The insatiable appetite of America’s bipartisan foreign policy elites for military intervention — despite its record of creating failing states in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen — traces back to the marriage of liberal and neoconservative interventionists during the Clinton administration’s 78-day bombing of Serbia to create the break-away state of Kosovo in 1999.
This article - as many others - written by western observers for western readers, shows a deep (if not intentional) disregard for the historical context of the Kosova/Serbian conflict and especially for the will and the struggles (including ethnic cleansing) of the Kosovar people (not their government), by omitting crucial historical facts that lead to that conflict, and by distorting many of the factual occurrences, and by also omitting analysis of them. Shame.
I have no time to write an article and go point by point, therefore will limit my comment to this sentence which frames the entire position of this article "to create the break-away state of Kosovo in 1999."
Kosova was one of the many independent republics/provinces that constituted the former Jugoslavia (a nation/state set up artificially by western powers at the end of the 1st war). Each of these independent entities, during Tito's ruling, had its own language, education system, self governing institutions etc. At the end of the cold war, each of them, representing the will of their people for self determination, one by one seceded from Jugoslavia, with Kosova being the last one wanting to but not having the maturity or the international backing to. Thus Kosovo is not just a 'break-away' state from Serbia...but it is the dream of generations of Kosovar people who had been denied many rights (including the right to be educated in their language) for a very, very long time. No mention of the Serbian ethnic cleansing of the Kosovar people in this article? Shame again.
Few oxymorons are more notable than this idea of militarized "humanitarian" interventions.
Thank you, Mr. Marshall for pointing out the inanity.
Essentially, what took place in Kosovo mirrors a similar blueprint followed in Afghanistan... just substitute the KLA for the Taliban and it's the same brutal shtick: U.S. covert forces assassinate inconvenient leaders, send arms to strongmen, and shore up a "leader" who will subjugate or intimidate his own people into submission... making that region safe, not for Democracy, but for corporate overlords and their dreams of resource allocation.
So was/is Kosovo another Disaster Capitalism like so many countries in Latin America eastern Europe and Clinton Foundation benefactor Haiti which doesn't seem to be working well for the people?\
Please we need to out the Clinton's in these tragedies as all Hillary is for is status quo and the waring industry, banksters and corporate elite.
The link to spearheaded by the liberal interventionist First Lady Hillary Clinton is quite interesting in that it is an example of the willful blindness of many HRC supporters, who substitute loyalty and trust for knowledge.
There were few clean hands In the Yugoslav troubles - and Serbian military and political leaders certainly committed their share of atrocities. But no single ethnic group was ethnically cleansed - driven from their homes at gunpoint - in greater numbers than Serbians were. This happened in US-loved bloody Tjudman's Croatia, and in Kosovo, and Bosnia-Herzegovina (but the Serbian military's reaction to it was utterly unjustified of course). Kosovo has always been the heart of Serbian and Serbian Orthodox culture and religion - or did the people of centuries past who built all of the since-destroyed-after-1999 Orthodox Monasteries, Convents and Churches in Kosovo not know how to read a map and got lost?
And why does every Serb I have ever met (here in the USA) regard Kosovo as the heart of their homeland?
The people known as Kosovars are Albanian. They already have a homeland.
Let us remember the history of the Balkans dating back to the time of the Czars.
Russia always considered itself as the protectors of the Slavs and promoted the concept of Pan-slavism. Inside of the Balkans Yugoslavia was a relative giant when copmared to its neighbours and was one of the few countries that rid itself of the Nazis without having other foreign armies invade.
They were "close" to the USSR but not dominated by the same. As such the existence of Yugoslavia was seen as a problem to Western strategists. They could not expand NATO into the Bakans as long as Yugoslvia existed and as long as they could not expand NATO into the Balkans states like Greece might well decide to leave NATO as they had once planned to do before The US helped sponsor a coup there iduring the Johnson Administration.
In order for Europe and the EU to dominate the Balkans , strong local players had to be eliminated and co-oopted so as to ensure Russia could not exert its onw influence there. The US in conjunction with the West European members of Nato decided it further Balkanize the Balkans, creating a number of small petty states that would be too weak to build strong local economies and too weak to defend themselves against foreign Militaries.
This weakness would see them turn to NATO for protection and seek investment from the Western financial systems so as to build their economies. (this is the Domino theory in action)
The intervention by the west occured before there was conflict as agents of the West promoted the same.
It is a truth that there are many versions of history, depending on what slant you want to give it. And often 'a history' will be filled with convenient untruths.
What was later called Yugoslavia was created by Serbian conquest at the end of WW#1, more than 6 months after Czar Nicholas II of Russia was killed. It was recast at the end of WW#2, and Britain had a hand in it, favoring Marshall Tito over the Chetniks because Tito more consistently fought Germany than the Chetniks had. End of the Serbian/Yugoslav monarchy.
However much Yugoslavs liked other Slavs, neither they nor Marshall Tito wanted to be tutored by Moscow. Yugoslavia might have gotten British and American help in stepping away from the USSR.
The West Establishment tends to prefer things stay the same, or evolve in a certain direction. Bad things like the Greek Coup in 1967 are often considered bad by the establishment as well as by people here in this forum. Marshall Tito died in the mid 1980s. It was evident by 1989 that Yugoslavia had internal strains. Initially the West was advising/urging the Yugoslav government to make accommodations to ease those strains. It was only after Slovenia had broken free and many months into the Croatian:Yugoslav war that Germany took the lead in recognizing the independence of those parts of Yugoslavia that wanted out. Germany was criticized for it at the time. Expanding NATO had nothing to do with it at the time, and it is the Europeans who have held up expanding NATA and the EU in that direction, demanding that several war criminals be brought to The Hague for trial first.
Supposedly everyone here recognizes the principal of Self-Determination. That Greece had a right to win independence from the Ottoman Empire, and ditto for Serbia. That the Czechs and Slovaks had the right to win independence from Austro-Hungary, and later to separate into separate Czech and Slovak nations. That Scotland, Catalonia, and Quebec have a right to break free from Britain, Spain and Canada, respectively, though it hasn't happened yet. -- The same holds true for Kosovo.
It is an open question what the best plan would be. There shouldn't be anything sacred about boundaries, and some Serb majority regions of Kosovo should perhaps go to Serbia, and maybe it would be better if Kosovo merged with Albania, much like Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia merged in the late 19th century.