March 02nd 2008 05:52:49 PM
Mary Mostert has an article explaining how the Kosovo surrender, Bush’s Munich, will lead to war. In addition, I had meant to post this short item that was published just two weeks before Kosovo’s declared independence, but since that time I stumbled upon a 1992 article that compounds its point. First, the article from last month, quoting Czech human rights activist and diplomat Jiri Dienstbier who a few years ago said, “Kosovo is an infinitely more dangerous place than it was before,” and famously asked, “If NATO and the UN can’t defeat terrorism in an area the size of one-eighth of the Czech Republic, how do they expect to confront global terrorism?”
Czech diplomat likens Kosovo crisis to Munich 1938
3 February 2008 | 14:50 | Source: Beta
PRAGUE — A former human rights rapporteur on Yugoslavia has condemned international pressure for Kosovo independence.
Czech diplomat Jiri Dienstbier said that international pressure for Kosovo to be granted independence was similar to “capitulation in the Munich manner.”
In Munich in 1938, the Great Powers allowed the Sudetenland province of Czechoslovakia to be ceded to Hitler’s Germany in a vain attempt to avert war. This continues to be one of the great traumas in Czech and Slovakian contemporary history.
“It’s capitulation. They (the U.S. and the EU) are trying to dispense with the problem in a ’Munich’ manner in the 21st century, for a piece of territory to be broken off on ethnic grounds,” explained Dienstbier in an interview for Czech national radio, condemning the fact that Kosovo’s status was being settled by according it independence.
The diplomat reiterated that it was humiliating for Serbia that “the world continues to blame them for what happened in the Balkans, even though the other protagonists in the conflict were equally to blame.”
On that point, here are the relevant parts of a December, 1992 article in Midstream magazine, by Yohanan Ramati, chairman of the Jerusalem Institute for Western Defense — with an emphasis on the most stunning point, in bold:
The Western media insist that Serbia is the only villain in the tragedy of Yugoslavia. They hint continually that Serb intransigence, cruelty and “ethnic cleansing” caused the breakup of what was a fairly stable multiethnic state of seven decades, excepting only the years of World War II. Nobody asks why the Serbs, who had a dominant position in a united Yugoslavia, should have an interest in destroying it.
[T]he media…have made a good job of leaving the public with the impression that it is witnessing a conflict between the forces of democracy and ruthless dyed-in-the-wool Serb Communists. However, the nature of the regimes in Croatia and Bosnia was one of the factors making Serb restraint virtually impossible. These regimes had revived hatreds simmering for 70 years to serve their successful bid for secession, and having let them loose, showed no interest in calming them. Nor did Germany.
…Serbs constituted some 35 percent of the population of Bosnia; Croats, another 15 percent. And there was a substantial Serb minority in Croatia…The Serb case for incorporating these areas in Serbia is totally ignored by the Western powers.
This is perhaps the most telling aspect of a scenario chillingly reminiscent of 1937-38, when Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier encouraged their media to demonize the Czechs and justify Hitler’s claims to the Sudetenland.
The Serbs are being demonized relentlessly. A critical touchstone of the double standard applied to them by Western politicians and media (where Germany, France and Saudi Arabia are the main instigators) is that the old provincial borders between Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia are treated as sacred, whereas the borders of Serbia itself are not. A media campaign is already afoot virtually pleading the case of the Albanian Muslim majority in the Kosovo district of Serbia for secession…
In other words, the political goal of present Western policies and the Western media is not to justify the establishment of new states on the basis of ethnic self-determination (which would dictate supporting the secession of Serb-populated areas from Croatia and Bosnia), but simply to dismember Serbia and liquidate its influence in the Balkan peninsula.
“Yugoslavia” (i.e. , Serbia-Montenegro) has already been ostracized and virtually blockaded by the United Nations. Even its sportsmen are not allowed to compete in international events. We are promised “war crimes trials” of Serbs. There is n outcry for similar trials for the thugs of Tudjman and Izetbegovic, whose crimes are no less grave. Croat soldiers already sport the German Iron Cross on their hats…
What makes the Kosovo giveaway even worse, besides the fact that in the 21st century we’re ignoring well-studied history to repeat the action that doomed the free world in the 20th century, is the following point, as outlined by Canadian former ambassador to Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria, Joe Bissett:
[W]hat the USA is determined to do is in violation of international law, the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act. Ironically the Russians understand this and they are the ones upholding international law and defending the UN Charter. Even Hitler at the time of Munich insisted that Benes, the Czech Prime Minister, sign a document agreeing to give up the Sudetenland so that would make the Munich Pact legal. What the USA seems determined to do in taking Kosovo away from Serbia will unravel the most important instrument the world has had to maintain some form of peace and the rule of law governing the relationship among states. It strikes a body blow to the framework of international peace and security and leads us back to the rule of “might is right.” How your founding fathers must feel. What has gone wrong with your leaders who once inspired the hope and admiration of all free men?