April 19th 2007 07:07:54 AM
My attention was riveted to an article this week in the Asia Times, a news outfit based in Hong Kong. The article was aptly titled “The inconvenient Serbs,” and the author, who goes just by the name “Spengler”, hit almost every nail on the head. I’ll excerpt the most important and accurate points below, with emphasis added, but one thing to keep in mind while reading: It is to America’s eternal disgrace that a country as loathsome as Russia is on the right side of history on this matter while we pigheadedly pursue the path of befriending evil.
…Scholars debate whether the decline and fall of Europe will occur by mid-century, or might be postponed until 2100. The inconvenient Serbs may force the issue on Europe a great deal sooner.
If Serbia and Russia draw a line in the sand over the independence of Kosovo, we may observe the second occasion in history when a Muslim advance on Europe halted on Serbian soil. The first occurred in 1456, three years after the fall of Constantinople, when Sultan Mehmed II was thrown back from the walls of Belgrade, “The White City”, by Hungarian and Serb defenders. The Siege of Belgrade “decided the fate of Christendom”, wrote the then Pope Calixtus III. Not for nothing did J R R Tolkien name his fictional stronghold of Minas Tirith “The White City”.
“Kosovka Devojka” (The Kosovo Maiden) by Uros Predic. A maiden brings water to dying Serb soldier Pavle Orlovic during the Battle of Kosovo against the Ottoman Turks in 1389.
…The Bill Clinton administration, in this writer’s considered view, provoked NATO’s 1999 bombing war against Serbia with malice of forethought, as a gesture to the Muslim world. The United States in effect was willing to bomb Christians in order to protect Muslims, in this case the Albanian Kosovo majority whom it accused the Serbs of mistreating…In a January 3 article in the Financial Times, Democratic Senator Joseph Biden contended that Kosovo independence would constitute a “victory for Muslim democracy”, and “a much-need example of US-Muslim partnership”.
Contrary to American propaganda at the time, no massacres had occurred; the Serbs had shot a few thousand Muslim militants in their efforts to pacify the province. Clinton, then secretary of state Madeleine Albright and UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke deluded themselves that they could cash in the chips earned in Kosovo at the negotiating table in the Middle East. The neo-conservatives cheered the Clinton bombing campaign, believing perhaps that any American show of force was better than no show of force.
Once again Washington’s attention is directed toward the Middle East. Washington proposes to sacrifice the remaining Christians in Kosovo in order to earn Muslim support…I believe that Serbia and Russia are correct to offer partition rather than independence for Kosovo, that is, breaking off the Christian-majority municipalities of the north and attaching them to Serbia proper, while permitting the Muslim majority to determine its own fate.
This is the obvious, humane and commonsense solution; the fact that the State Department refuses to consider it inflames Russia’s worst fears about America’s intent…Washington does not care about Kosovo. It simply wants to put the issue to rest by the most expeditious means possible, the better to deal with its urgent business at hand…
Russia, as I reported in Russia’s hudna with the Muslim world (Asia Times Online February 21, 2007) must face the prospect of Islamification far sooner than Western Europe.
There can be no doubt that Europe is resigned to gradual absorption into the umma. Father Richard John Neuhaus, the conservative Catholic writer, quotes an “influential French archbishop” saying, “We hope for [assimilation of Muslim immigrants], while we work at reducing immigration and prepare ourselves for soft Islamicization.” Western Europe is a beaten, deracinated rabble with no will to fight. Russia is a different sort of beast. The Kosovo question for Russia is not a sentimental, but an existential matter.
No modern people have proven a greater inconvenience than the Serbs. They threw off two foreign yokes unaided — the Ottomans during the 19th century, and the Germans during the World War II…Serbian demands in the case of Kosovo today are limited and reasonable, namely a partition that serves the interests of the small Christian minority. I do not think Russia will let Washington make a horrible example of them in order to create an example of “US-Muslim partnership”.
If Washington does not modify its support for independence, the most likely outcome is a Russian veto of the Ahtisaari plan in the UN Security Council, followed, perhaps, by a unilateral declaration of independence by the Albanian Muslim majority in Kosovo. The aftermath could be quite messy, namely a small shooting war between Christians and Muslims on European soil. “Soft Islamification,” in the words of Father Neuhaus’ French archbishop, may turn out to be no option at all.
…No-one, least of all Russia, wants an open conflict with Muslims. But there are limits to what the Orthodox Christian world will tolerate, and they may have been reached in Kosovo.
And let’s be realistic: A “US-Muslim partnership” — of the sort that many delude themselves is possible with the “moderate” Muslim world — can mean only one thing: our own soft Islamicization.