LOCAL PRESS

Pristina opposes statute of Serb municipalities in Kosovo and Metohija (Novosti)

Pressed by the requests from Pristina – to amend the just adopted statutes or to get ready for new local elections, the Serb municipalities in northern Kosovo and Metohija expect support of the government in Belgrade in finding a solution. The Kosovo Ministry for Local Self-Government expects the majority Serb municipalities to harmonize their documents with the Kosovo laws and they were given a deadline that expires on 18 April. The Zvecan municipality received a request from Pristina to amend 12 points of their statute, and one of them is to harmonize the stamp with the Kosovo law, the head of the Zvecan Assembly Darko Radovanovic tells Novosti. “We adopted the statute based on UNSCR 1244, it is harmonized with the Brussels agreement and it is neutral in status. We used the municipality symbols. We will consult the Management Team for formation of the Union of Serb Municipalities and the Serbian government about these amendments requested from us,” said Radovanovic. The head of the North Mitrovica Assembly Ksenija Bozovic claims this municipality has not yet received any kind of request for amending the statute, and that there could be a joint meeting of Serb municipal representatives with the Kosovo ministry in charge, where they will examine the disputable issues.

Office for Kosovo and Metohija condemns Thaqi’s statement (Beta)

The Office for Kosovo and Metohija has condemned the statement by Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaqi that the Serb forces committed genocide in Kosovo. The Office warns that “irresponsible and untrue claims do not contribute to the reconciliation process and normalization of relations.” “The state of Serbia, the government and Office for Kosovo and Metohija has always insisted on everyone who perpetrated crimes, regardless of nation and religion, should be held responsible. Precisely for these reasons, the War Crimes Department at the Higher Court in Belgrade for the crimes in Suva Reka sentenced four former Serbian policemen to multi-year prison sentences,” reads the statement by the Office. “But, we ask Thaqi and the international community, how does one call the mass crimes against the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija, for which nobody was held responsible and whose perpetrators have been without names and last names for decades now? How does one call the abduction of 300 Serbs and other non-Albanians who, according to Dick Marty’s report, were transported to Albania, where later their organs were removed and sold throughout Europe?” reads the statement. The Office points out that these crimes “could not be even called genocide, because such crimes were not remembered on the territory of civilized Europe.” On the occasion of Thaqi’s statement that the U.S. and the EU will exert pressure on Belgrade to reveal the fate of the missing from Kosovo and Metohija, the Office for Kosovo states that it completely agrees that they should find all locations where the mortal remains of those killed in Yugoslav wars and the war in Kosovo are suspected to be.

Gudeljevic: Lawyers Vasic and Korenica released (Tanjug)

Based on the decision of the Basic Court in Kosovska Mitrovica, lawyers Dejan A. Vasic and Faruk Korenica were released from a detention unit, EULEX spokesperson Irina Gudeljevic confirmed. She said that the two lawyers were arrested on Tuesday for obstruction of evidence or official proceeding, adding that an international pre-trial judge of the Basic Court in Kosovska Mitrovica decided on Wednesday that they be released from police custody and ordered restrictive measures. The court ordered a ban on contacting witnesses and other suspects in the case, seized their travel documents, and banned them from leaving their place of residence without the court’s permission, Gudeljevic told Tanjug.

REGIONAL PRESS

B&H Presidency without consensus on Ukraine (Oslobodjenje/Srna)
The B&H Presidency at yesterday’s session considered the situation in Ukraine and the draft text of the aforementioned resolution, which will be submitted to the UN General Assembly for voting on 27 March. “The B&H Presidency at the session, after voting with two in favor (Chairman Izetbegovic and member Zeljko Komsic) and one opposed (member Nebojsa Radmanovic) failed to reach consensus on adopting a decision to vote for the resolution,” the B&H Presidency said in a statement. The B&H Presidency also considered consent to join statements by the EU High Representative on implementing sanctions for threats to the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine. “The B&H Presidency at the session, after voting with two in favor (Chairman Izetbegovic and member Komsic) and one opposed (member Nebojsa Radmanovic) failed to reach consensus on adopting a decision to join statements with the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy,” the Presidency statement reads. “Instructions will be given to B&H Foreign Minister Zlatko Lagumdzija on the proceedings of the B&H representative in the UN Mirsada Colakovic. The instruction may be not to vote or to abstain from voting,” the Presidency said.

Izetbegovic: B&H obliged as UN member to support Ukraine’s sovereignty (Fena)

The Chair of the B&H Presidency Bakir Izetbegovic has sought at the Presidency for B&H to support the UN General Assembly’s resolution titled “Territorial integrity of Ukraine” and to join the statements of the EU High Representative on implementing restrictive measures given the actions that encourage or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine. According to Izetbegovic, B&H is obliged to do this by the general directions and principles for implementing its foreign policy adopted by the Presidency, in which it states that the foreign policy of B&H toward international partners is based, inter alia, on mutual respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity, and that during the conduct of foreign policy B&H operates in accordance with the obligations that arise from the concluded and accepted agreements and other international instruments, and membership in international organizations and associations, Izetbegovic said. He said that B&H, as a member state of the United Nations, is obliged to completely support and respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of Ukraine as a full UN member, in its internationally recognized borders, and the established diplomatic relations with Ukraine. “According to the Stabilization and Association Agreement with the EU, B&H has the obligation of harmonizing its foreign policy positions with those of the EU. In that sense, the B&H Presidency earlier expressed its commitment and took the view that B&H will observe the EU’s foreign policy positions when there is a unified stance by EU member states, which is the case on the issue of the proposed resolution by the UN General Assembly and the statement by the EU High Representative,” said Izetbegovic.

New government of Tuzla Canton appointed (Oslobodjenje)

At last night’s urgent session, the Assembly of the Tuzla Canton appointed, by a majority of votes, the new government of the most populous canton, which will be led by Premier, Professor Bahrija Umihanic, until the expiration of the mandate. The government was supported by 28 votes (SDP, SDA, NSRB, HDZ B&H, BPS, three independent MPs), six abstained from voting (SB&H, SBB and one independent MP). Prior to the voting, Umihanic said: “We can do a lot if all work together – MPs, media, citizens, ministers, and we will do little if we work separately. Policies that we create and implement together will be good. We plan to resolve at least to companies – Dita and Konjuh. Of course, other companies will not be neglected.” He said the government is certainly an expert one, because one cannot neglect the fact that is has five people with PhD. Degrees, one with a Master’s Degree, and seven ministers with Bachelor Degrees and respectable experience. The government includes Miralem Nuhanovic (finances), Mulaga Fejzic (industry), Mirsad Kunic (education), Samid Sarac (agriculture), Ivana Veselcic (judiciary and administration), Zvjezdan Karadzin (spatial planning), Jelena Ilic (development and entrepreneurship), Mustafa Isabegovic (trade), Midhat Dobrnjic (interior), Zudin Mahmutovic (veterans), Meliha Bijedic (labor and returns) and Alen Kameric (health).

INTERNATIONAL PRESS

Kosovo and Montenegro to Sign Border Deal (BIRN, by Dusica Tomovic, 26 March 2014)

After two years of talks on border demarcation, Kosovo and Montenegro were due to sign a deal on Wednesday.

Rasko Konjevic, Montenegrin Interior Minister, and his Kosovo counterpart, Bajram Rehxepi, were scheduled to sign a demarcation agreement in Pristina on Wednesday.

“The demarcation [of the border] with a neighbouring country is Montenegro’s obligation in the EU accession process,” the Montenegrin Interior Ministry said in a statement.

Rexhepi said on Wednesday that “a demarcation agreement between Kosovo and Montenegro will be signed soon.” But, despite expectations that ministers will sign the border deal, they agreed to itensify police cooperation by signing an agreement on this matter.

Kosovo and Montenegro started consultations on signing an agreement on border demarcation in 2012.

Montenegro has 79km-long border with Kosovo, in the northeast.

Residents of border villages near the Kosovo city of Pec have protested about the unlcear border on several occasions, owing to the fact that they hold property in Montenegro.

The government in Podgorica recognized Kosovo’s independence in 2008, much to the anger of Serbia, and of Serbs in Montenegro. Serbia maintains that Kosovo is a province of Serbia, although the two countries recently agreed to “normalise” relations.

Serbia asked the Montenegrin ambassador to leave the country, and it took a year before full diplomatic relations between the two countries resumed.

However, Kosovo and Montenegro have yet to open embassies in each other’s capitals.

Recognition of the existence of a Montenegrin community in Kosovo has been one of the conditions set by the Montenegrin government before it will send an ambassador to Pristina.

NATO’s barbaric assault on Serbia and Monica Lewinsky (Pravda.ru, by Michael Pravica, 27 March 2014) 

Fifteen years ago on March 26, 1999, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bombed a sovereign nation, Serbia, unilaterally intervening in a civil war without UN approval on a phony pretext of “humanitarian” intervention and also in an effort to distract American public attention from the Monica Lewinsky “frosted dress” scandal caused by the philandering US president.  NATO violated its own “defensive” charter that required military recourse only when NATO-member nations were attacked which was not the case regarding Serbia.  By bombing Serbia for 78 days, US President Bill Clinton violated the US’s own War Powers Resolution of 1973 but despite the obvious infraction and even efforts by US Congressmen to hold him accountable, he was never punished for this obviously illegal action.

NATO warplanes (including, shamefully, German Tornado aircraft just as their Nazi predecessors during WWII) slaughtered hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians during 78 days of illegal and incessant bombing – roughly as many died on all sides in the conflict before NATO entered the fray.  NATO was so merciless in the mass slaughter that the organization continued bombing during Orthodox Christian Easter just as the Nazis did in 1941 demonstrating their savage and robotic nature.  NATO warplanes fired tons of depleted but highly toxic uranium causing untold cancers including among NATO personnel stationed in Kosovo (e.g. eye cancers).  NATO warplanes unleashed tens of thousands of internationally banned cluster bombs which continue to kill and maim children (in the form of unexploded ordinance) to this very day [1-2].  NATO warplanes bombed the Pancevo chemical complex which released thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals into the Danube river (Europe’s longest waterway).  Countless civilian targets such as homes, trains, market places, hospitals, power stations and schools were bombed as well.

To prevent the world from seeing proof of NATO’s savagery, Serbia’s only satellite link to the world was disconnected.  The headquarters of the Radio and Television Serbia (RTS) were viciously bombed [3], slaughtering some dozen staff members and journalists who had assembled to interview (for Larry King “live” at CNN) a Serbian government official in what can only be described as the most vicious act of censorship in history.  Even the Chinese embassy was deliberately bombed [4], murdering some three Chinese staff members and journalists, to punish Chinese for aiding the Serbs in getting the word out about NATO’s true evil face.

The end result was the theft of Kosovo, Serbia’s Jerusalem – the cradle of the Serbian Orthodox Christian Faith, from Serbia and the utter destruction of international law; replaced by the laws of the jungle:  “might makes right.”  This orgy of illegal and barbaric violence against Serbia demonstrated to the world that terrorists can successfully alter the borders of sovereign nations “by force” if NATO supports them. Now, the US has established Camp Bondsteel, the largest US base outside of America on stolen Serbian land in Kosovo.

Since the fall of the Berlin wall, NATO has aggressively marched Eastward toward Russia in a classic “drang nach osten.”  NATO has established a missile “defensive” shield right on Russia’s borders.  NATO encouraged and equipped the Georgians to attack the South Ossetians and Abkhazians in an effort to stir trouble on Russia’s border.  And now, NATO has incited mob violence to overthrow the democratically-elected government of the Ukraine.  The goal of all of these surreptitious and incessant efforts are simply to break up Russia, the world’s largest nation [5], so that her immense natural resources can be cheaply exploited by Western companies and to remove any lingering obstacles to the “New” World Order which will enslave all humanity.

Before “holier than thou” Western leaders such as Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper so judgmentally, viciously and rashly criticize Vladimir Putin for his honoring the wishes of a vast majority of Crimeans (with barely a shot fired) by returning the Crimea to Russia, they should look in the mirror and ask themselves who provoked him.  They also need to realize that the West has completely lost any “moral” authority to condemn Russia for acting in her interests which include resisting NATO’s efforts to enslave Russia.

Dr. Michael Pravica

Sarajevo Withdraws Award For Zagreb Mayor (BIRN, by Elvira M. Jukic, 27 March 2014)

Sarajevo City Council has cancelled its earlier decision to award honorary citizenship to Milan Bandic, the Mayor of Zagreb, after he said Bosnia should have three entities, not two.

The City Council of Sarajevo has withdrawn its decision, made in February, to make Zagreb Mayor Milan Bandic an honorary citizen of the Bosnian capital owing to his recent statements backing a third, Croatian entity for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Deputy Sarajevo Mayor Aljosa Campara said he hoped the decision would not harm relations between Sarajevo and Zagreb.

“I believe this situation should not have arisen, but we were forced to react,” he said. “We are very sensitive to standpoints that affect our territorial integrity because not even we have said how our country should be organized,” he added, referring to ongoing constitutional discussions on the country’s territorial set-up.

“We want to make a European state, especially the City of Sarajevo, because it deserves it,” Campara continued.

Bandic caused offence among Bosnia’s Bosniaks – one of the country’s three main communities – when he recently said in an interview that he hoped Bosnia and Herzegovina would soon be comprised of three entities.

Currently, Bosnia comprises two entities, the mainly Serbian Republika Srpska and the mainly Bosniak and Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

A number of Bosnian Croats politicians and organisations argue that Croats should have an entity of their own, on the grounds that they are a marginalised community in the Federation.

In Zagreb on Wednesday, Bandic said the withdrawal of his award in Sarajevo would not provoke him to comment.

“I am an honorary citizen [already] of Kiseljak and Srebrenica and the citizens chose me for that,” Bandic said.

He was referring to an award received in 2008 from Kiseljak in central Bosnia, and another award in 2009 from the town council in Srebrenica, in eastern Bosnia.

Bosnia’s NATO Hopes ‘Depend On Serbia’ (Balkan Insight, by Elvira M. Jukic, 26 March 2014)

Bosnia and Herzegovina can only join NATO once neighbouring Serbia has made up its own mind about the alliance, a conference organized by the Atlantic Initiative heard in Sarajevo.

Bosnia’s path to NATO membership is complicated by neighbouring Serbia’s unclear attitude towards the alliance, a conference held on March 25 in Sarajevo by the Atlantic Initiative heard.

The head of the Atlantic Initiative, Nerzuk Curak, said that considering the security issues raised by the Ukrainian crisis, the issue of NATO membership has emerged as a key foreign political question.

But Bosnia’s membership depends “first of all on whether NATO wants to receive a country in which the process of making decisions is highly questionable and, on the other side, we are limited by Serbia’s behaviour”, Curak said.

Curak noted that while Serbia wished to join the European Union as soon as possible, it was far from clear whether it wished to join NATO.

“If Serbia does not decide to join the NATO then the odds for Bosnia and Herzegovina in that sense are lowered,” he said.

“That is because the decision-making process in BiH is that [the two] entities are the key, and the Republika Srpska entity, I believe, will follow whatever the leadership of Serbia decides,” he added.

Jelena Milic, from the Belgrade Center of Euro-Atlantic Studies, noted that Serbia lacked a clear policy on joining NATO.

“Serbia is officially military neutral, and currently in the phase of obtaining an individual membership plan – and that is the maximum that Serbia will do with NATO in the coming period,” she predicted.

“The issue of NATO membership is an issue where we have to bring a political decision, which the citizens make… not just having cooperation through a ‘small door’ via cooperation with [NATO and] the [Serbian] defence ministry,” Milic added.

She said many people in Serbia remained opposed to the alliance and did not understand why NATO attacked Serbia over the crisis in Kosovo in 1999.

“The 15th anniversary [of the start of NATO’s air campaign] was marked yesterday,” she recalled.

“Unfortunately, one could hear all possible reasons for why NATO acted except for the main one – which was the impossibility of preventing in any other way the misdeeds committed by the Milosevic regime from 1998 to 1999 in Kosovo.”

While experts say Bosnia and Herzegovina will have to wait for Serbia to make up its mind, other former Yugoslav republics and countries in the region have not hesitated when it comes to joining NATO.

Slovenia joined the alliance back in 2004. Croatia has been a member of NATO since 2009, as has Albania.

Both Montenegro and Macedonia are actively pursuing membership, although Macedonia’s ambitions are blocked by its ongoing dispute with NATO-member Greece over its name.

Rushed ‘Name’ Talks ‘Reflect NATO’s Balkan Worries’ (BIRN, by Sinisa Jakov Marusic, 26 March 2014)

The decision of the UN mediator in the Greece-Macedonia ‘name’ dispute, Matthew Nimetz, to summon both sides to New York – amid the Macedonian election campaign – reflects Western fears about the Balkans in the light of the Crimea crisis, experts say.

The unusual timing of the round of talks, while Macedonian politicians are focused on the April presidential and general elections and while Greece is gearing up for May local polls, has prompted observers to suspect a link with the crisis in Ukraine.

A former Macedonian Prime Minister, Vlado Buckovski, said the decision to call new talks reflected renewed interest in Brussels and Washington in solving open issues in the Balkans in light of Russian’s recent intervention in Crimea.

“This fresh impetus is definitely prompted by events in Ukraine,” Buckovski said.

“In my opinion there is a serious initiative to find a way for Macedonia to be admitted to NATO at the summit in autumn. Holding ‘name’ talks amid an election campaign is a precedent,” Buckovski added.

“We are talking about an entirely new momentum, with an emergency situation in Europe in the light of events in Ukraine,” Risto Nikovski, a seasoned Macedonian diplomat, agreed.

He said that Nimetz’s move “is part of a new scenario by NATO to do everything it can to include Macedonia because the confrontation between Moscow and Washington is now open, and it is normal to expect greater Russian activity and influence in the Balkans.

“To prevent this, the West must secure all countries that are uncertain [about their allegiances] in some ways,” he explained.

Macedonia obtained EU candidate status back in December 2005, and European Commission reports have recommended a start to membership talks each year since 2009.

But the country has never been offered a date for EU accession talks, nor an invitation to join NATO, owing to a Greek blockade related to the dispute over its name.

Greece insists that Macedonia’s name implies territorial claims to its own northern province, also called Macedonia.

“Geopolitics has started to play a more important role in solving open political issues.  Under these circumstances the situation in Ukraine prompts a direct realignment of the Alliance and we should expect fresh initiatives for solving open issues,” a former Macedonian ambassador to NATO, Nano Ruzin, said.

The last round of talks was held last October after which Nimetz said that “substantial differences” remained between both sides.

Nimetz declined to divulge his suggested formula for a compromise name that he put forward in April, but reports have indicated that it was “Upper Republic of Macedonia”.

The next NATO summit is set for September. It is still not clear what it will bring in terms of enlargement with any of four aspirant countries: Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Georgia.

Last week, NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in Washington that the Crimean situation would likely have an impact on the Alliance’s admissions policy – but things should become clearer after NATO ministers meet at the end of June to discuss this issue.

The former US ambassador to Macedonia, Christopher Hill, recently told Voice of America that new tensions with Russia required “much more attention paid to NATO’s eastern flank, and in particular, there needs to be a renewed attention to the situation in the Balkans”.