KOSOVO: DO WORDS STILL HAVE MEANING?
By Sergio Tezza
The beginning of NATO's bombing raids on Yugoslavia and the explanations of the rationale behind the military strike given by the politicians and their spokespersons, must give us pause.
We have been hearing words as "peace agreement", "aggression", "refugees" and "human rights violations". Conspicuously absent are words as "secession", "military uprising", "sovereignty", "defence of territorial integrity" and many others. Let's examine the said words first, and let's relegate what's left unsaid to the end. An agreement exists when two or more parties achieve a position that is acceptable to all the parties in question.
The Kossovo province "peace agreement" is NONEXISTENT and was always nonexistent, since one of the two fighting parties (the Serbs) never agreed to, or signed any document, containing the proposals that the other party (the Albanians) is alleged to have considered acceptable. So, since an agreement never existed, and we hear all the media using that term, are we dealing with the typical war-time misinformation and propaganda masking other interests?
Aggression occurs when one party attacks another while unprovoked (1).
The almost total "ethnic cleansing" between 1974 and 1989 of over half a million Serbs from a region as the Kossovo province, the historic heart (2) of the Serbian People, is not something that can be defined as an "act of goodwill" on the part of the Muslim Albanians to their Christian Serb neighbors.The constitution of a full-fledged armed force (not exactly a guerrilla force, given the state of the arts German military equipment they use) -called terrorists by the Serbs and freedom-fighters by the Albanians-, a force that is responsible for the killing of uncounted -and often unmentioned- Serb civilians and policemen, can maybe satisfy the definition of provocation.
It sounds rather strange, moreover, to hear the political echelon and the military commanders of a "defensive" military alliance speak about "aggression", while leading a massive military attack against one of the two warring parties (on the side of the "guerrilla"), within the territory of a sovereign state whose army is party to the fighting.
So, if the word aggression is used in a very "slanted" way, and we hear it and read it used that way all over the media, aren't we dealing with the typical war-time misinformation and propaganda masking other interests?
Refugees are autochthonous populations expelled from their land.Hundreds of thousands of Serbs who populated the Kossovo province for tens of generations have been forced to leave the Kossovo province in the last twenty five years because of political persecution and physical attacks. In the meantime, especially since the demise of the Albanian Maoist regime of Henver Hoxa, hundreds of thousands of Albanians have crossed over the Yugoslavian border, changing the ethnic balance within the Kossovo province (3). So, since we are hearing and reading the word "refugee" used ONLY in reference to the Albanians, aren't we dealing with the typical war-time misinformation and propaganda masking other interests?
Human rights include the right to live safely -IN PEACETIME- without being targeted with discrimination, expulsion, job loss, physical aggression, because of one's belonging to a group rather than another.
The Serbs had their human rights clearly violated during peacetime between 1974-1989, when the Albanians had autonomy in Kossovo. The autonomy of the Kossovo province was rescinded by the Yugoslavian Government, Serbian rights to employment and residence became again possible, and then a military insurgency against Yugoslavia started, with the support of part of the Albanian populations, who became active part of the fighting against the Serbian population, Police and Army, and subject to military reprisals.So, since we are hearing and reading "victims of human rights abuses" used ONLY in reference to the Albanians, aren't we dealing with the typical war-time misinformation and propaganda masking other interests?
Meanwhile, where did the principle of non intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state go, all of a sudden, since it has been used until now to justify military non intervention to stop the massacres in Algeria (over 400,000 dead, mostly civilians), the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi (over one million slaughtered), the massacres of Christians in Lebanon, Egypt and Sudan (over a million killed or displaced), the slaughter of Chinese in Indonesia, etc., etc., etc.???
Where did the principle (no value judgement expressed about its validity) of opposing secessions and promoting the territorial integrity of a sovereign state, used to justified Saddam Hussein's permanence in power and the non help to Kurds in Northern Iraq, Syria and Turkey and to Shiites in Southern Iraq... where did it all of a sudden go??? Why aren't Ms. Albright & Co. in Europe telling us why it does not apply to Yugoslavia?
I would like, last but not least, to point out that no comparison can be made with a situation in which one armed part attacks an unarmed part who has no way to defend itself. NO DISGUSTING COMPARISON WITH PRE WW-II NAZI GERMANY CAN BE ALLOWED AND TOLERATED. The Jews were not attacking, terrorizing, unarmed Germans and threatening their territorial integrity with armed movements of secession (independence?). Clinton's disgusting use of the Holocaust as a consequence of a precedent of inaction and appeasement should be protested by all decent people. It is disgusting that someone might use the Shoah (4) as a cover for serving one's political and economic interest with the Arab world, by helping those who were allied with the Nazis during WW-II (Muslims and Croats in Yugoslavia).
This is a DIRTY WAR is an expression that we probably won't hear or read too often about the NATO attack against Yugoslavia.
(1) Israel attacked Egypt militarily in June 1967, but certainly not unprovoked (Egyptian blocking of the Red Sea at the Tiran Strait, massive military mobilization at Israel's borders after general military draft). Israel was certainly not the aggressor.
(2) [Kossovo is in the Yugoslavian national anthem and is the focus of Yugoslavian Independence Day, the day having been picked on the anniversary of Serbia's historic defeat to the invading Muslim Turks, of whom the so called "ethnic Albanians" are the descendants]
(3) Striking similarities exist with the situation in the Land of Israel, where Arab populations coming from outside settled in the course of the 20th Century in what had been almost a desert, and had been set aside by the League of Nations to become again the "homeland" of the People of Israel (previously expelled from there); all that while Jews were "de facto" and "de iure" kept forcibly out by the British. The Arab illegal immigrants from Syria, Hejaz (Saudi Arabia), Egypt, Sudan, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Morocco, etc. in many cases "expelled by massacre" entire Jewish communities (i.e. the Jews of Hebron in 1929) who had lived there for millennia, and then became " the refugees" by excellence for the hypocritical world media after they left or were expelled at the birth of the State of Israel.
(4) See the many references to Israel as today's nazis, in relation to their conflict with the Arabs, while it was exactly the Arabs who were allied with the nazis and ACTIVELY participated in the designing and execution of the "final solution" also through their then chief butcher the Jerusalem Mufti, Haj Amin Al-Husseini, uncle of today's butcher Arafat.
"...For the sake of Zion I shall not hold my peace. And for the sake of Jerusalem I shall not rest.
Until her righteousness shine like a star. And her salvation like a burning torch..." Yeshayahu/Isaiah 62:1