Post by tripwire on Dec 2, 2007 1:12:44 GMT -5
www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.press.release.page&obj_id=140726
THE BALKANS
And today I want to apply those principles, and the foreign policy approach I have outlined, to a part of Europe where I fear we may once more be heading into crisis.
I want to speak about the situation in the Balkans.
Twelve years ago this month, decisive American intervention brought an end to the only war on European soil since 1945.
That Balkan conflict – all three and half years of it – is a dark and blood-stained chapter in Europe's history.
Television footage night after night carried images that looked more like the early 1940s than the 1990s.
Columns of refugees. Emaciated figures clinging to the barbed wire of concentration camps. Mass graves.
The cosmopolitan melting pot of Sarajevo – the Jerusalem of Europe – imprisoned for 1,426 days under medieval siege.
All of it culminating in the massacre in the hills above Srebrenica, in which some 8,000 men and boys were executed in cold blood.
In a country of just four million people, up to 200,000 are estimated to have lost their lives, and nearly two million were driven from their homes.
To those who say Europe is better off without the US, I say look don't just at the history of the 1930s, but look at the 1990s.
DAYTON AND BEYOND
Your leadership at Dayton persuaded the parties to lay down their arms and ended the war.
As American-led NATO troops deployed into Bosnia on Christmas Eve 1995, the people of that devastated country dared to hope that their nightmare was over.
Among them, Bosnia's two million Muslims, who see your country as their saviour– a fact that Al Qaeda propaganda chooses not to mention.
In Europe and America the response to this tragedy was 'never again'.
So in 1999, when Slobodan Milosevic began orchestrating a renewed round of ethnic cleansing, this time in Kosovo, we acted promptly and decisively to stop it in its tracks.
Tony Blair was right to take the lead in galvanising NATO, and in pressing for military action.
Britain and the United States stood firmly together, and acted without delay.
So too did our NATO allies.
The campaign was not easy.
But it succeeded and prevented another round of blood-letting in the Balkans.
In the intervening eight years, long after the television crews packed their bags, the United States has stayed actively engaged on the ground, working with Britain and the rest of the international community patiently and persistently to keep the peace, to repair the devastation of war, and to nurture democracy, the rule of law and protection for minority rights across the region.
It has been slow, expensive work.
But compare the situation in the region today with the situation a decade ago, and the progress is clear.
Slovenia is a prosperous, stable democracy; a NATO ally.
Croatia has bounced back, its Adriatic beaches more popular than ever.
Newly independent Montenegro was the world's fastest growing tourist destination in 2007.
Macedonia is now a candidate for entry to the EU and NATO.
Albania – once the poorest country in the world – is slowly reforming its institutions and making gradual progress.
Bosnia and Herzegovina has repaired, with international aid on a vast scale, the bulk of the physical damage inflicted by the war.
250,000 thousand homes have been re-built, and one million refugees returned.
And the whole world rejoiced when the people of Serbia rose up, and overthrew the architect of so much misery and mayhem, Slobodan Milosevic.
In an act of great bravery, they embraced democracy and appeared determined to join their neighbours on the long road to membership of the EU and NATO.
WHY STABILITY MATTERS
But the progress is fragile.
Formidable problems remain, and tackling them has a direct bearing on the security not just of the Balkans but of Britain, Europe and the wider world.
Eighty per cent of the heroin that reaches the streets of Britain comes through the Balkans
The bulk of weaponry smuggled into the EU comes through the former Yugoslavia.
Balkan criminal networks are responsible for some 200,000 of the women victims of the sex trade.
We know from past Balkan instability that it leads to significant migration, including to the UK.
And then – in the post 9/11 world – there is the constant threat of terrorism.
A lawless space in the Balkans would be ideal ground for Al Qaeda and others.
So preserving and enhancing stability in the Balkans is not just a moral imperative.
It is fundamental to our national security.
And it matters for wider reasons too: for the reputation of NATO, for our reputation in the Muslim world, for the credibility of the Alliance's mission in Afghanistan.
A WORRYING TREND
That is why recent developments in the Balkans should be setting off alarms bells.
Since the summer, the situation has been steadily deteriorating, to the point where many worry that the region now teeters on the edge of its worst crisis since the early 1990s.
Only ten days ago the Financial Times carried a story headlined 'Bosnians start to stockpile food as fear mounts'.
How have things come to this?
The main cause is the unresolved status of Kosovo, which UN resolution 1244 – at the conclusion of the conflict in 1999 – stipulated would be settled by a political process.
The former Finnish President Marthi Ahtisaari has worked heroically to negotiate a settlement between Pristina and Belgrade, based on the concept of 'supervised independence'.
That approach was backed by the US and the UK, and the bulk of the EU.
But in March it was rejected by Belgrade and blocked by Moscow.
Since then a Troika comprising the US, Russia and the EU has shuttled to and fro in a bid to broker a way forward before the deadline of 10 December set by the UN Secretary General for a resolution – thus far to no avail.
In the interim, the behaviour of Belgrade, encouraged by Moscow, has made a difficult situation considerably more serious.
Belgrade has sought to exert leverage over Kosovo by linking its status to that of the entity of Republika Srpska in Bosnia.
Serbian Prime Minister Kostunica has threatened that independence for Kosovo could mean a referendum in Republika Srpska, followed by secession, and an end to the settlement negotiated at Dayton.
Belgrade has orchestrated a ratcheting up of the rhetoric on a scale not seen since Milosevic.
Moscow has encouraged Belgrade, and Belgrade in turn has encouraged Republika Srpska to confront the international community.
As the former US Ambassador to Belgrade, Bill Montgomery, wrote last week, "…a number of factors are coming together to create a potentially serious crisis in Bosnia."
HOW WE SHOULD RESPOND
So what should be done?
We need to respond with speed, unity and decisiveness.
Things could move very fast in the coming weeks.
If our engagement in the Balkans over fifteen years has taught us anything, it is that hesitancy, division, prevarication or equivocation are interpreted as weakness.
Our policy must be clear, it must be consistent, and it must be firm.
There have been other periods of difficulty in recent years.
The conflict in Macedonia in 2000 could easily have tipped the whole region back into war.
But rapid preventive action – led by the US, NATO and the EU together - nipped that conflict in the bud, brokered the Ohrid agreement, and put Macedonia and the region back on the right path.
We face a similar challenge today.
NO UNPICKING OF DAYTON
So now is a time for some simple messages.
There is one over-riding message that needs to be understood right across the Balkans and beyond.
The resolution of Kosovo's final status cannot and will not involve the re-opening of borders anywhere else in the region.
There can be no question of re-opening the Dayton settlement, or of acquiescing, as some have speculated, in carving off Republika Srpska.
Kosovo and Republika Srpska are not open to exchange as if they were pawns on a chess board.
The status of Republika Srpska is enshrined in Dayton, an international treaty to which Belgrade is a signatory.
It is an integral part of the multi-ethnic state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a state that survived – just – Milosevic's attempts to cut it in pieces.
There are still some people who believe that with a bit of imaginative map-making, a slight re-ordering of the geographical and ethnic patchwork, some neat solution to the age-old Balkan question will emerge.
But today, with all the blood that has already flowed down the river Drina, it would lead only to further disaster, with new waves of refugees and new bloodshed.
In Kosovo, where would such a solution leave the remaining Serb residents who don't live in parts contiguous to Serbia, but in enclaves elsewhere in Kosovo?
In Bosnia, where would it leave the tens of thousands of Muslim or Croat refugees who have returned to Republika Srpska?
What future, above all, would it offer to the two million Muslims in Bosnia, who would find themselves sandwiched on a European Gaza strip between Croatia and Serbia – as Noel Malcolm has put it, a modern Bantustan on the continent of Europe.
Demoralised and let down by the West, I can think of no better way to radicalise Bosnia's Muslim community, who remain superbly and stubbornly moderate.
If we went down this path we would achieve the very goals that Mujahadeen cells and other Islamic militants have tried – and spectacularly failed – to achieve in Bosnia during the war and after it.
KOSOVO
But nor is it reasonable to expect Kosovo to wait for ever for its status to be resolved.
Kosovo has been suspended for nearly a decade already in a constitutional limbo.
That is deterring investment and helping to fuel a climate of resentment and anger within the Kosovo Albanian community.
The Ahtisaari plan represents a fair and sensible way forward, the result of careful and exhaustive negotiation with all sides.
The Kosovo representatives accepted it, even though it offered less than the outright sovereignty they wanted.
But Belgrade rejected it out of hand.
I fully understand how painful and difficult the future of Kosovo is for Serbia.
But the people of Serbia are entitled to leadership from their government on this issue.
They deserve some straight-talking, not the sort of rabble-rousing that has led Serbia into calamity after calamity since 1989.
The plain fact is that the population of Kosovo is over 90 per cent Kosovo/Albanian.
The harsh truth is that after the events of 1999, there was never any prospect that Kosovo could remain under the sovereignty and administrative umbrella of Belgrade.
Serbia needs to face up to the unpalatable consequences of the acts that were committed in her name.
Kosovo is entitled to have its status resolved, and if the Ahtisaari plan is not acceptable, and no agreement can be found in the Troika, then I support the view of the US and UK that this issue will need to be resolved.
But it must be done in a way that is managed, and that avoids damaging repercussions in Bosnia, for Serbia, in Macedonia, and elsewhere in the region.
PAVING THE WAY
So we need to take the steps to pave the way for Kosovo's independence, and to ensure that the threats to stability are contained.
First, we need to be very clear with Serbia, with the Kosovo authorities, with Republika Srpska as well as with Moscow where we stand.
Serbia needs to be clear what it can and cannot expect.
It is certainly entitled to expect the full protection of the rights of the Serb minority in Kosovo.
Pristina will need to ensure that its minorities share full rights with the Albanian majority, and the international mission that succeeds the UN authority in Kosovo must hold Pristina to that pledge.
But Belgrade will also face a clear choice.
If it responds with restraint, then there is every reason why Serbia's progress towards EU membership should continue.
Indeed, if it meets the conditions, including co-operation with the Tribunal in the Hague, there is every prospect that it could become a formal candidate to start EU accession talks in early 2009.
But if Belgrade chooses another path, it needs to be clear about the attitude of NATO and the EU in those circumstances.
We need to make clear that in the event of Kosovo's supervised independence, we will not tolerate any disruption in the traffic between Kosovo and Serbia….
…that any hint of para-military activity in Northern Kosovo would bring harsh consequences and firm action from the NATO force…
…and any interference in Bosnia Herzegovina – or encouragement of Republika Srpska in moving towards secession - would halt Serbia's progress towards EU membership in its tracks, and usher in another period of isolation estrangement and isolation for Serbia and her people.
Is that what the young people of Serbia really want?
NATO and the EU also need to make prudent preparations for a possible new crisis in the Balkans.
In Bosnia, High Representative Lajcak needs to have the rock solid backing of the EU and NATO.
The planned closure of his office in mid 2008 should be deferred.
And the 16,000 strong NATO military force in Kosovo and its EU-led equivalent in Bosnia must be ready to act robustly to ensure that a safe and secure environment is maintained.
In the case of Bosnia, the military force there is now only 2,500 strong, of which only 580 are frontline troops.
They are backed up by an 'over the horizon' NATO operational reserve of some 3,000 thousand troops.
As we enter this period of tension, I believe there is a strong case for reinforcing the troop presence in Bosnia as a precautionary measure, to reassure the local population, to deter trouble and to send a clear signal that our commitment to the implementation of the Dayton agreement remains absolute.
There are two further factors which will make an important difference to the prospects for the Balkans – in the near and the longer term.
One is the behaviour of Russia.
And the other is the degree with which the EU – and NATO – remain committed to a process of their own enlargement that encompasses the Western Balkans.
www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2007&mm=11&dd=30&nav_id=45830
B92 News Politics Politics
Hillary Clinton to back Kosovo independence
30 November 2007 | 16:37 | Source: Beta
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator and one of the Democrats' presidential favorites Hillary Clinton has spoken out over the Kosovo crisis.
Clinton said that it was unlikely the Troika-led talks would lead to a compromise, and that the U.S. government should be ready to recognize a Kosovo declaration of independence.
“The U.S.-EU-Russia Troika will strive to reach a negotiated solution for Kosovo’s future status in order to submit their report to the UN and the world, but given Russia’s stance, it will be hard to come to any agreement,“ said Clinton in Washington.
“Further postponements are undesirable. The process that began too late because of the Bush administration’s neglect during his first term in office has been exhausted,“ said the senator.
“Bearing in mind that Russia is threatening to use its veto for any proposal brought before the Security Council, we must be ready to resolutely support the will of the vast majority of Kosovo people,“ she said.
“In the event of Priština declaring independence, I will firmly urge the U.S. to recognize that country and I call on the EU to do likewise,“ concluded Clinton.