrity and borders must command the same respect as every other nation's."

Critics of Russia's action include Sens. Barack Obama, Joseph Biden and Joseph Lieberman; Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former United Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke; and many others in the bipartisan establishment.

Among the specific criticisms are Russia's violation of the sovereign territory of Georgia, a fledgling democracy and a member of the United Nations; a disproportionate response to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili's attempt to settle South Ossetia's status by force, including Russian military operations well outside of South Ossetia; and Moscow's tardiness in withdrawing its forces under a deal brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Evidently irony is not much appreciated in Washington. It seems critics have forgotten President Bush's recognition of the independence of Kosovo, a province of democratic, U.N. member Serbia. President Bush's reference to "every other nation" whose "territorial integrity and borders must command the same respect" apparently has at least this one exception. If he can violate the United Nations Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, which guarantee sovereign borders, what right does he have to accuse others of doing the same?

If Moscow stepped over the line in its crushing military response to Mr. Saakashvili's offensive, what do we call 78 straight days of NATO's bombing throughout Serbia, destroying most of that country's civilian infrastructure? If Russia is to be faulted for imperfect implementation of the Sarkozy agreement, what can be said about Washington's violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244, which ended the 1999 Kosovo war and reaffirms Serbian sovereignty in the province?

The standard reasons cited for making Serbia an exception to the rule we demand in Georgia is that NATO intervened to stop genocide of Kosovo's Albanians and that they will never again accept being part of Serbia. But after the war actual casualties among all ethnic groups - whether by military action, atrocities committed by both Serbs and Albanians, and the toll of NATO's bombing - proved to be far fewer than those cited in justification for the war. Compared to South Ossetia's much smaller population, mutual accusations of genocide against South Ossetians and Georgians, respectively, are proportionally larger than those at issue in Kosovo. And are South Ossetians and Abkhazians less adamant that they will not submit to Tbilisi's rule than Kosovo's Albanians are with respect to Belgrade?

It also should be kept in mind that Kosovo's legal status is very different from that of entities in the former Soviet Union. Under the Yugoslav constitution - the same authority that justified the secession of Croatia, Slovenia, etc. - Kosovo, part of Serbia since before Yugoslavia was formed, has no legal claim to independence. In contrast, the 1990 Soviet law on secession - which was the legal basis of the independence of Union Republics such as Georgia - required that autonomous entities within their borders be allowed, via referenda, to remain in the Soviet Union, and by extension its successor, Russia.

Thus, while Kosovo's status as part of Serbia is unquestionable, South Ossetia and Abkhazia can make a good case they were part of Soviet Georgia but never the current independent state of Georgia. (The same would apply to Transdniestria with respect to Moldova and Nagorno-Karabakh with respect to Azerbaijan. When will they follow suit?)

By trashing the accepted international "rules of the road" on Kosovo, Washington has created what amounts to the rules of the jungle. Each power acts as it will, either to suppress restive minorities or to compromise other countries' borders: The United States tries to force Serbia to accept Kosovo's independence and pressures other countries (without much success) to recognize it; Georgia tries to subdue the Ossetians and the Abkhazians and fails; Russia moves to establish the Ossetians' and Abkhazians' independence and now also will try to secure wider recognition. In turn, the U.S.-supported separatist Kosovo Albanian administration itself threatens a miniature version of Mr. Saakashvili's South Ossetia offensive to subdue Serbian enclaves, where the remaining one-third of the province's prewar community finds refuge. Where does the logic of "big fish eat little fish" end?

In Kosovo, Washington sowed the wind, and now Georgia has reaped the whirlwind. Only a return to the negotiating table to address comprehensively Kosovo, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and similar trouble spots elsewhere can prevent this malignant precedent from spinning further out of control with incalculable consequences for global peace and security. With each step down this road it will be harder to put the genie of might-makes-right back in the bottle.