By Roberto Savio
ROME, Mar 25 2015 (IPS)

The United Kingdom has been accused of “sleepwalking” into the Ukraine crisis – and the accusation comes from no less than the House of Lords, not usually considered a place of critical analysis.

In a scathing report, the upper house of the U.K. parliament has said that the United Kingdom, like the rest of the European Union, has sleepwalked into a very complex problem without looking into the possible consequences, letting bureaucrats taking critical political decisions.

Roberto Savio

It said that it was only when the conflict was well entrenched that political leaders decided to negotiate the Minsk ceasefire agreement, reached by Angela Merkel of Germany, Francois Hollande of France, Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation and Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, with the notable absence of U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron.

In fact, it was left up to bureaucrats of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to take decisions regarding Ukraine, the same kind of bureaucrats as those appointed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Commission who, with their usual arrogance, decided the European bailout conceded to Greece where it is widely known that the priority was to refund European (especially German) banks.

The media have a great responsibility in this situation. In all latter day conflicts, from Kosovo to Libya, the formula has been very simple. Let us divide conflicts into good and bad, let us repeat the declarations of the ‘good guys’ and demonise the ‘bad guys’. Let us not go into analytical disquisitions, complexities and side issues because readers do not like that. Let us be to the point and crisp.“The media have a great responsibility … the formula has been very simple. Let us divide conflicts into good and bad, let us repeat the declarations of the ‘good guys’ and demonise the ‘bad guys’. Let us not go into analytical disquisitions, complexities and side issues because readers do not like that”

The latest example. All media have been talking of the Iraqi army engaged in taking back the town of Kirkuk from the Caliphate, the Islamic State. But how many are also informing that two-thirds of the Iraqi army is actually made up of soldiers from Iran? And that the Americans engaged in overseeing this offensive are in fact accepting cooperation from Iran, formally an archenemy?

How many have been reporting that the ongoing negotiations over the nuclear capabilities of Iran are really based on the need to restore legitimacy to Iran, because it has become clear that without Iran there is no way to solve Arab conflicts? And how many have informed that all radical Muslims have received financial support from  Saudi  Arabia, which is intent on supporting Salafism, the Muslim school which is at the basis of al-Qaeda and now of the Islamic State?

Recent history shows the West has gone into a number of conflicts (Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011 and Syria in 2012), without looking beyond the immediate consequences, and without any consideration for long-term analysis. The costs of those conflicts have always exceeded the benefits foreseen. An auditor company could not certify any of those conflicts in terms of costs and benefit.

Let us start from the collapse of Yugoslavia, and let us remind ourselves that the West has three principles of international law under which to shield itself as a result of its actions.

One is the principle of inviolability of state borders, which was not applied to Serbia, but is now the case for Ukraine. The second is the principle of self-determination of people, which was used in Kosovo for the Albanian minority living in that part of Serbia but it is not considered valid now for the Russian populations of East Ukraine. The third is the right to intervene for humanitarian interventions, which was used first in Libya, and is now under consideration for Syria.

The drama of the Balkan conflicts was due to a very unilateral action by Germany, which decided to extrapolate Croatia and Slovenia from the Yugoslav federation as its zone of economic interest. The then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, pushed this in an unprecedented way throughout the West.

It was the first time that Germany had play an assertive role, with U.S. support, and it was a Cold War reflex – let us eliminate the only country left after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which still inspires itself to a socialist state and not to a market economy.

Serbia, which considered itself heir to the Kingdom of Serbia (out of which Josep Broz Tito had created the socialist Yugoslavia), intervened and a terrible conflict ensued, with civilians paying a dramatic cost.

That conflict renewed dormant ethnic and religious divisions, about which everybody knew, but Genscher, who was then no longer in the German government, explained at a meeting in which the author participated: “I never thought the Serbians would resist Europe.”

It is interesting to note in this context that just a few weeks ago, the International Court of Justice ruled that neither Serbia nor Croatia had engaged in a genocidal war. The news was reported by many media, but without a word of contextualisation.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had been destroyed to implement the winning theory of “free market against socialism”. Did the creation of five mini-states improve the lives of the people? Not according to statistics, especially of youth unemployment, which was unknown in the days of Tito.

Then there was Iraq where, in the aftermath of the Twin Towers attack in September 2001, the rationale for attacking the country was based on assertions that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was both harbouring and supporting al-Qaeda, the group held responsible for the attack, and possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to the United States and its allies. These, which turned out to be lies, were blindly propagated by the media

But if, as is widely believed, petroleum was the cause, let us look at figures as an accounting company would do. That war is estimated to have cost at least two trillion dollars, without considering human life and physical destruction.

Iraq’s annual petroleum output at full pre-war capacity was 3.7 million barrels per day. Now a part of that is under the control of the Islamic State and Kurds have taken more than one-third under their control. But even at the full production, it would have taken more than 20 years to recoup the costs of the war.

It is, to say the least, unlikely that the United States would have had all that time – and since the war, has spent more than a further trillion dollars just in occupation and military costs.

And what about Afghanistan where there is no petroleum? Two trillion dollars have also been spent there … and the aim of that war was just to capture al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden!

Among others, it was said that democracy would be brought to Afghanistan. Now, after more than 50.000 deaths, nobody speaks any longer of institutional building, and the United States and its allies are simply trying to extricate themselves from a country whose future is bleak.

Now, the question I want to raise here is the following: what has happened to looking beyond the immediate consequences and long-term analysis in foreign policy?

Is it possible that nobody in power questioned the wisdom of an intervention in Libya for example, even assuming that Muammar Gaddafi was a villain to remove?  Did any of them ask what would happen afterwards? Did any of those in power ask what it would mean to support a war to remove Bashar al-Assad in Syria and what would happen after?

It appears that the House of Lords is right, we are taken into conflict by sleepwalkers. The West is responsible either for creating countries which are not viable (Kosovo), or for disintegrating countries (Yugoslavia and now probably Iraq), or for opening up areas of instability (Libya, Syria).

Without mentioning Ukraine where intervention is aimed at pushing the country towards Europe and NATO, thus provoking the potential retaliation of Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Those errors have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, displaced millions of people and, altogether, cost at least seven trillion dollars. Who is going to wake the sleepwalkers up? (END/IPS COLUMNIST SERVICE)

Edited by Phil Harris   

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS – Inter Press Service. 

Excerpt:

The United States cannot legally intervene militarily in Syria without the backing of the United Nations Security Council. Credit: Bomoon Lee/IPS

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 28 2013 (IPS)

When the administration of President George W. Bush launched a military attack on Iraq in March 2003, it was nearly 18 months before Kofi Annan, then-U.N. secretary-general, described the invasion as “illegal” and in “violation of the U.N. charter” because the United States did not have Security Council authorisation.

But Annan paid a heavy political price for his words, recounts James A. Paul, who has closely monitored the United Nations for nearly 19 years as executive director of the New York-based Global Policy Forum. The Bush administration was so furious that Annan soon came under attack and virtually his entire senior team were driven out of their posts by U.S. pressure, he said.

Asked if current Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon would follow in Annan’s footsteps should the U.S. military attack Syria without the blessings of the Security Council, Paul told IPS that “however much international law is disregarded, we can expect Ban Ki-moon to act cautiously and say nothing of substance.”

“This is his own proclivity anyway, but he will also be looking over his shoulder and noting what happened to his predecessor,” Paul added.

As the administration of President Barack Obama has started beating the war drums, there is speculation that the United States may bypass the Security Council – primarily because any resolution invoking Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, endorsing military action, is expected to be vetoed by Russia and possibly China.

A draft resolution on Syria, initiated by the United Kingdom, is currently circulating but may be shot down before it reaches a formal council meeting or is vetoed at a meeting.

A strong supporter of the beleaguered Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Russia has already exercised its veto three times, along with China, preventing sanctions against Damascus.

The United Nations also appears to be heading towards a political confrontation with the United States, which has already declared that Syria had used chemical weapons, upstaging a team of U.N. inspectors inside Syria still trying to establish the facts.

At a press conference in the Peace Palace in the Hague, the secretary-general said the use of chemical weapons by anyone, for any reasons, under any circumstances, would be an atrocious violation of international law."International law says that military action must be taken after a decision by the Security Council."
-- Lakhdar Brahimi

But it is essential to establish the facts, he said, taking a dig at the United States. “A United Nations investigation team is now on the ground to do just that,” he added.

Just days after the attacks, the team has collected valuable samples and interviewed victims and witnesses, but it needs time to do its job, Ban said. His request for more time comes amid reports from Washington that the United States has already asked Ban to withdraw his inspection team.

Paul told IPS the chemical weapons attack in Syria and the debates in the Security Council recall previous episodes when Washington sought backing for war. “Who can forget the presentation by [then-U.S. Secretary of State] Colin Powell to the council on Feb. 5, 2003, a presentation riddled with falsehoods, he later said he felt regret about?”

The leader of the U.N. inspection team in Iraq at that time, Hans Blix, has commented tellingly on the rush to war in Syria.

Recalling how the U.S. and the UK preempted the U.N. inspection process, he has warned that this time “we cannot rely on the self-interested pronouncements of powerful states and the facts must be considered dispassionately.” The United States is not the world’s policeman, Blix added.

At his press conference in the Hague, Ban implicitly called for Security Council, not unilateral, action against Syria, saying, “Let us adhere to the United Nations Charter.”

He said it was necessary to pursue all avenues to bring parties to the negotiating table and that the joint envoy of the United Nations and the Arab League, Lakhdar Brahimi, continues his efforts. Above all, he added, the Security Council must uphold its moral and political responsibilities under the U.N. Charter.

But at a press conference in Geneva, Brahimi was more forthright in stressing the primacy of the Security Council. “International law says that military action must be taken after a decision by the Security Council,” he said. “What will happen, then again, I don’t know.”

He tempered his comments by pointing out that “President Obama and the American administration are not known to be trigger-happy.”

Citing legal precedence, Paul told IPS the Syria situation under international law is clear: The U.N. Charter allows only two cases of military action against another state: in self-defence against an imminent attack and in response to a Security Council resolution.

Neither will apply in this case, because a resolution, if brought, would be vetoed, Paul predicted.

So Washington is reaching for other justifications and looking at past interventions for recycled rationales. One is the concept of moral policy and the related “just war” idea, promoted by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in his famous speech in Chicago in defence of the Kosovo NATO bombings in 1999.

This dangerous approach enables powerful countries to attack others on the basis of supposedly ethical judgments, “judgments which we know are always rooted in their self-interest”, said Paul.

Another approach is the less appealing idea that military action is illegal but legitimate, proposed after Kosovo by a panel of jurists but widely regarded as dangerously vague and subjective.

Yet another rationale, currently more faddish, is the idea of “responsibility to protect” (R2P). It is the idea that if states fail to protect their citizens, the international community should act. But here, too, the ground is very shaky, Paul noted.

R2P, as spelled out in 2005, is vague and does not justify action outside U.N. authorisation. So Washington is in a pickle, worsened by the refusal of the Arab League to give regional justification for military action, he said.

Any talk about Security Council paralysis sidesteps the issue of the veto that, used as a threat, blocks council action on a nearly daily basis and is used prolifically by Washington and all other permanent members.

“More bombing will not solve Syria’s problems nor set in motion a new and more responsible government,” Paul declared. “It will only prolong the killing.”

The Serbian Orthodox Church is highly influential in Serbia. Above, the Cathedral of Saint Sava in Belgrade. Credit: George Groutas/CC by 2.0

By Vesna Peric Zimonjic
BELGRADE, May 16 2013 (IPS)

The influential Serbian Orthodox Church publicly crossed a line recently when two of its top clergymen took part in a Belgrade rally with messages amounting to direct threats against the lives of government officials.

The rally last Friday was organised by opponents of Serbia’s recent and historic agreement with Kosovo that essentially ceded authority over Kosovo’s Serb population to Pristina.

“We pray for the dead souls of government and parliament, and may all their sins be forgiven,” Archbishop Amfilohije told some 3,000 ultra nationalists who gathered at the central Republic Square.

Amfilohije’s words were followed by a warning from Bishop Atanasije to current Prime Minister Ivica Dacic. “The prime minister speaks about real politics only,” the bishop said. “That is how Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic [assassinated in 2003] used to speak, and we all know how he ended.”

The agreement with Pristina was signed last month under the auspices of the European Union (EU) and called for the normalisation of relations between Serbia and its former province.

It also caused deep disturbance among some 100,000 Serbs who live in Kosovo and refuse to recognise the authority of Pristina, despite their largely having autonomy.

A tense history

Populated by 1.7 million ethnic Albanians, Kosovo was part of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia, which fell apart in 1991, and was under direct rule of Belgrade, with a Serb minority holding power until 1999.

In the 1990s, armed rebellion against Belgrade led to bloody repression by the security forces of former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic that left more than 13,000 ethnic Albanians dead. The bloodshed was stopped by 11 weeks of NATO bombing in Serbia in 1999 and by the introduction of United Nations rule over the former Serbian province.

After building its first democratic institutions, Kosovo declared independence in 2008 and has so far been recognised as a state by 96 nations.

But Kosovo is also the cradle of the Serb medieval state, embedded in the hearts and minds of millions of Serbs as the home of their rulers and Orthodox Christianity. Some of the oldest and most important monasteries and churches are in Kosovo, despite the fact that ethnic Albanians have become a majority there.

“Nothing can justify the scandalous behaviour of two bishops at the rally,” religion analyst and author Mirko Djordjevic told IPS. “Speeches by two SPC [Serbian Orthodox Church] primates are unprecedented and will certainly bear influence on future relations between the government and the church.”

“It’s high time the SPC stopped meddling into affairs of state,” commented leading Belgrade daily Blic. “The reputation of this institution has now been burnt to the ground, and its hate speech should be sanctioned.”

Public outcry and anger were most visible on media sites, where hundreds of visitors, even those who identified themselves as believers, posted protests against the clergy’s vitriolic speeches.

The role of the church

The SPC became influential in Serbia when the former Yugoslavia collapsed and Milosevic loosened his communist anti-religion grip for the sake of gaining allies in his wars of the 1990s. The church joined him, following the official policy of Serbia that said it was only “defending Serbs living outside [the] mother country”, meaning in Croatia and Bosnia. Milosevic’s wars led to the deaths of more than 200,000 non-Serbs and deeply tarnished Serbia’s reputation.

Religious curriculum was introduced in Serbian schools in 2001, as the regime that replaced Milosevic’s wanted good relations with the SPC.

“The church used the void left by [the] collapse of previous values and lack of new ones in the war chaos of the nineties,” Zivica Tucic, an independent analyst and expert on religious matters, told IPS. During political and economic transitions and crises, “people have nowhere to turn to but the church,” he explained.

According to the 2011 census, 94 percent of 7.3 million Serbs were Orthodox, but analysts say that most people consider religion and nationality to be equal. As Milan Vukomanovic, a sociologist from the Belgrade Faculty of Philosophy, said, “The church has taken its place in the past two decades and one can hardly expect it to leave the space it obtained.”

“The phenomenon arose after direct ethnic mobilisation in former Yugoslavia in the wars of the nineties,” he added. Those wars were fought along ethno-religion lines – among Catholic Croats, Orthodox Serbs and Muslim Bosniaks.

“Despite the fact that the war has ended many years ago, we still don’t see any engagement of the SPC in reconciliation, aid to the poor, et cetera,” Vukomanovic said.

The SPC clerics were widely engaged in wars in Croatia and Bosnia. Some of them went to battle or blessed troops that committed war crimes in the eastern Bosnian town of Srebrenica, where about 8,000 Bosniaks were massacred in 1995.

Although the SPC is not immune to other kinds of scandals, Djordjevic pointed out that the “top clergy never goes to court”, and court practise in Serbia is to allow statute of limitations for cases involving clergy.

The SPC also has a court of its own, the so-called “canon court”, which debates certain cases and suppresses scandal by retiring or mildly disgracing controversial priests. Cases involving paedophilia or embezzlement of church funds rarely end before regular courts.

Despite video evidence of a bishop with young men, for example, or moving stories of suicide attempts by victims of Pahomije, a Serbian bishop, little was done to reach justice. Similarly, a purser at the Patriarchate of Belgrade who stole more than 1.5 million dollars also never went to court.

The public now awaits the traditional SPC assembly, due to be held from May 21 to June 3. The assembly resembles a church parliament that debates the most current developments in all dioceses.

A highly placed source at SPC who insisted on anonymity told IPS that the scandals would not be on the agenda, and when asked whether the accountability of Bishops Atanasije and Amfilohije for their rally speeches will be discussed, he responded, “That is out of question.”

On Apr. 19, Serbia and Kosovo put years of animosity aside when their prime ministers Ivica Dacic and Hashim Thaci initialled the first ever agreement between Belgrade and Pristina that should lead to normalisation of relations between the two former enemies.

The 15-point agreement, signed in Brussels, gives a certain degree of autonomy to some 100,000 Serbs who still live in Kosovo, a former Serbian province that declared independence in 2008. Created under the auspices of the European Union, the accord is the culmination of 10 rounds of delicate negotiations that have lasted for six months.

EU Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fuele called the move “historic”, while Jelko Kacin, former Information Secretary of Slovenia and current EU official in charge of Serbia’s entry into the EU compared the event to the “end of the Cold War”.

On Friday, EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton told reporters in Brussels, “What we are seeing is a step away from the past and, for both of them, a step closer to Europe”, referring to the fact that the document effectively opens the door for Serbia to begin negotiations for EU membership, the political ambition of all its governments since the downfall of former dictator Slobodan Milosevic in 2000.

For Kosovo Prime Minister Thaci, the signing of the accord means, among other things, “the healing of wounds”, since it hinged upon the degree of autonomy Pristina was willing to grant to predominantly Serb regions in the north.

Until Yugoslavia fell apart in a series of bloody separatist conflicts in 1991, Kosovo – currently populated by 1.7 million ethnic Albanians and 100,000 Serbs – was a part of Serbia and under direct rule of the Serb minority in Belgrade.

An armed rebellion of ethnic Albanians aimed at obtaining independence from Belgrade in the 1990s led to brutal repression by Milosevic’s security forces, leaving 13,000 people dead.

In 1999, over a period of 11 weeks, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) dropped 50,000 bombs on 116 locations in southern Serbia and the Kosovo region in an effort to push out Milosevic’s forces. The bombing campaign was followed by the arrival of U.N. peacekeeping forces to oversee the province.

Fearing reprisals, almost half of Kosovo’s 200,000 resident Serbs fled to Serbia proper. Kosovo, meanwhile, went about building its first democratic institutions and unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in 2008. It has so far been recognised by 96 nations, including the United States and many European countries with the notable exceptions of Spain and Cyprus.

Serbia vowed never to recognise the independent Kosovo, claiming the region represents the historic “origin” of the medieval Serbian state, though only 100,000 Serbs currently live there.

Serbia, together with its staunch ally Russia, has rejected Pristina’s authority and blocked the possibility of U.N. membership.

After years of failed attempts to impose central rule over several Serb-populated regions, Pristina finally agreed to the document initialled Friday.

The agreement allows for partial autonomy through the creation of Serb municipalities, which will have Serb-led police forces and a Serb-language judiciary and education system.

The accord also provides for the protection of medieval Serb Orthodox churches and monasteries, and effectively bans the entry of Kosovo armed forces into Serb populated areas, except during instances of natural disasters — and even then under the supervision of NATO peacekeeping forces, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in Brussels.

Still, “It’s hard to say whether this is a historic agreement”, Dusan Janjic, head of the Forum for Inter-Ethnic Relations, told IPS, adding the agreement represents only the beginning of a normalisation process “that will take many years”.

“But this is…a very positive and important event for Serbia, Kosovo, Europe and the region,” Janjic added.

For Ognjen Pribicevic , a researcher with the Institute for Social Sciences and Serbia’s former ambassador to Berlin, the success of this initiative depends on how Serbs in Kosovo respond to this newfound “autonomy”.

“The association of Serb municipalities is responsible for security and that is very important for local people,” he told IPS.

However, not all parts of Serbian society were happy with the Brussels agreement.

Nationalist parties are fiercely opposed to the move, with the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) saying the agreement represented “treason of national and state interests”.

“Serbs in Kosovo are left (at the mercy) of separatists and Kosovo was sold for the mere price of…beginning talks with the EU,” according to a DSS statement.

Social networks have been buzzing with reactions to the agreement, reflecting the deep division within Serbian society, with pro-European commentators expressing the belief that Kosovo was lost back in 1999, after the NATO bombing of Serbia, while nationalists and ultra-nationalists are calling for a “new war” that would bring Kosovo back into “the mother state”.

Prime Minister Dacic said that it is now up to the Serbian Parliament to approve the agreement, but did not specify when that might happen.

(END)

Kosovo will finally gain full soverignty in September, almost four years after breaking away from Serbia, the International Steering Group (ISG) overseeing its independence has announced.

“The international supervision ends as of today,” said Michael Spindelegger, Austrian foreign minister, who hosted the event in the Austrian capital, Vienna.

In January, the 25-nation ISG, which includes several EU states besides Austria as well as Turkey and the U.S., had announced that the Balkan territory had made such progress that “supervised independence” could be lifted by the end of the year.

The ISG congratulated Kosovo for fulfilling the conditions required by the so-called Comprehensive Settlement Proposal (CSP), “including (passing) laws on cultural and religious heritage, community rights and decentralisation.”

Hashim Thaci, the Kosovo prime minister, who attended the meeting, said it was an “historic day” and a “new step for Kosovo” but Serbia warned that the decision could pose a risk for ethnic Serbs.

Monday’s decision effectively means the end of international administration and supervision of Kosovo, which unilaterally declared independence in 2008, but a NATO-led KFOR (the Kosovo Force) peacekeeping force or European rule of law mission EULEX will likely remain in place.

Kosovo, a two-million-strong majority ethnic Albanian republic, has been under some form of international administration since a NATO bombing campaign ousted Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic’s forces in 1999.

On Feb. 17, 2008, it unilaterally declared independence from Serbia and has been recognised by 86 countries, including most EU nations.

However, it continues to face opposition from Belgrade, Kosovo’s ethnic Serbs and Russia.

A senior Serbian official said Monday’s decision was bad news for its Serb minority.

“When any international mission in Kosovo leaves, it can mean a greater danger for both Serbs and Serbia,” Oliver Ivanovic, Serbia’s state secretary for Kosovo, told B92 television.

While Kosovo’s Serb community rejected the 25-nation ISG “at the very beginning” and had little contact with it, “Any foreigner or foreign mission is better” as Serbs and Albanians “are not able to function” without international
mediation, said Ivanovic.

*Published under an agreement with Al Jazeera.