Israel’s Secret Plan For A “Second Israel” In Ukraine

The role of Jewish figures and that of the State of Israel in the Ukrainian crisis has not gone unnoticed considering that this community represents less than 1 percent of the population. However, a secret report in the hands of the Netanyahu administration confirms that Ashkenazi Jews do not originate from the Levant, but are the descendants of the Khazars. This little-known population founded a Jewish empire in the tenth century on the banks of the Black Sea. Therefore, some Zionists see in Ukraine a possible second Israel.

The Times of Israel, an independent Israeli newspaper that counts among its staff a number of former reporters for the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, published a fascinating but largely overlooked story datelined Jerusalem and Zhitomir, Ukraine, March 16, 2014, and which was written by its respective Russian and Ukrainian correspondents, Hirsh Ostropoler and I. Z. Grosser-Spass, citing a secret report provided to the Israeli government [1]. The report, written by a select panel of scholars of Jewish history drawn from academia and other research centers, concluded that that European Jews are in fact descended from Khazars, a war-like Mongol-Tatar group that ruled over Ukraine and southern Russia, which mass-converted to Judaism in the eighth century AD.

Zionists have long argued that the land claimed by Israel was the biblical birthright of the Jewish people who were forced from the land in a so-called «diaspora» after repeated conquests by various empires. Proof that Ashkenazi Jews, which make up a majority of the Israeli Jewish population, have no historical link to Palestine would call into question the entire premise of Israel as the historical «5,000-year old» homeland of the Jewish people.

The Israeli journalists noted that any conversation of the Khazars and modern Israel has always been met with disdain by Israeli leaders. They quote Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir as once saying, «Khazar, Schmazar. There is no Khazar people. I knew no Khazars. In Kiev. Or Milwaukee. Show me these Khazars of whom you speak». DNA proof that a migratory Khazar population from Europe is now claiming ancient roots in Palestine largely eliminates Zionist claims to the region.

The evidence that eastern and central European Jews have no historical claim to Palestine has resulted in a flurry of activity in Israel and abroad. The Israeli Knesset will soon vote on a bill passed by the Israeli Cabinet that legalizes Israel as a Jewish «national state». Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who read the secret report on the Khazars, has declared that «Israel is the Jewish, nationalist state for the Jewish people». With the Ashkenazi claims to Israel tenuous, at best, Netanyahu, his Likud Party, and his Jewish Orthodox and West Bank settler party allies have no other choice but to aggressively stake their nationalist claims to not only Israel but also to the West Bank – which the nationalists refer to as «Judea and Samaria».

However, some Israelis and Jews abroad are not taking any chances. One of the main reasons why Ukrainian Jewish billionaire tycoon Ihor Kolomoisky, the governor of Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk province and citizen of Ukraine, Israel, and Cyprus, is spending tens of millions of dollars on the recruitment of right-wing Ukrainian nationalists and neo-Nazis from other parts of Europe to fight against the Russian-speaking majority in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine, is a fear that plans to turn Ukraine into a «second Israel» will be derailed. Russia’s protective measures for the Donbass, as well as its incorporation by referendum of Crimea, the latter prized by the resurgent Khazarian Jewish nationalists, threaten the transformation of Ukraine into a second homeland for Ashkenazi Jews who are finding their hold on Israel prime tenuous, at best.

The Times of Israel’s explosive story about the Khazarian roots of the Ashkenazis also revealed that Israel, knowing that a Palestinian state is inevitable considering the increasing pressure for it from Europe, is preparing to resettle Ashkenazi settlers in the West Bank to Ukraine. Israel’s advanced research in genetics resulted in a direct DNA line being established between Israel’s Ashkenazis and the Khazars who were dispersed across eastern and central Europe after Russia conquered the Khazarian Empire in the 11th century.

Israelis and their Zionist allies around the world have always accused proponents of the Khazarian-Ashkenazi genetic connection of deep-rooted anti-Semitism. However, the genetic research contained in the secret Israeli report confirms what Israeli historian Shlomo Sand revealed in his book, «The Invention of the Jewish People». The concept of the Khazarian bloodline was first broached by Hungarian historian Arthur Koestler in his 1976 «The Thirteenth Tribe».

The Times of Israel reporters quoted an unnamed aide to Netanyahu who revealed the plans for Israeli emigration to Ukraine: «We first thought that admitting we are really Khazars was one way to get around [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas’s insistence that no Jew can remain in a Palestinian state. Maybe we were grasping at straws. But when he refused to accept that, it forced us to think about more creative solutions. The Ukrainian invitation for the Jews to return was a godsend. Relocating all the settlers within Israel in a short time would be difficult for reasons of logistics and economics. We certainly don’t want another fashlan like the expulsion of the settlers in the Gaza Hitnatkut [disengagement]».

Ostropoler and Grosser-Spass also quoted an anonymous Israeli intelligence source as saying: «We’re not talking about all the Ashkenazi Jews going back to Ukraine. Obviously that is not practical. The press as usual exaggerates and sensationalizes; this is why we need military censorship».

The Israeli and Ukrainian Jewish plan is to resettle the Ashkenazis from the West Bank in the Russian autonomous republic of Crimea after what they see will be an eventual retrocession of the peninsula to Ukraine. The ultimate plans of Ukrainian Zionists such as Kolomoisky, in addition to such American allies as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, is to establish an autonomous Jewish region of Crimea and restore to the peninsula the original Khazarian name of Chazerai. Although the Tatars who live in Crimea and elsewhere today are largely Muslims, the plans to create a Khazar nation in Ukraine will also likely involve global proselytization by Israelis and Ukrainians who are bent on restoring Khazaria as an alternative to Israel. Current Jewish proselytization efforts among «crypto-Jewish» Catholic mestizos in Mexico; Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists in India; Russian Orthodox and Buddhists in Birobidzhan, Siberia; Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan; and Christians, Muslims, and animists in Uganda, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Malawi; and among small pockets of alleged Jewish descendants in China, Sao Tome and Principe, Tahiti, Suriname, Vietnam, Brazil, and Peru point to an Israeli plan intent on increasing Jewish numbers for the purpose of settlement in a number of locations outside the illegally-occupied West Bank and the Golan Heights. In addition to Ukraine, northern Iraq, eastern Libya, Alexandria in Egypt, parts of Turkey, Patagonia in Argentina, and Uganda are all being considered for potential Jewish settlements to complement the West Bank or replace it. The so-called «Lost Tribe of Israel,» the Bnei Menashe of Mizoram and Manipur states of northeast India are viewed by many Indians as not actually Jewish but desperate economic migrants looking for better lives in Israel. So desperate are the Israeli expansionists to increase their numbers, dubious Jewish DNA studies have attempted to classify the Sorbs of eastern Germany; the Bantu Lemba people of Zimbabwe, Malawi, and Mozambique; and certain groups of southern Italians, Armenians, and Greeks as «lost tribes» of Israel in order to increase Judaism’s numbers and geographical land claims.

In Ukraine, the so-called «second Israel,» Kolomoisky and Kiev have enlisted a number of ex-Israel Defense Force members in their volunteer battalions, including the Azov Battalion, One of the Israeli units is known as the «Blue Helmets of Maidan» and is commanded by an Israeli using the pseudonym «Delta». If Israel did not have a vested interest in expanding its influence in Ukraine it could easily prevent these units from going to Ukraine.

There are also Sephardic Jewish settlers in the West Bank who are descended from the Jewish Marranos of Moorish-ruled Spain who were expelled from the Iberian Peninsula during the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions of the 15th century who have no ties to Ashkenazis or Khazaria. Recently, in a move similar to Ukraine’s invitation to the Ashkenazis from the West Bank to settle in Ukraine, Spain and Portugal have enacted legislation that would permit any Sephardic Jew anywhere in the world who can prove their descent from the Marranos expelled during the Inquisition to obtain citizenship in the two countries.

Some Russian speakers in the Donbass are wary of the intentions of pro-Israelis in the Kiev government. Oddly, Kolomoisky has recruited a number of neo-Nazis from western Ukraine and Europe to fight in his battalions whose right-wing organizations have always subscribed to the notion of a future «battle royale» between Russia and the remnants of Khazaria in Israel, Ukraine, Poland, and the Republic of Georgia to avenge Khazaria’s defeat in the 11th century by the Russian Empire.

Israel provided the Georgian government of President Mikheil Saaakashvili, which included a number of dual Israeli-Georgian nationals of Khazar descent, with military and intelligence assistance in its 2008 war against South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Similarly, the Israelis have established close ties with Azerbaijan, a country, which like Georgia and Ukraine, has ancient links to Khazaria through an indigenous group of Azeri Jews known as Subbotniks.

The anonymous Netanyahu aide is also quoted by The Times of Israel journalists as revealing why the Israeli government in making a play for large Israeli settlements in Ukraine: «As the Prime Minister has said, no one will tell Jews where they may or may not live on the historic territory of their existence as a sovereign people. He is willing to make painful sacrifices for peace, even if that means giving up part of our biblical homeland in Judea and Samaria. But then you have to expect us to exercise our historical rights somewhere else. We decided this will be on the shores of the Black Sea, where we were an autochthonous people for more than 2000 years. Even the great non-Zionist historian Simon Dubnow said we had the right to colonize Crimea. It’s in all the history books. You can look it up».

The aide revealed to the two Israeli journalists that Netanyahu appreciates the strength of the ancient Khazars and quote Netanyahu as saying, «we are a proud and ancient people whose history here goes back 4,000 years». But the aide added, «The same is true of the Khazars . . . in Europe and not quite as long. But look at the map: the Khazars did not have to live within ‘Auschwitz borders.’»

To the uninformed, which apparently includes President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, the current Israeli desire to create a new nationalist Israeli identity is tied directly to the activities of the Ukrainian leadership of Petro Poroshenko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Kolomoisky, and their American supporters, Nuland and Pyatt, in creating a safe haven, temporary or not, for the Ashkenazi settlers of the West Bank. Thanks to The Times of Israel exposé of the secret Israeli report on the Khazars and modern-day Israel, the machinations behind the American and European Union destabilization of Ukraine becomes all the more apparent.


By Wayne Madsen

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

  1. Leaked report: Israel acknowledges Jews in fact Khazars; Secret plan for reverse migration to Ukraine”, Jim Wald, The Times of Israel, March 16, 2014.

08-12-2014

 

Ukraine: Fascist Dictatorship Masquerading As Democracy

For the first time since WW II, overt fascists hold real power in Europe. Radicalized ultranationalists. Anti-Semites. Hate-mongers. 

Cold-blooded killers. Whitewashing high crimes. A puppet regime. America’s newest colony.

Mocking democratic values. Violating fundamental rule of law principles. Unaccountably.

Western leaders won’t explain. Nor will the media. Hard truths are buried.

Ukraine’s government usurped power forcibly. Putschist rule has no legitimacy.

Especially regimes waging war on their own people. Murdering them in cold blood. Committing horrendous human rights abuses.

Tolerating no opposition. Ruling by intimidation. Force-feeding neoliberal harshness on impoverished people. Making life unbearable overall. More on this below.

On December 4, Wall Street Journal editors published illegitimate/oligarch Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko’s op-ed headlined ”A Year Later, a New Ukraine.”

Legitimate editors wouldn’t touch this rubbish. Journal editors featured it. Beginning-to-end misinformation. Deception. Big Lies.

WSJ editorials and op-eds reinvent history. Poroshenko’s rant is Exhibit A, saying:

“For the first time since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the nation has the opportunity to evolve into a true European democracy, thanks to the recent election of a pro-European constitutional majority to Parliament. A pro-reform and pro-European Parliament and government are now in place, and a politically reset Ukraine has been empowered to make permanent changes that have been long awaited by the Ukrainian people and by the international community.”

Fact: Ukrainian-style democracy is none at all. Pure fantasy.

Fact: Presidential and parliamentary elections were farcical. Illegitimate by any standard.

Fact: Whole families won parliamentary seats.

Fact: Poroshenko’s son, Oleksiy, represents Vinnitsa region’s No. 12 precinct.

Fact: The same one his father represented years earlier. Bequeathed to his son.

Itar Tass commented earlier, saying:

“…Ukraine’s political class is built on the foundation of nepotism and cronyism, as all the political forces display the tradition of nominating candidates on the grounds of kinship. Russia’s Foreign Ministry said parliamentary elections “were marked by an unprecedented number of gross violations of basic international standards for democratic elections, which were recorded during the election campaign, election day and vote counting. A year passed since” Maidan protests, said Poroshenko. Followed by “the Revolution of Dignity,” he claimed.

“Ukrainians were opting for freedom, not fear, choosing democracy, not dictatorship, and believing in the future, not the past. The idea of a new Ukraine was born. We had the courage to fight for it. Now we have the institutional powers to implement it.”

Fact: Right Sector neo-Nazis murdered Kiev residents and police.

Fact: Ousted President Viktor Yanukovych was wrongfully blamed.

Fact: Fascist snipers used automatic weapons. Fired from Philharmonic Hall’s rooftop and windows. Overlooking the Maidan. Clear evidence proved it.

Fact: Washington orchestrated what happened. Putschists practically lived at its embassy. It was coup d’etat headquarters.

Fact: Reuters discovered “serious flaws” in Kiev’s investigation. Including “missing evidence.” Regime officials “played roles in supporting the uprising.”

Ukrainians want democratic freedoms. Responsible governance. Verboten notions for fascists. Ruling by brute force.

Poroshenko’s governance is more deform than reform. Saying “Ukraine is finally ready to build a robust state” denies reality.

So is claiming a Moscow threat. None whatever exists. No evidence suggests otherwise.

“On the external front, we are united in fighting for our freedom and for our future as an independent nation – a fight that has implications for all of Europe and global security,” said Poroshenko.

Fascists deplore freedom. Crushing it for unchallenged control.

Ukrainian independence was lost. Washington controls its newest colony.

Poroshenko its puppet leader. Presiding over a police state apparatus. Ruling by intimidation.

Serving at America’s discretion. Remaining president as long as he remembers who’s boss.

Truth is polar opposite his Big Lies. Russia’s White Book documented hard truths. Revealing serious human rights violations. Including:

(1) Violations of human rights.

(2) Interference by the European Union and United States.

(3) Weapons and violent methods used by protesters.

(4) Restrictions on basic freedoms and crackdown on dissidents.

(5) Discrimination based on ethnic background.

(6) Religious persecution.

According to Moscow’s press service, content is “based on reports in the Russian and Western media, as well as statements by representatives of the current Kiev authorities and their supporters, eyewitness testimon(ies), observations and on-site interviews collected by Russian nongovernmental organizations.”

A second White Book covers the period April through July 2014. Calling conditions “aggravated in all areas.” Worse than ever.

Including illegitimate fascist rule. Brazen pressure and threats. Severe repression. Physical violence. Suppressing press freedom.

Terrorizing independent journalists. Harassing and beating them. No-holds-barred brutality. Like Nazi Germany.

History has a disturbing way of repeating. Core elements are unchanged. Ukrainians were betrayed. Expect worse ahead, not better.

Kiev’s dirty war continues. Without mercy. Against Donbas residents. Wanting real democracy. Rejecting fascist rule.

Putting their lives on the line for freedom. A testimony to courage. Deserving universal support.

Their liberating struggle continues. Largely on their own. Russia the only nation providing vitally needed humanitarian aid.

Kiev wanting millions of Donbas residents isolated. Denied what people need to survive. Attacked with heavy weapons. Illegal ones.

According to Russia’s Foreign Ministry Commissioner for Human Rights Konstantin Dolgov:

“For the first time, Human Rights Watch clearly recognized that the Ukrainian military are using multiple-launch missile systems and banned weapons against civilians in Donbas. This confirms the data contained in the White Book released by the Russian Foreign Ministry. Rights activists must put pressure on the West and on Kiev authorities to prevent further crimes.”

Russia’s updated White Book (its 3rd edition) contains documented evidence of new crimes and abuses.

Especially “social and economic strangling” of Donbas residents. Noting neo-Nazi mass marches.

“Why does this happen in Europe of the 21st century,” asked Dolgov? “What is happening presents a major threat to the entire international community.”

According to Russia’s updated White Book, “Ukrainian government forces used phosphorus and cluster bombs, Grad and Uragan multiple rocket launchers and Tochka-U ballistic missiles against the population in the south-east of the country.”

“Along with heavy weapons and warplanes, Ukrainian authorities used such ammunition as incendiary, phosphorous and cluster bombs, howitzer artillery and 240-mm mortar systems.”

Dolgov called Kiev’s actions serious war crimes, saying:

“Certainly, all such facts can be taken as nothing but war crimes which were committed and are still being committed against civilians.”

Mass graves discovered contained hundreds bodies of Nazi-style extrajudicial executions.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry urged international organizations and media to report non-politicized assessments of what’s ongoing.

As a way to help stop outrageous abuses. Its Ministry saying:

“We are convinced that distraction from reality and attempts to conceal it from the international community or to manipulate public opinion are a hypocritical and dead-locked path.”

Kiev caused Donbas area catastrophic conditions. Up to 60% of homes were destroyed or seriously damaged.

Regime authorities tried blocking Russian aid. Convoys of mercy. “The fundamental position of the Russian Federation remains unchanged,” its Foreign Ministry said.

“(I)n favor of strict observance of the Minsk agreement on both sides.”

“Kiev’s time to finally stop the reckless attempts to solve the problem of relations with the south-east of the country with tanks, guns and other military ways, renounce violence and to negotiate with the representatives proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. No other way, and this without talking heads of Ukraine and their foreign patrons of the establishment of Ukrainian democracy is absurd.”

Moscow has verifiable information of unjustifiable political imprisonments.

“The period under review was characterized by the rapid degradation of the situation in the field of freedom of expression and restrict the activities of undesirable Kiev government media,” according to its updated White Paper.

“International News Safety Institute has recognized Ukraine as the most dangerous country in the world for journalists.”

Political censorship is rife. All popular Russian TV channels are blocked.

“The rapidly developing practice of political persecution and widespread persecution of the politicians supporting an approach different from Kiev held a cynical course,” Russia’s White Book says.

“For this purpose, (it notes) the murder of political opponents, the fabrication of criminal cases, illegal searches, confiscation of property, assault and bullying banal tricks such as ‘junk lustration’ and other illegal methods of influence, contrary to the principle of the rule of law and democratic standards. According to the Russian Federal Migration Service, November 20, the total number of Russian citizens are in Ukraine is 831,085 thousand people. In Russia there is deployed 795 temporary accommodation centers in which there are 38,643 people, including 12,046 children up to 18 years. 486,233 citizens of Ukraine in the territorial bodies of Russia have applied to the Russian Foriegn Ministry Service to determine their legal status. 243,141 of them apply for temporary asylum in Russia and 5,721 submitted applications for recognition as a refugees. All crimes committed during the Ukrainian crisis must be objectively, fairly and effectively investigated.”

Especially killing, terrorizing and imprisoning journalists. Maidan killings. The Odessa massacre.

Using force disproportionately. Murdering civilians. Targeting children. Downing MH17. Mass graves with extrajudicially executed victims. Use of prohibited weapons. Other war crimes too serious to ignore.

“It is crucial that the Ukrainian authorities stop the ‘bandaging’ and begin an independent, impartial, effective and transparent investigation,” Russia’s White Book said.

Accountability is long overdue. So is honest MSM journalism. Reporting hard truths.

Explaining fascist ruthlessness in Europe’s heartland. Unbridled brutality defines it. Preventing regional peace and security.

Risking the unthinkable. War without end. Spilling cross-border.

Open conflict with Russia. Nuclear war with America involved.

Risking humanity’s survival. Lunatics in Washington make anything possible.

A Final Comment

Last month, a Ukrainian citizen emailed the following comments, saying:

“Dear Mr. Lendman,

Thank you a lot (for) tell(ing) the truth. I live in Ukraine, Izmail (city in the Southwest of the country). My relatives live in Donbas. After USA brought ‘the democracy’ to Ukraine, we here cannot even tell what we’re thinking. There is really fascist power here now.”

Vladimir (I am sorry. I’m afraid to sign my last name)”


About the author:

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 
7-12-2014
Original source of the article: author’s personal blog

The New Global Economy: Rise Of China And Decline Of USA

There is a limit to economic manipulations by empires. All empires have perished due to economic hardships. The Ottoman, Soviet and the British empires were no exception in the past century. Waste was the key product of these empires. Whether the only empire – the US – understands it or not, the fact is that its economy is being undermined due to its wasteful policies, living beyond its means and by dictating it’s economic and foreign policies on free nations and by treating them as satellites. The US has used economic sanctions (strangulation) against countries to gain an advantage but these are failing. In the latest round against Russia, the US has used the instrument of oil to apply sanctions in partnership with the Europeans who themselves are in economic hardships while China has agreed to partner with Russia to thwart the objective. On 15 January 2015 a Singapore’s newspaper reported that on 22 December 2014 Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated that though China is willing to help Russia if needed, it has the ability to overcome the current economic problems. China, a founding member of the BRICS, is lining up the bloc and that of the SCO – and their currencies – to support Russia in need.

The rise of the United States economy in the 70’s and 80’s was mainly due to the gold standard being abolished during Richard Nixon’s Presidency. This event was historic as it allowed the green back to be infinitely printed. In an effort to prop up the value of the dollar, Nixon negotiated a deal with Saudi Arabia that in exchange for arms and protection they would denominate all future oil sales in U.S. dollars. Subsequently, the other OPEC countries (primarily the Arabs and Iran under the Shah) agreed to similar deals thus ensuring a global demand for U.S. dollars and allowing the U.S. to export some of its inflation. It is only a matter of time when that partnership with Saudi Arabia may collapse.

The American debt can no longer be used to sustain GDP growth. After World War 2 the American economy was creating approximately $2.50 worth of economic growth for each dollar of debt that was being generated. By the 70’s that growth declined by 80% (or $0.50) and currently it is a meagre $0.05 for every dollar of debt. Jim Rickards author of the New York Times bestseller Currency Wars wrote: “Currency wars are one of the most destructive and feared outcomes in international economics. At best, they offer the sorry spectacle of countries’ stealing growth from their trading partners. At worst, they degenerate into sequential bouts of inflation, recession, retaliation, and sometimes actual violence.” Rickards blames the US Federal Reserve economic policies of printing trillions of dollars to stimulate the American economy.

In an article published by International Clearing House Peter Koenig wrote that “the US is able to maintain pressure on other currencies, currently the ruble, only as long as the petro dollar remains the major world reserve currency. This is the main reason why Washington gets away with a seven-fold indebted dollar (i.e. total outstanding and uncovered commitments are currently more than 7 times higher than the US GDP (US$ 17.6 trillion, 2014 est. – vs. US$ 128 trillion of unmet obligations –unfunded liabilities); making the US worldwide the most indebted country – by far”. But “Once the demand for the (petro) dollar fades – as hydrocarbons are no longer dealt in dollars – the value of the dollar will decline and at worst may result in hyperinflation in the dollar economies, including those closely linked to the US economy.”

China is a fast rising economic power in direct competition with the US having overtaken it in only the past 2 decades. There are several factors which will enable China to overtake the US as the major economic power, some of those being:

THE CURRENCY WAR

In April 2013, Australia had joined the ranks of several Southeast Asian countries to trade directly with China in the renminbi (yuan). These SE Asian countries were South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Australia’s banks, superannuation funds and financial houses will be even better placed to help in the growth of China’s service economy. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard had said: “This is good news for the Chinese economy and good news for the Australian economy.” Australia now exports more goods to China than any other country, and trade between the countries has been growing.

In October 2013, China and European Union agreed to a currency swap deal to boost trade and investment amounting to 350 billion yuan and €45 billion. This was the first currency deal between China and a non-Asian trading partner. In June, China had struck a similar agreement with the Bank of England worth up to 200 billion yuan.

Chinas-top-10-trading-partners

On 8 November 2014 Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada announced in China that the two countries have joined the ranks of several countries which have inked agreements with China to deal directly in their respective currencies. This basically removes the middle currency, the US dollar. Canadian exporters doing business with China had to use the US dollar resulting in higher currency exchange costs and longer wait to close deals. Not so any longer. Trade between Canada and China is expected to double and triple in the coming years.

The renminbi had a market share of less than 1% in 2009 but that share has been steadily growing where it has now reached a market share of 18% by mid-2014. In comparison the market share of the US dollar is nearly 65%. In early 2013, the renminbi had ranked 12th place but by March 2014, the renminbi had climbed to seventh, behind the dollar, euro, pound, yen, and the Australian and Canadian dollars when ranked by value of payments made in that currency. Another measurement of the renminbi’ s acceptance is the number of global financial institutions doing business in the yuan. It has grown from a meagre 1000 in 2010 to over 10,000 in 2014. These numbers reflect the yuan gains as the Chinese economy continues to grow and more countries continue to sign agreements in currency trades.

Chinese currency manipulation and the clandestine gold purchases by China (and now Russia) is likely to aggravate the currency war looming on the horizon.

BREAKING THE CONNECTIVITY BOTTLENECK IN ASIA

The business of America has always been business. The US has played the role of Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice willing to extract the pound of flesh. The business of China is also business but without extracting the pound of flesh. Whereas China has been extending its global influence through friendship, the US has been extending its global influence through submission by using its huge arsenal of weapons. US, along with the western European nations, has been extracting its pound of flesh through the World Bank, IMF and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The financial assistance provided by these institutions does not come without strings that exclusively benefit the sponsors and much less to the recipients.

China has been more interested in extending its influence in Asia mainly through development of infrastructure projects. In late 2013, China first announced the founding of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) with a registered capital of $50 billion and then doubling it to $100 billion in mid-2014. The financing of the infrastructure projects will lead China to play an extended role in regional economic growth and political influence. 21 countries including Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore, Mongolia, Myanmar, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan signed up as founding members and recognizing AIIB.

On 8 November 2014, Chinese President Xi Jingping announced that China would contribute $40 billion towards a new Silk Road fund designed to improve trade and transport links in Asia. This is above and beyond the AIIB fund. In a meeting in Beijing with leaders from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar and Tajikistan, State media Xinhua reported Xi stating that the goal of the fund is to “break the connectivity bottleneck” in Asia.

In one of my previous articles titled “Middle East: The Regional Chessboard“, I’d mentioned about several strategic alliances and relations, one among which was regarding Pakistan and China. China has built the 1300 km Karakoram highway which together with the Indus highway provides a direct link to Gwadar port. The port would serve as a direct link for China to the warm waters of the Indian Ocean. Whereas major powers Britain, Soviet Union and the US have failed to gain access to the warm waters through military adventures, China has succeeded through friendship to gain access to the Indian Ocean.

Untitled28

China is aspiring to build land and sea routes to facilitate trade and finance from Asia to the Mediterranean and Europe. The two key sea routes would be established through Myanamar and Pakistan. The map shows the land routes in red and the sea routes in blue. To achieve the sea route goal China plans to invest $20 billion on a BOT (Build, Operate, Transfer) basis to link Myanmar’s Kyauk Phyu port on the Bay of Bengal by 800 km high speed rail to Mu Se near China’s border connecting Beijing and other cities facilitating that ships will no longer need to sail through Malacca strait.

TRADE COMPETITION

The USA is the largest and most important economy in the world in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). THE USA GDP accounted for US$ 16 trillion or 19% of the global GDP. In 2012, US imports and exports accounted for US$3,985 billion with imports of US$2,375 billion and exports of US$ 1,610 billion with trade deficit of US $765 billion.

China is the second largest and most important economy behind US in terms of GDP. China’s GDP accounted for US$ 12 trillion or 14% of the global GDP. In 2012, China’s import and export totaled US$ 4,200 billion. China’s import was US$ 2,000 billion, and its export was US$ 2,200 billion with trade surplus of US$ 259.75 billion. China is the world’s second largest trading nation behind the US – leading the world in exports and coming in second for imports.

China and S. Korea have recently agreed in principle for a free trade agreement (FTA). S. Korea is China’s second largest trading partner where trade between the two countries amount to $230 billion. The announcement came on the sidelines of the 2014 Asia Pacific Economic Conference in Beijing.

What is most interesting between the economies of the two giants is the share of the economic structures in terms of agriculture, industries and services. The US agriculture, industries and services comprises 1.2%, 19.1% and 79.7% respectively while that of China is 10.1%, 45.3% and 44.6%.

THE STRATEGIES FOR ECONOMIC DOMINANCE

China has clearly locked in upon strategic economic partnership with Asian countries, Australia and Canada similar to what the US has with its G-7 partners. Currently the G-7 countries dominate the global trade along with their respective global convertible currencies- the US$, C$, Yen and Euro.

In closing, I reiterate that Chinese currency manipulation and the clandestine gold purchases by China (and now Russia) are likely to aggravate the currency war looming on the horizon. This will certainly lead to the decay of the US economic and political domination and the emergence of new economies dominated by a basket of international currencies to purchase oil replacing the dominance of the Petrodollar. The combined policies of US Federal Reserve and the US Treasury are leading the nation towards an economic and national security precipice. Jim Rickards said in a US Treasury meeting that “The Fed and the Treasury are the greatest threats to national security, not Al- Qaeda.” Jim Rickards in his book The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System published in April 2014 wrote that: “our biggest economic competitors—China, Russia, and the oil producing nations of the Middle East—are doing everything possible to end U.S. monetary hegemony.”

In the coming years, the world will most likely be divided into West and East – the Western hemisphere will continue to be influenced (not dominated) by the US economic and political policies and the East by China through a partnership with Muslim nations, BRICS and SCO countries. It will be the currencies, US Dollar and the Chinese Yuan that will play the dominant roles in the hemispherical division.

About the author:

Gulam Asgar Mitha is a retired Techinal Safety Engineer. He has worked with several N. American and International oil and gas companies. He has worked in Libya, Qatar, Pakistan, France, Yemen and UAE. Currently Gulam lives in Calgary, Canada and enjoys reading and keeping in tune with current global political issues. Exclusive for ORIENTAL REVIEW. The views expressed do not necessarily coincide with the Editorial’ ones.

25-01-2015

Source: http://orientalreview.org/2015/01/25/the-new-global-economy-rise-of-china-and-decline-of-usa/

Between The Lines: Western Public Support For Albanian Terrorism

Terrorists attacked the Macedonian city of Kumanovo on 9 May, but one wouldn’t know that by reading the Western media’s reaction to the tragedy, despite the fact that they typically mention that 8 police officers were killed and another 37 wounded during the firefight. The media’s disingenuous ‘reporting’ reeks of ulterior motives, which is evidenced most visibly by their reluctance to use the word terrorist without putting it in questionable quotation marks, but also takes more subtle forms such as casting suspicion on the government for complicity in the attack and/or inferring that the attack was some type of legitimate protest reaction.

Western institutions like the EU and NATO are actually worse since they confer equal responsibility for the violence on both the terrorists (which they don’t even refer to as) and the Macedonian security services, and even the UN has taken to echoing their sly sentiments with all three entities questioning the official course of events and demanding a “transparent investigation”. The US and its main Western European NATO allies escalate the rhetoric and actually engage in a form of victim shaming against the country during its official two-day period of mourning by questioning its commitment to “democracy” and not showing any solidarity with it whatsoever in its fight against terrorism. This shameless act (and lack thereof) shows that they and all the previously mentioned actors are in fact implicit supporters of Albanian terrorism against Macedonia and strong proponents of the state destabilization.

Part I of the research demonstrates how unipolar information sources purposely manipulate their coverage of the latest terrorist attacks in Macedonia, while Part II begins by showing how this is also the case for the Western and pro-Western institutions of the EU, NATO, and the UN. The series continues by addressing how the US and its allies have tried to shame and intimidate Macedonia, and then concludes by identifying probable scenarios for how they plan on punishing the proud country for resisting their aggression.

Media Manipulation

Western media has become the vanguard of a unified information offensive against Macedonia, presenting the latest terrorist attack against it as either a potentially justified reaction or as some type of hoax by the government itself. Let’s look at how media outlets in the unipolar world have centralized their narrative about the events:

photo.jpgAl Jazeera:

Qatar’s official soft power provocateur, always in line with Western grand strategy, had this to say about the situation:

“The Macedonian government said eight police and 14 members of an “armed group” were killed after police staged a raid in the northern town of Kumanovo, seeking gunmen from Kosovo it claimed were planning to attack civilian and state targets…Kotevski named five leaders of the group, all citizens of Kosovo, as founders of paramilitary cells…However some residents in Kumanovo were deeply sceptical of the official version of events. “Me, like other citizens, we are surprised and no one knows what and why this happened. I know during the war in 2001 we were informed and we have supported these groups that were fighting for the Albanian cause but now it is the contrary,” Kumanovo resident Xhelal Ademi told the Reuters news agency. “The people in this region were guarding their villages to not let anyone infiltrate from outside our villages,” Ademi said…Authorities described [the earlier Gosince] incident as “very serious” and said Macedonia was the “target of a terrorist attack”.”

They follow the ‘quotation mark system’ of putting certain phrases in quotes in order to signify no endorsement but present what they intimate may be a disputable claim on the part of the original source. Judging by Al Jazeera, the terrorists might not have even been an “armed group”, but were rather paramilitary cells, thereby bestowing some layer of legitimacy to their violent activities. Then the Qataris allege some kind of broad conspiracy by selectively quoting local residents in order to create the impression that the attacks might not have happened at all. Finally, they use the quotation mark system once more to question whether the test-run attack from late-April was terrorist-related or even a serious matter in the first place, thus making it seem like it was of no more importance than a local football match.

250px-CBS_logo.svgCBC:

The Canadian Broadcasting Company puts a novel spin on their reporting by trying to tie it in with “anti-police brutality” agitation ongoing on Skopje. This “protest” agitation is nothing more than a simple borrowing of aggressive American protest tactics perfected in Ferguson and Baltimore for the betterment of Color Revolution tactics abroad. Zoran Zaev’s “revelations” are manipulated NSA-provided recordings designed to capitalize off of the global fawning of Snowden-like leakers, with the public now assuming that any “leaker” is unquestionably legitimate and not part of a carefully crafted information operation like Zaev and his cohorts are. It’s telling how the Color Revolution against Macedonia began by exploiting the ‘Snowden Effect’ and is now exploiting America’s latest protest craze against police violence, ironically by attempting to behave just as violently as some of the protesters in Baltimore in order to provoke the same ‘police violence’ they were supposedly protesting.

In any case, here’s how the Canadians try to con their audience about the terrorist attacks in Macedonia:

“An armed group attacked special forces police Saturday in a town in northern Macedonia in a clash that killed five police officers and injured more than 30, officials said, amid a political crisis that has raised concern about the stability of the Balkan nation…[The Interior Minister] added that the “terrorist group,” which had entered Macedonia from an unspecified neighbouring country, planned to “use the current political situation to perform attacks on state institutions.”…

Saturday’s clashes come as Macedonia is grappling with its deepest political crisis since its independence from former Yugoslavia in 1991. The government and the opposition have accused each other of planning to destabilize the country to take or preserve power, and some analysts fear leaders on both sides are ready to provoke ethnic clashes as leverage…

On Friday, thousands of opposition supporters took part in nationwide protests against alleged police brutality in Macedonia. The protests started after opposition leader Zoran Zaev — citing illegally recorded conversations — accused the government of trying to cover up the 2011 police killing of a 22-year-old man…Zaev on Saturday appealed for calm, but had earlier called for a large anti-government protest on May 17.”

As with Al Jazeera, they prefer to call the terrorists an “armed group”, only using the phrase terrorist group in quotations when quoting the Interior Minister. The article then transitions towards casting suspicion on the government itself for provoking ethnic clashes, which is in reality the absolute last thing that the authorities need at the moment as they defend against a Color Revolution attempt. Finally, the Canadians end their information package by trying to justify the attack through their mentioning of the Color Revolution “anti-brutality protests” and Zaev’s forthcoming call for chaos on 17 May.

LnvhR8EDCNN:

America’s premier propaganda outlet lives up to its reputation by strongly hinting that the terrorists might have been Slavic Macedonians unhappy with a 2001 ceasefire agreement:

“At least 30 other officers were wounded in the clashes that erupted during a police raid early Saturday on a group of roughly 70 “terrorists” in the town of Kumanovo, Macedonia, the country’s internal affairs ministry said…Albanian insurgents battled against the central government in 2001. Ethnic Macedonians became angry over the ceasefire agreement that ended the fighting and held violent protests that resulted in the President at the time, Boris Trajkovski, was evacuated. The ministry did not say who the “terrorists” authorities raided on Saturday were, nor if they were ethnic Albanians.”

This high-level information diversion is meant to make Albanian Macedonians and the world think that rabid Slavic Macedonian nationalists might be to blame for the killings, which like their information counterparts in Canada and Qatar, they refuse to fully recognize as terrorism. The point here is to create panic and further divide Macedonian society along ethnic and religious lines, ergo the original intent of the terrorist attack in the first place.

The_GuardianGuardian:

The British information bulldogs don’t hold back any punches in jumping straight to the point by titling their lead story “Violence between Macedonia police and ‘terrorists’ increases scrutiny of PM”. Their motive is to implicate democratically elected and legitimate Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski in the terrorist attacks themselves, obviously as a means of making the Color Revolutionary provocateurs look ‘innocent’ by comparison. Here’s what the Guardian managed to gargle out about Macedonia:

“Details about the raid remain hazy, but the conservative government of Nikola Gruevski faced immediate calls from Nato and the European Union for a “transparent investigation” of what went on. Gruevski’s credibility with the west has already been called into question by months of opposition allegations of illegal wire-tapping and widespread abuse of power, leaving his government on the ropes with an opposition mass rally planned for 17 May.

The Albanian residents of Pero Ilievski Street in ethnically mixed Kumanovo, as well as Gruevski’s political opponents, accused the government of trying to create a diversion and blunt the bid to unseat him. “The timing is too suspicious to not consider a connection,” said Florian Bieber, a Balkans expert at the University of Graz, Austria. “This does not mean that it was not a terrorist attack, but it suggests that the government might have had a hand. The only obvious beneficiary of the violence is the ruling party.””

The above-cited quotations speak for themselves and are clear in advocating an anti-government agenda. The British hope that their perverted version of events catches on and becomes the official media narrative, since if that’s the case, then sanctions against the country can then begin to be discussed by the unipolar bloc.

1008914c0ae75c9efb5f9c0161fce9a2_400x400Reuters:

This global brand, misleadingly thought of as being ‘neutral’ and ‘non-biased’, engages in a dangerous game of ideas by scarcely recognizing that the terrorists were even an armed group. Here’s what they have to say about the situation:

“The Balkan country’s interior ministry said an unspecified number of gunmen were also killed, but that it had no information on civilian casualties during clashes that began before dawn and stretched into the evening. Police said that acting on information about an “armed group” they had launched an operation in an ethnic Albanian district of the northern town of Kumanovo 40 km (25 miles) north of the capital Skopje…Observers fear political leaders on either side may try to stoke ethnic tensions as leverage…

Opposition leader Zoran Zaev, who has been releasing damaging wire-taps he says were recorded by the government and leaked to him by a whistleblower, appeared to suggest Saturday’s operation was carried out to create a diversion. “I call on Nikola Gruevski to immediately … explain who wants to destabilize Macedonia, why and with what purpose,” he said in a statement. “This dark scenario will not work. The citizens see who has an interest in such a scenario.””

On top of that, they’ve also tried to tie Gruevski to the attack by following the British blueprint and Zaev’s false statements. Again, the objective here is to discredit the government and create further destabilization within the country, all with the intent of stimulating the Color Revolution forces and breaking the solidarity of those who have been resisting thus far, especially Albanian Macedonians

Institutional Intrigue

Western institutions and their controlled appendages such as the UN are at the forefront of issuing veiled threats against the Macedonian government, and a simple glance at their copy-and-paste statements indicates the seamless level of strategic collaboration between them. In order of expanding scope and global importance, they are:

The EU:

Commissioner for European Neighborhood Policy & Enlargement Negotiations Johannes Hahn had this to say about the chaos in Kumanovo:

“I am deeply concerned at the unfolding situation in the Kumanovo region and possible injuries and loss of life. I urge the authorities and all political and community leaders to cooperate, to restore calm and fully investigate the events in an objective and transparent manner within the Law. I urge all actors for utmost restraint. Any further escalation must be avoided, not the least in the interest of the overall stability in the country.” (emphasis added)

Pay particular attention to the call for an “objective and transparent” investigation and for “all actors” and “political and community leaders” to demonstrate “utmost restraint” and “restore calm”. This is a theme that will subsequently be repeated by NATO and the UN, and the final sub-section will describe what these euphemisms are meant to represent.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg

NATO:

Now let’s take a look at what Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg thought about it:

“I am following the developments in Kumanovo with great concern. I express my sympathy to the families of those who were killed or injured. It is important that all political and community leaders work together to restore calm and conduct a transparent investigation to establish what happened. I urge everyone to exercise restraint and avoid any further escalation, in the interest of the country and the whole region.” (emphasis added)

Again, the same types of phrases are popping up, almost as if this statement was written by the exact same speech writer as the one who penned the EU’s response.

The UN:

Finally, check out Ban Ki-Moon’s commentary (as expressed through a spokesperson) on Kumanovo and see if any similarities can be found:

“The Secretary-General is alarmed by the recent violence in the city of Kumanovo in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and extends his condolences to the families of those killed and injured. He strongly supports the calls by the European Union and other members of the international community urging the state authorities and all political and community leaders to cooperate to restore calm and to fully investigate the events in an objective and transparent manner.

At this sensitive time, the Secretary-General calls on all actors to exercise maximum restraint and to refrain from any rhetoric and/or actions that may escalate tensions further. He also encourages the country’s authorities to address the concerns voiced by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on 17 March 2015 and to reaffirm their commitment to fundamental human rights and the rule of law by fostering an environment in which opposing views can be expressed freely.” (emphasis added)

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon

Aside from mirroring the previously highlighted statements, the UN leader jumps into the foray of domestic politics and Color Revolutionary rhetoric by trying to apply pressure against the Macedonian authorities. This shouldn’t be surprising in the least, as the UN has largely mutated into a supranational appendage of Western influence, so it’s unfortunately natural that this nominally neutral organization would become partisan to the West’s geopolitical games. Furthermore, it’ll be witnessed later on how Ban Ki-Moon’s domestic tinkering attempt in Macedonia perfectly complements the US Ambassador and friends’ victim shaming and intimidation from the day before.

Birds Of A Feather:

As the saying goes, ‘birds of a feather flock together’, and this quip rings true when it comes to Western institutions and their de-facto subordinates. The joint message being conveyed is that the Macedonian authorities themselves are complicit in the destabilization, hence why “all actors” must “exercise maximum restraint” and why a follow-up “objective and transparent” investigation is necessary. Going even further, this implies that the state’s resistance in combating terrorism helped contribute to it, implying that the country should have just rolled over and allowed the terrorists to take control of the city, or even worse, the entire country for that matter.

The invocation of “community leaders” is designed to create the sense that this was some kind of grassroots, local uprising, which it wasn’t at all, and is meant to drive a wedge between the government and local municipalities with significant Albanian populations like Kumanovo. From the look of it, it appears as though the West and its puppet UN appendage don’t support anti-terrorist operations unless they’re the ones conducting them and they’re being initiated for pro-Western geopolitical purposes. After all, this rhetoric against the Macedonian government is eerily reminiscent of the same type of statements being made against the Syrian one, which is also the regional anti-terrorism leader for its home area.

Macedonian PM Nikola Gruevski

Attacking The Victim

Shaming:

The Ambassadors of the US, EU, France, UK, and Italy met with [Macedoniam PM Nikola] Gruevski two days after the attack as part of a prearranged meeting, during which they released a joint statement (read by US Ambassador Jess Baily, as it was) that can only be described as geopolitical victim shaming. As referenced by Reuters:

“In a statement read out by U.S. ambassador Jess Baily, the envoys criticised Skopje’s failure to address the “many allegations of government wrongdoing arising from the disclosures” published by opposition leader Zoran Zaev. “This continued inaction casts serious doubt on the government of Macedonia’s commitment to the democratic principles and values of the Euro-Atlantic community,” they said, adding that a lack of concrete action “will undermine Macedonia’s progress toward EU and NATO membership.””

What basically happened was that instead of showing solidarity with a European country in its fight against Mideast-trained (read: ISIL) terrorists that had just killed 8 police officers and injured a whopping 37 more, NATO (which is essentially what that group of governments collectively represent) took the opportunity to lambast the Prime Minister for not partaking in ‘regime tweaking’ and making it easier for the Color Revolution to succeed. One wouldn’t be mistaken for thinking that NATO is actually pleased that the terrorist attack was as violent and impactful as it was, since they and their affiliated media have been alluding that this is some type of punishment for the government’s ‘anti-democratic’ behavior as per the false Zaev allegations. It’s also significant that the US chose this joint occasion to make its first official remarks on the situation (there were no official State Department press releases about it) in conjunction with its NATO allies, and this needs to be elaborated upon further.

Macedonia's pro-Atlantic opposition leader Zozan Zaev

Intimidating:

The symbolism of the joint statement is that it’s a semi-official declaration of regime change intent by the US and its allies, who in essence served Gruevski with an ultimatum: he must either capitulate to a form of ‘organized’ regime change (‘regime tweaking’ and procedural moves to allow Zaev to slowly seize power) or face the wrath of a combined EuroMaidan Color Revolution 2.0 and a Greater Albanian-focused Unconventional War in forcing destructive regime change on the country. Gruevski and the Macedonians demonstrated that they will fight back and resist this aggression, which as was stated earlier, makes them the Syria of the Balkans in leading their regional anti-terror war. Hopefully, all comparisons can end there, although given the US template of chaos perfected in the Mideast, it’s likely that the struggle might become prolonged and internationalized, especially because of NATO-member Albania and NATO-protectorate “Kosovo’s” direct ideological and physical involvement.

Punishing:

Macedonia’s resistance to the unipolar Color Revolution and Unconventional War being unleashed against it is thus going to come with severe consequences. Judging by the NATO members’ joint statement on Macedonia annunciated by the bloc’s de-facto leader, the US, Macedonia isn’t ‘democratic’ enough for their liking and doesn’t embody the same Euro-Atlantic ‘values’, meaning that it’s slated to undergo the Syrian and Ukrainian ‘treatment’ to remedy these ‘ailments’. It was just explained how the country is defending against joint Color Revolution and Unconventional War offensives, but these indirect methods are expected to eventually evolve into a direct NATO war on Macedonia.

One such scenario could see a repeat of the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia, but given Macedonia’s relatively smaller size and the denser concentration of Albanians along the country’s border with Greater Albania (Albania and “Kosovo”), a more militarily ‘efficient’ model will likely be deployed. This envisions conventional Albanian troops, under cover of NATO airstrikes (likely after the imposition of a ‘no-fly’ zone [always preceded by the destruction of the target country’s air force]), entering Macedonia and occupying the majority-Albanian-populated areas under the false pretexts of ‘humanitarian intervention’, ‘responsibility to protect’, and/or hypocritical anti-terrorism operations. A complement to this scenario could see irredentist Bulgarian troops in the east assist them by exploiting the chaos to indefinitely occupy territory that their nationalist politicians claim is historically their own as NATO’s reward for their earlier rejection of South Stream. Finally, a variation of both of these could see an Albanian and/or Bulgarian (joint) intervention supported by other NATO members that would fully occupy the country, change the government, alter the country’s constitutional name, and then partition the state between the Albanian and Slavic Macedonians.

Concluding Thoughts

The West has unequivocally launched a dangerous information war against the Republic of Macedonia, once which carries with it the threat of increasing violence and possible military occupation. While the conventional information consumer may not be aware of the importance of syntax and inference in reporting on geopolitical events, the fact remains that it’s an extremely pivotal factor in shaping the context and overall framework related to an event. From the snide inferences that the government brought last weekend’s horrible act of terror upon itself to shameless attempts at downplaying the atrocious militancy of the terrorists, each of these information offensives carry with them associated consequences in setting up the aggressors’ next move. By combating their falsehoods and proving the erroneousness of their assertions and intimations, individuals can learn the truth behind the terrorist attacks that the mass media is obscuring. The War on Macedonia isn’t a ‘civil war’ or ‘grassroots anti-government uprising’, but is contrarily part of a larger Western-supported proxy war against Russia and its Balkan Stream pipeline, one which has unfortunately taken the small geostrategic country of over two million people hostage and made it the West’s latest geopolitical target for execution.


May 2015

About the author:

Andrew Korybko is the political analyst and journalist for Sputnik who currently lives and studies in Moscow, exclusively for ORIENTAL REVIEW.

Source: Oriental Review

Civilian Casualties Of NATO’s War On Yugoslavia

From the onset of NATO’s aggression from March 24 to June 11, 1999, the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO) flew over 35,000 combat missions over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Over 1,000 warplanes (among others F-15, F-16, F-117) and 206 helicopters were used in the air strikes. More than 20,000 laser or satellite-guided weapons were launched and over 79,000 tons of explosives were dropped, including 152 containers with 35,450 cluster bombs, thermo-visual and graphite bombs, which are prohibited under international conventions.1

The NATO forces justified the bombing of civilian targets as either “mistakes” or essential to the destruction of Milosevic and the Yugoslav Army. However, these attacks were not made solely against military targets but against the Yugoslav population as a whole.

As a direct result of the bombings, thousands of civilians were killed and more than 6,000 sustained serious injuries. A large number of the injured will remain crippled for life. NATO bombings have burned amputated, wounded and disabled many civilians of all-ethnic groups, ages, and genders. Children make made up 30% of all casualties as well as 40% of the total number injured. In addition, approximately 300,000 children have suffered severe psychological traumas and will require continuos medical surveillance and treatment. Children have been victims of the sprinkle cluster bombs, with delayed effects, and will continue to be victimized until all parks, play-fields and open areas have been made safe from the remaining unexploded bombs scattered throughout Yugoslavia.

What follows are the most tragic instances of civilian casualties and suffering as a result of the unprovoked aggression of the NATO Alliance on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as reported by the “Provisional Assessment of Civilian Casualties and Destruction in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from March 24 to June 8 19992” and the “Overview of the Collateral Damage in Yugoslavia.”3 This is not a complete accounting of civilian casualties, which is not yet available at this time (July 31. 1999).

Surdulica:
An attack on a peaceful rural town on April 27,1999, resulted in 20 civilian deaths, including 12 children between the ages of 5 and 12, and over 100 wounded, of which 24 critically. Several hundred civilian objects were also damaged; some of them completely destroyed. The attacks were repeated the next day, which made it difficult to recover bodies.

Korisa: On the night of May 14, 1999, NATO performed an attack with six missiles on refugees situated on a farm in the village of Korisa. 87 civilians were killed and 70 were severely injured. “NATO spokesmen blamed the deaths on Yugoslavia authorities, claiming they had used the refugees as “human shields” by forcing them to spend the night next to a military or police command center. Despite the report, the refugees said that they saw no signs that the compound was being used as a local military or police command center. Nor did they report seeing any of the artillery pieces located in bunkers that NATO claimed were destroyed in the attack” (Washington Post, 5/21/99).

Djakovica: On April 14, 1999, a convoy of Albanian refugees was bombed four times by NATO planes. The refugees were moving down the Prizren-Djakovica road. 75 people were killed and 100 were wounded. All of the victims were ethnic Albanians, mostly children, women and elderly people. Since the attack was carried out in daylight, the convoy consisted mostly of agricultural vehicles and civilian cars, and the attack was repeated four times with long periods of time between them. The possibility of such an attack being accidental is highly unlikely.

Gredelica: NATO hit an international train, on regular service from Belgrade to Thessalonki (Greece), in the vicinity of Leskovac on Monday, April 12, 1999. 55 passengers were killed, including a ten-year-old child. More than 60 passengers were wounded. All casualties were civilians.

Luzane: On May 1, 1999, on a bridge in Luzane, a ” Nis Express” bus with 70 passengers, on a regular service linking Nis and Pristina, was hit by a missile that directly split the bus in two. One half of the bus remained on the bridge burning for an hour, while the other half plunged into the valley. At least 50 passengers were killed and 13 were injured. In the second wave of the attack, an ambulance was damaged and one medical doctor was seriously wounded in the head. An eyewitness to the attack said that the bus was filled with civilians, mostly children and elderly people.

Istok: On May 21, 1999, at 8:40 am, a prison was hit with two missiles, killing one man and seriously injuring one woman. The attack was repeated at 9:20 am with ten missiles. The second attack left nine people dead including the deputy governor. At least ten people were injured. Since then, NATO has bombed this prison several times. The death toll is now 100.

Varvarin: 17 civilians were killed while 74 were injured in an attack on a road bridge on a busy market day.

Belgrade: Belgrade suffered the most hits during the entire two months of NATO’s aggression. On May 20,1999 at 12:55 am NATO directly hit the “Dragisa Misovic” hospital in the neurological ward, the gynecological ward and the children’s ward for lung diseases were completely destroyed. NATO admitted that one of the laser-guided bombs overshot it’s target by about 1,500 feet. Four patients were killed and several women in labor were wounded.
The Chinese Embassy Building also suffered numerous direct hits as well. One half of the building was destroyed. Four Chinese citizens were killed and 20 were injured.
On April 23, 1999, around 2 am, the Serbian National Broadcasting Network was destroyed just a few hundred feet from a children’s theater, the City Children Center and the local market. A transmitter used by foreign journalists situated in Belgrade was also destroyed. More than 15 civilian employees of the TV station were killed.
A three-year-old girl named Milica Rakic was killed in the NATO attack on Batajnica, a satellite suburb of Belgrade. Her death became a symbol of the meaningless loss of life of innocent civilians in this war.
The Administrative Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was hit several times. Several civilians passing by at the time of the attack were killed.

Nis: On May 7, 1999, at least 16 civilians were killed when cluster bombs fell on the town market. 80 civilians were also injured in a repeated attack on housing blocks in central Nis. Cluster bombs are used for the destruction of people and are forbidden by the Geneva Convention.

Savine Vode: On May 3, 1999, during a NATO attack, another civilian bus on the route between
Djakovica-Podgorica was hit. At least 20 people were killed and 43 injured. There were large numbers of women and children among the victims. During the attack, cluster bombs were used. Several civilian cars were also destroyed. Rescue teams and ambulances were not able to help the victims due to the prolonged attack.

Aleksinac: Five NATO missiles hit Aleksinac, a small mining community on April 6, 1999. 17 civilians were killed, although there is no military infrastructure in the residential area that was bombed. More than 400 homes were destroyed.

Kursumilija: In NATO attacks on Kursumilija, a small town in Southern Serbia, 13 citizens were killed and more than 25 were severely injured.

Novi Pazar: 13 civilians were killed and 35 were wounded in an attack on the residential area in the center of the town during which 25 buildings were completely destroyed.

Nagavac: 11 civilians were killed and 5 wounded in an attack on a rural area.

Pristina: 10 civilians were killed including 7 children during an attack with cluster bombs upon a peaceful rural village.

Murino: 6 civilians including two children were killed and 8 injured in an attack on a village predominately inhabited by Albanians.

Merdare: 5 civilians were killed, including an 11-month-old baby, and several wounded when 8 containers holding, 1,920 cluster bombs were dropped in an attack on the Prokuplje-Pristina road.

Doganavici: 5 Albanian children were killed and two wounded when they came upon an unexploded cluster bomb in a field.

Grijilane: 4 civilians were killed and 19 wounded in an attack in the Argicultural Complex “Mladost” and transport company “Kosmet Prevoz.”

Pancevo: On Saturday May 1, 1999, 3 civilians have been killed and 4 wounded in attacks on commercial and industrial facilities.

Ralija: 3 civilians were killed and 3 injured, two of whom were children, in an attack on the village of Ralija.

Kragujevac: More than 120 workers, who were forming a live shield, were wounded in a deliberate attack on the “Zastava” car factory.

Vranje: 2 civilians were killed and 23 wounded in an attack on central Vranje.

Kraljevo: In an attack upon civilian target in Vitanovac, Varca, and Bogutovac, 14 civilians were killed.

Novi Sad: NATO attacked an oil refinery in Novi Sad more than 10 times. Due to the smoke from burning refineries, normal breathing for the people of Novi Sad is now very difficult. Water from the public water supply is no longer drinkable. As a result of the bombings, one civilian was killed and 45 injured.

Trstenik: In an attack on a bridge, one civilian was killed and 17 injured.

Vladcin Han: 2 civilians were killed and wounded in an attack on a road bridge on the Juzna Morava river.

Village Rodosta: 2 two children were killed and one wounded in a NATO cluster bomb attack on this peaceful village near Orahovac.

Cuprija: One civilian was killed and 14 injured in an attack on the central residential area of the town. Over 800 housing units were demolished during the attacks.

Krk Bunar: One civilian was killed and 3 injured (French philosopher Daniel Schiffer, “Times” reporter Eve-Ann Prentis and “Corriera della Sera”) in an attack on the central residential area of the town. Over 800 housing units were demolished during the attacks.

Mijatovac: 4 Romanian humanitarian workers were wounded in an attack on a bridge near Mijatovac.

Zlatibor: The recreational center on the mountain of Zlatibor was attacked by NATO. As a result, three civilians were killed.

Cacak: A residential area near the factory was also destroyed. Two persons were killed, one of them a 74-year-old woman, and 7 were injured.

Urosevac:
A residential suburb of Urosevac was demolished in a NATO attack. Several people were killed.

Many of NATO’s targets were in clear violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits bombing that is not justified by clear military necessity. Under the protocols of the convention, if there is any likelihood that the target has a civilian function, bombing is prohibited.4 For instance, in the case of the targeting of bridges that were used primarily by civilians, it is not enough to say that NATO was merely reckless as to the fate of civilians. NATO targeted not just the military apparatus of Yugoslavia, it sought to devastate and did devastate the civilian infrastructure of Yugoslavia. Electricity power stations, water supplies, schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, train tracks, factories, offices and thousands of homes and families were torn apart.

1. Provisional Assessment of Civilian Casualties and Destruction in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from March 24 to June 8, 1999, www.beograd.com.

2. Ibid.

3. www.beogard.com

4. “Counter Punch,” May 1-15, 1999, page 4.


By Vivian Martin (New York)

Source: http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/25_civil.htm

Kosovo – Mafia – Fascism – Jihad

Hiding Genocide in Kosovo: A Crime against God and Humanity is not a typical book of the current events or international affairs genre. Nor is it a journalistic exposé. It is simply a book of stories, true stories of what has taken place in Kosovo since the end of the 1999 war: shooting, beheading, burning, bomb attack, maiming, rape, abduction, torture, desecration, theft, mutilation, and harassment. While Western policymakers (the U.S., EU, UN, NATO, OSCE, etc.) delude themselves that they are buying the goodwill of the Muslim world by the sacrifice of a small Christian community in Kosovo, the perpetrators know this is yet another step toward Islamic dominance of all Europe. This is a struggle for the soul and future not just for Kosovo, not just for Serbia, but for an entire continent.

The monster of Kosovo PM Hashim Thaci…Hashim Thaci, Prime Minister of Kosovo and head of the Democratic Party of Kosovo, is the former leader of the terrorist organization which the US and NATO trained and called the Kosovo Liberation Army, KLA, or in Albanian, UCK. In Kosovo crime circles he is known as Hashim “The Snake” for his personal ruthlessness against opponents.In 1997, President Clinton’s Special Balkans Envoy, Robert Gelbard described the KLA as, “without any question a terrorist group.” It was far more. It was a klan-based mafia, impossible therefore to infiltrate, which controlled the underground black economy of Kosovo. Today the Democratic Party of Thaci, according to European police sources, retains its links to organized crime. Thaci was a personal protégé of Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright during the 1990s, when he was a mere 30-year old gangster. The KLA was supported from the outset by the CIA and the German BND. During the 1999 war the KLA was directly supported by NATO.

Hiding genocide in Kosovo…Ever since NATO aggression in 1999, there has been systematic destruction of any traces of Serbian monuments and Christianity in Kosovo. Some 150 Serbian Orthodox churches and medieval monasteries have been destroyed, originating from as early as 13th and 14th centuries, including some from the UNESCO List of World Heritage. According to Human Rights Watch, 250,000 Serb civilians have been driven out of Kosovo.Serbia remains the country with the highest number of refugees and displaced persons in the whole of Europe…. In 1994 in Lebanon, a radical Sunni Muslim group, Takfir wal Hijra, attempted to blow up a convoy of Serbian priests who were on their way Koura. The priests avoided death when the suicide bomber detonated the explosive device prematurely. This attempt on the lives of Serbian priests preceded a more ambitious plan. At the 18th Islamic conference, Al-Jama’ah al-Islaiyyah, held in Pakistan (October 23-25, 1998), Albanian separatism in Kosovo and Metohija was characterized as a Jihad. The same definition was given to Muslim battles in India (Kashmir), Israel (Palestine) and Eritrea. By defining armed battles as a “holy war” or Jihad, an obligation is placed on the Muslim world to do everything in its power – economically, politically and diplomatically – to aid the fight for freedom in occupied Muslim territories”. This gave legitimacy to terrorist acts carried out by Allah’s holy warriors. ..http://www.balkanstudies.org/articles/jihadist-green-corridor-balkans

Serb cemeteries, memorials desecrated in Kosovo.The Province of Kosovo and Metohija is the birth place of Serbian nation, culture, religion and state. Thousands of Serbian medieval monuments witness to this. There are two large communities living in the Province – Kosovo Serbs, who are Orthodox Christians, and Kosovo Albanians, the great majority of whom are Moslems. Before the beginning of the Second World War Serbian population in the Province were majority. Today, Serbs make less than 10 percent of the total population of the Province. The drastic change in national structure was due to the policy of ethnic cleansing of Serbs occupation for about 500 years, then by fascist-Nazi occupation forces (1941 – 1945) of over decades if not centuries – first by Turkish Empire which kept the Province under Mussolini and Hitler and finally by NATO aggression and occupation which continues up to these days.

Serb cemeteries, memorials desecrated in Kosovo Albanians destroying Serbian monuments. After the terrorist attack on a Serb civilian bus (Feb 17, 2001) in which 11 people were killed (two of them children) and 40 wounded a few Kosovo Albanian suspects have been arrested by UN police. The main suspect Florim Ejupi is direcly linked to the circles of Kosovo Albanian organized crime. Despite all security measures Ejupi ran away from the American detention facility in Camp Bondsteel. British Sunday Times reveals in its article by Bob Graham (July 29: British troops’ error led to bus bomb) that “UN sources believe that Florim Ejupi had been working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). His trial would have been a serious embarrassment, they claim” In Goraždevac, near Peć, western Kosmet, a memorial service was held, dedicated to Serb boys Ivan Jovović (19) and Pantelija Dakić (12), who were killed when Albanian terrorists opened fire at a group of Serb children who were swimming in the Bistrica river. Ivan Jovović and Pantelija Dakić were killed with automatic weapons and their friends Đorde Ugrenović (20), Bogdan Bukumirić (14), Marko Bogićević (12) and Dragana Srbljak (13) were seriously wounded. The rifles were fired from the direction of the village of Zahač, inhabited by Kosovo Albanians. The terrorists fired 90 bullets at the children. In late 2010, Eulex closed the investigation into the case due to alleged lack of evidence.

Life of Serbs In the 80ies Life of Kosovo Serb was a nightmare under constant threat of Albanian terrorists. FROM THE TIME OF THE ARRIVAL OF INTERNATIONAL FORCES TO KOSOVO THROUGH AUGUST 23RD 2003, ALBANIAN TERRORIST PERPETRATED THE TOTAL OF 5,962 ON SERBS…. IN THE SAME PERIOD, 1,206 PERSONS WERE KILLED AND. THE FATE OF 846 PERSONS, OUT OF 1,156 KIDNAPPED PERSONS, IS NOT KNOWN.IN THE ATTACKS IN 2003, ALBANIAN TERRORISTS CARRIED OUT 338 TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE SERBS. Radical Islam is one of the biggest dangers for Kosovo.In the past decade, Middle Eastern charities have invested some $800 million in Kosovo….”What I saw during the past 10 years was a strong infiltration of Saudi money,” says Flaka Surroi, owner of the independent Koha Media. “They brought in the mosques, they brought in their dogma and ideology at the same time. They identified the poorest people in the communities, they offered them a steady salary every month just so they take over the ideology and start wearing the veil.”

Bali i Kombetar was a volunteer Kosovo Albanian Nazi organization formed in 1939 and reported of by Himmler to Hitler as the most elite of Kosovo Albanian Nazis that have killed and expelled thousands of Serbs and Jews in WWII. Today, this Albanian Nazi organization is freely flourishing under the protection of NATO troops.


2015-02-20

Full text with photos and videos at: http://max-balkanboy.blogspot.nl/2013/01/blog-post.html

What About Apologizing To Ukraine, Mrs. Nuland?

Yesterday’s leak of the flagrant telephone talk between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt has already hit the international media headlines. In short, it turned out that the US officials were coordinating their actions on how to install a puppet government in Ukraine.

In this flagrant telephone talk between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt agreed to nominate Bat’kyvshchina Party leader Arseniy Yatseniuk as Deputy Prime Minister, to bench Udar Party leader Vitaly Klitschko off the game for a while and to discredit neo-Nazi Svoboda party chief Oleh Tiahnybok as “Yanukovych’s project”. Then Mrs. Nuland informed the US Ambassador that the Washington’s hand by the UN Secretary General, Under-Secretary for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman had already instructed Ban Ki-moon to send his special envoy to Kyiv this week “to glue the things”. Touching the European role in managing Ukraine’s political crisis, she was matchlessly elegant: “Fuck the EU”.

In a short while, after nervious attempts to blame Russians in fabricating (!) the tape (State Department: “this is a new low in Russian tradecraft”), Mrs. Nuland brought her apologies to the EU officials. Does it mean that the Washington’s repeatedly leaked genuine attitude towards the “strategic Transatlantic partnership” is much worthy of apology than the direct and clear interference into the internal affairs of a sovereign state and violation of the US-Russia-UK agreement (1994 Budapest memorandum) on security assurances for Ukraine? Meanwhile this document inter alia reads as follows:

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

Back to the latest Mrs. Nuland’s diplomatic collapse made public, it is hardly an unwilling and regretful fault. Andrey Akulov from Strategic Culture Foundation has published a brilliant report (Bride at every wedding [1]) a couple of days ago depicting a blatant lack of professionalism and personal intergity of Mrs. Nuland. He described in details her involvement in misinforming the US President and nation on the circumstances of the assasination of the US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens in Benghazi in September 2012 and her support of the unlawful US funding of a number of the Russian “independent” NGOs seeking to bring a color revolution to Russia.

Her diplomatically unacceptable behavior on the Ukrainian track, which culminated on YouTube this week (video and full transcript are available below), suggests that Mrs. Nuland is perhaps a wrong person in a wrong position for protecting American interests in Eurasia.

* * *

Full transcript of the telephone talk between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt (posted on YouTube on Feb 6, 2014):

Victoria Nuland (V.N.): What do you think?

Geoffrey R. Pyatt (G.P.): I think we are in play. The Klitchko piece is obviously the most complicated electron here, especially the announcement of him as Deputy Prime Minister. You have seen my notes on trouble in the marriage right now, so we are trying to get a read really fast where he is on the staff. But I think your argument to him which you’ll need to make, I think that’s the next phone call that you want to set up is exactly the one you made to Yats (Yatsenuk’s nickname). I’m glad you put him on the spot. <…> He fits in this scenario. And I am very glad he said what he said.

V.N.: Good. I don’t think Klitsch (Klitschko’s nickname) should be in the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.

G.P.: Yeah, I mean, I guess… In terms of him not going into the government… I’d just let him stay out and do his political homework. I’m just thinking, in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is gonna be with Tyahnibok and his guys. And, you know, I am sure that is part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all this.

V.N.: I think Yats is the guy. He has economic experience and governing experience. He is the guy. You know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnibok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week. You know, I just think if Klitchko gets in, he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenuk, it’s just not gonna work…

G.P.: Yeah, yeah, I think that’s right. Ok, good. Would you like us to set up a call with him as the next step?

V.N.: My understading from that call that you tell me was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was gonna offer in this context, you know, a «three plus one» conversation or a «three plus two» conversation with you. Is that not how you understood it?

G.P.: No. I think that was what he proposed but I think that knowing the dynamic that’s been with them where Klitchko has been the top dog, he’ll show up for whatever meetings they’ve got and he’s probably talking to his guys at this point. So, I think you reaching out directly to him, helps with the personality management among the three. And it also gives you a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it, before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn’t like it.

V.N.: Ok. Good. I am happy. Why don’t you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.

G.P.: Ok, I will do it. Thanks.

Nuland-YouTube V.N.: I can’t remember if I told you this or if I only told Washington this: when I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning he had a new name for the UN guy – Robert Serry. I wrote you about it this morning.

G.P.: Yeah, I saw that.

V.N.: Ok. He’s gotten now both Serry and Ban ki-Moon to agree that Serry will come on Monday or Tuesday. That would be great I think to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, if you like, fuck the EU.

G.P.: No, exactly. And I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I am still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych <…> that. In the meantime there is a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I am sure there is a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway, we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep… I think we just want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.

V.N.: So on that piece, Jeff, when I wrote the note Sullivan’s come back to me V.F.R., saying you need Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta boy and to get the details to stick. So, Biden’s willing.

G.P.: Ok. Great, thanks.

* * *

Transcript of the telephone talk between the Deputy Secretary General EE AS External Service Helga M. Schmid (H.S.) and Jan Tombinsky (J.T.), EU Ambassador to Ukraine (rendering, starting 0:04:13 on the tape):

Helga M. Schmid: Jan, it’s Helga once again. I’d like to tell you one more thing, it’s confidential. The Americans are beating about the bush and saying that our stand is too soft. They believe we should be stronger and apply sanctions. I talked to Cathy (Cathrene Ashton – OR) and she agrees with us on the matter we were discussing last time. We will do it but we must arrange everything in a clever way.

Jan Tombinsky: You know we have other instruments.

H.S.: The journalists are already talking that the EU stand is “too soft”. What you should really know is that we are very angry that the Americans are beating about the bush. Maybe you tell the US Ambassador and draw his attention to the fact that our stand is not soft, we’ve just made a hard-line statement and took a tougher stance… I want you to know that it would be detrimental to our interests if we see in the newspapers that «The European Union does not support freedom». Cathy will not like it.

J.T.: Helga, we do not compete in a race. We should demonstrate that this situation is not a competition in diplomatic toughness. I’ve just heard about the opposition’s new proposal to the president. I’ll write Cathy about it right now.

H.S.: Ok.

Awkward attempts to question “morality” is such revelations sound especially hypocritical from a global spying power that monitors and controls most of the mobile phone and internet users activities, taps the phone lines of world leaders, and oversees the world’s most far-reaching wire-tapping program.

Endnote:

[1] US Assistant Secretary Nuland Visits Ukraine – Some Thoughts to Share, by Andrei Akulov, Part I and Part II, Strategic Culture Foundation, 5 and 6 February 2014.


07-02-2014

Source: http://www.voltairenet.org/article182064.html

Join the debate on out Twitter Timeline!

The Memorandum (1804) By The Karlovci Metropolitan Stevan Stratimirovic

The goal of this article is to investigate and describe the text of one very significant, but so far forgotten, document and historical source upon the question on Serbian liberation from the Ottoman sway and national unification. The document was written in 1804 during the first months of the First Serbian Uprising against the Ottoman oppression [about the uprising see in Petrovich 1976; Vucinich 1982; Temperley 1969; Ђорђевић 1956].

Introduction

The Serbian nation was divided at the dawn of the 19th century by the borders of Ottoman pashaliks and by the state frontiers that separated the lands under Ottoman from those under Habsburg dominion. The beginning of the 19th century was a turning point in history of the Serbs. From that time the modern history of Serbs and Serbia starts. The birth of the modern Serbian history exactly begins with the First Serbian Uprising (1804-1813) when, after three hundred and fifty years of living under the Ottoman lordship and pressure (from 1459), the Serbs from the area of central Serbia (i. e., from the area of Beogradski pašaluk)[1] rose in arms against the Turks. This uprising was the most important, biggest, and most glorious national revolt in whole Serbian history. However, this historical event was not meaningful only for the Serbs who lived within Beogradski pašaluk since the entire Serbian population who lived outside of the pashalik or the Ottoman rule (i.e., in the Habsburg Monarchy) showed high interest about the fate of the insurrection. All Serbs, either from the Ottoman Empire or the Habsburg Monarchy, understood the insurrection as initial event in the process of national liberation and unification within a single national state borders [about Beogradski pašaluk see: Пантелић 1949].

Stevan Stratimirović, the Karlovci Metropolitan from 1790 to 1836, and the head of the Serbian church in the Habsburg Monarchy, was one of those Serbs who was dreaming about national freedom, independence and unification. His crucial and most influential political writing upon national emancipation and political consolidation was the Memorandum, written in June 1804. His political idea from the Memorandum to gather all Serbs was realised a century later with creation of united Yugoslav state (December 1, 1918) when the almost entire Serbian population, together with majority of Slovenes and Croats, started to live in united national state [about political ideology of Yugoslav unification see: Екмечић 1988].

This article will give answers on following four important questions connected with Sratimirović’s plan to liberate and unite all Serbs: 1) in which political-diplomatic circumstances of international relations and historicalal conditions his Memorandum was written? 2) which exact territory had to be included into the borders of autonomous Serbian state under Ottoman suzerainty and Russian protectorate? 3) who had to be the ruler of this state?, and finally 4) how important the Memorandum was for the further development of Serbian political ideology and thought?

The most distinguished examination of the topic of this article up to our days was done by protojerej St. M. Dimitrijević in his book Stevana Stratimirovića, Mitropolita Karlovačkog, plan za oslobodjenje Srpskog naroda (Beograd, 1926).[2] Except that the book contains the text of original Stratimirović’s Memorandum its value for the topic and main problems of this article is not so high. In other words, Dimitrijević did not try to give answer on any question of the topic of this article. Moreover, Dimitrijević did not deal with the importance of the Memorandum for Serbian profane national ideology since Stratimirović’s plan was seen by Dimitrijević only as a contribution to development of Serbian church ideology. However, Dimitrijević’s work inspired Serbian historian Djoko M. Slijepčević to write the book Stevan Stratimirović, Mitropolit Karlovački kao poglavar crkve, prosvetni i nacionalno-politički radnik (Beograd, 1936).[3] Nevertheless, primarily Stratimirović’s personality as a head of Serbian national church in Habsburg Monarchy was described in this work. Slijepčević dealt very little with Stratimirović’s political ideas. Shortly, Slijepčević wrote a reliable biography of Stratimirović but his intention was not to deal with Metropolitan’s political thought. Finally, another Serbian historian, Dimitrije Ruvarac, wrote his account on Stratimirović’s work. But, unfortunately it was only report on Stratimirović’s geographic notes apropos Turkey written in 1803 and 1804. This Ruvarac’s work was published in Belgrade in 1903 under the headline: Geografske beleške o Turskoj Mitropolita Stevana Stratimirovića iz godine 1803 i 1804.[4]

Cursory overview of the international politics and historical circumstances in which the Serbs lived at the turn of the 19th century

At the beginning of the 19th century, after centuries of the Ottoman rule, relations between Turks and Serbs remained unchanged. The population of Beogradski pašaluk was sharply divided into the Muslims and the Christians. The Muslims, composed by converted domestic Slavs and ethnic Turks, were landlords while all non-Muslimс were the serfs-peasants (reaya). The Serbs were second class citizens economically, politically and etnically subjugated and religiously and socially discriminated. The Serbs and the Muslims were religiously exclusive and in permanent conflict with each other [Шабановић 1956, 200-204]. The Orthodox Serbs, unlike the ethnic Turks or the Slavic Muslims, did not accept Sultan’s policy of Ottomanisation of all citizens of the Ottoman Empire. For the Serbs it was alien, oppressive and burdensome state because the Ottoman state and social organization in it were created and functioned according to the Islamic religious law [Jelavich 1984, 43-44. More about the relations between the Islamic religious law and the Ottoman state system see in: Inalcik 1973; Itzkowitz 1972]. The mind of the Serbs was preoccupied with the re-creation of the mediaeval national empire which was dismissed by the Turks in the years of 1371-1459 [Чубриловић 1982; Љушић 1993, 133-145; Ивић 1935; Стратимировић 1907].

The last two decades of the 18th century were the age of Serbian national revival, the époque of creation of national awareness. Political, economic, and cultural developments of the Austrian Serbs influenced their fellow citizens in the Ottoman Empire. The national political ideology which was created by the Serbian religious intelligentsia in the southern Hungary tremendously influenced the Serbs of Beogradski pašaluk mainly through the church propaganda [Judah 1997; 48-72]. The role of the Serbian Orthodox church in creation of cultural and national identity during the time of the Ottoman occupation and its contribution to national liberation has been of inestimable importance [Ćirković 1994]. The Serbian Orthodox Church however identified the fate of the Serbian people with that of their church and underlined itself as the principal saviour of the nation. The Serbian church organization in the Habsburg Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire was intimately linked with the Russian Orthodox church. The Russian cultural and religious influence among the Austrian and Ottoman Serbs was consequently very high particularly in the matter of the Serbian literal language [Albin 1970]. The Serbian Metropolitanat of Sremski Karlovci was a key bond between the Patriarchate in Moscow and the Serbian Orthodox believers in the Balkans.

The leading and most influential representative of the Metropolitanat of Sremski Karlovci was its Metropolitan Stevan Stratimirović. In the early years of his church career he was a bishop of Buda till Timisoara’s Council of the Serbian church in Habsburg Monarchy summoned in 1790. He became in this council not only Metropolitan of the Serbian church in Austria, then, moreover, the leader of the entire Serbian population inside the Habsburg Monarchy [Јовић, Радић 1990, 142-146; Ћоровић 1993, 510, 514, 528-537]. Stratimirović was not interested only in the church affairs; Serbian national problems occupied his mind even before the First Serbian Uprising broke up. Thinking about Serbia’s liberation and national unification he wrote a letter addressed to the Habsburg Emperor Joseph II on July 1, 1786. This document consists Metropolitan’s personal proposal how to resolve the Serbian national problems inside the Ottoman Empire [Слијепчевић 1936, 172]. On this occasion, Stratimirović proposed to the Emperor that the Austrian army will intervene against the Turks and liberate the Serbs inside Beogradski pašaluk [Летопис 1885, 111-112].

During the Austro-Turkish War of 1788-1791 and the Russo-Turkish War of 1787-1792 the Serbian patriots and public workers from the Habsburg Monarchy undertook serious diplomatic activities in order to attract foreign powers for the matter of Serbia’s liberation from the Turkish mastery [Павловић 1910]. Stevan Jovanović, Vasilije Radovanović and Jovan Milović sent in July 1791 а special petition upon the living conditions of the Serbs from Beogradski pašaluk to Stevan Stratimirović but addressed on the Austrian Emperor. They appealed for the amnesty for all rebellious Serbs who fought against the Turks on the Austrian side after the end of the war between Austria and Turkey. The amnesty should be required from the Turkish Sultan by the Austrian authorities during the peace negotiations 1791 in the town of Svishtov. The Karlovci Metropolitan handed over this petition to the Habsburg sovereign probably after his own corrections and complements of the document [Павловић 1910, 264-265]. Stevan Stratimirović actually became a representative of all Serbs either from Austria or Turkey on the Habsburg court. He was very well informed about the Serbs from the Ottoman Empire because he maintained connections with the well-known church’s representatives and national leaders from Serbia. Stratimirović for instance had very long talk in Sremski Karlovci with the Serbian émigrés from Turkey connected with the question of Serbian autonomy and the self-government inside the Ottoman Empire. This conversation was held just before the Austro-Turkish war ended in 1791. Stratimirović’s conversation with the Serbians about the “Serbian question” became subsequently the substructure for his Memorandum in 1804.

Several projects connected with the reconstruction of the Serbian state were drafted during the 18th century: 1) by the Serbian Patriarch Arsenije IV Jovanović-Šakabenta (1736/1737), 2) by the Austrian graf Waldemar Schmetau (1774), 3) by the Serb from Austria David Narandžić (1785, 1788), 4) by another one Austrian Serb Dimitrije Vujić (1797/1798), and 5) by the Montenegrin Metropolitan Petar I Petrović-Njegoš (1798). All of these projects influenced the Karlovci Metropolitan to design his own plan for autonomous Serbia. The idea of the semi-independent autonomous Serbian duchy inside the Ottoman Empire however did not occupy only Stratimirović’s mind. The Serbs from Austria like arhimandrit Stevan Jovanović, arhimandrit Arsenije Gagović and nobleman Sava Tekelija were inspired with the same political concept. Tekelija for instance submitted his own Memorandum to the German-Austrian Emperor Francis II in 1805 suggesting that the Austrian army would help the Serbs to re-establish their national medieval empire [Поповић 1965, 101]. The Serbian nobleman from Arad, Sava Tekelija, recognized in 1802 that support of some mighty European country was indispensable for Serbian national liberation and the re-making of Serbian national state. Contrary to Stratimirović, Tekelija saw Austria as a protector of the Serbs and Serbia. The leader of the First Serbian Uprising Đordje Petrović-Karađorđe (Карагеоргије, i.e., Black George) during the initial months of the rebellion belonged also to the circle of the Serbian national workers who turned their eyes towards the Habsburg Monarchy [Маретић 1987, 96-109; Перовић 1954; Ивић 1935]. The Serbian russophils on the other hand were represented by the Herzegovinian arhimandrit Arsenije Gagović. He went just before the beginning of the upraising in 1803 to Russia in diplomatic mission undoubtedly on Stratimirović’s initiative. The purpose of the mission was to make the Tsar interested upon the issue of the “Serbian question”. Gagović exactly suggested to the Russian monarch to free the Ottoman Serbs with the help of the Russian army [Димитријевић 1926, 4]. Jovan Jovanović, the Serbian bishop from Bačka, likewise arhimandrit Gagović and Metropolitan Stratimirović, belonged to the group of Serbian intellectuals who saw the imperial Russia as a natural protector of the Serbs. Jovanović’s political ideas were expressed in the letter sent to the Russian Metropolitan of St. Petersburg (on January 14, 1804) in which bishop of Bačka proposed that the brother of the Russian Tsar, Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, would be crowned as the Serbian emperor after Serbia’s liberation from the Ottoman lordship [Вукићевић 1907, I, 234-239].

All of those proposals had one common point: the unification of the entire Serbian nation from both Austria and Turkey into a single national state was not designed yet. According to the proposals, the liberated Serbia should become a vassal state either within the Habsburg Monarchy or the Ottoman Empire under the Austrian or the Russian political and military protectorate. The only difference between the Serbian austrophils and russophils was connected with the question about on which empire the Serbs should depend. The first group relied on the Habsburgs since Austria was closer to Serbia then Russia and could intervene by the army faster. The economic reasons played as well considerable role in their political plans because the Austrian Serbs and the Ottoman Serbs were in the close economic relations. For them it would be economically much more beneficiary if all Serbs would live inside Austria. In contrast, the Serbian russophils relied on the Romanovs as they have been the rulers of Orthodox faith. For them the Serbian Orthodoxy, as a crucial indicator of national determination, could be protected only by support of the Russian Orthodox ruling dynasty. The Catholic Habsburgs were perceived as the “unnatural” allies. The majority of the pro-Austrian Serbs belonged to the social strata of merchants, craftsmen and profane intelligentsia who kept in their mind primarily economic benefits of the Austrian protectorate over all Serbs. Their pro-Russian opponents, however, were composed essentially by the Serbian Orthodox clergy either from the Habsburg Monarchy or the Ottoman Empire who tried at first to emancipate the Serbian religious-national identity [see more about this problem in: Picot 1873; Јакшић 1991].

The essential characteristic of the Balkans in international politics at the turn of the 19th century was the competition and struggle over the region between Austria and Russia. After the liberation of Hungary in 1699, and in the course of driving back the Turks towards the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea, the Habsburg Monarchy secured supremacy in the north-western Balkans. After freeing some Balkan territories from the Ottoman dominion, Austria organized defense of the frontier areas towards Turkey introducing there a special system which turned out to be a keystone of its political and military strategy in the Southeastern Europe. This Austrian defensive military frontier zone (“Militärgrenze”) was organized as a bulwark against the Ottoman assaults but also as a bridgehead for its own attacks on the Turkish territories. This military zone was settled by large number of Serbian emigrants from Turkey who became professional soldiers, i.e., the frontiersmen [more about the Austrian military border see in: Günther R., 1966]. One of the turning points of the Austro-Turkish War from 1788 to 1791 was the establishment of free fighting corps of the Serbians and the emergence of a Serbian political leadership that formulated Serbia’s national goals more energetically than had been the case before [more about this problem see in: Bérengar 2000; Павловић 1910].

The Russo-Turkish War 1768-1774 was over with the peace of Kuchuk-Kainarji in 1774. It gave Russia Azov and secured the Russian political influence in the Principalities of Moldavia and Walachia. However, the Ottoman authority gave Austria the northern part of Moldavia, which was named Bukovina, in 1775 in return for the diplomatic support that Austria gave in settling problems with Russia. According to the Treaty of Jassy signed in January 1792, Russia received from Turkey former Crimean Khanate. The Russo-Turkish border was established on the Dniester River. The Serbs within Beogradski pašaluk received political autonomy which became the foundation for Stratimirović’s plan of Serbia’s political semi-independence in the Ottoman Empire. With the Peace of Jassy, the Russo-Austrian rivalry over the Balkans was resolved in the Russian favor [Поповић 1928, 98]. In addition, the Russian gradual forcing the Ottoman Empire out of the Crimea and Moldavia in the 18th century resulted in limitation of Polish-Lithuanian (i.e., the Roman Catholic) sphere of influence in the region of the southeast Ukraine and the north Black Sea littoral and in strengthening of Russian (i.e., the Orthodox) influence and prestige in the same area.

With Russian drawing near the Danube and Constantinople the popularity of the imperial Russia gradually grew among the Serbs. The 18th –century Russian-Ottoman conflict reinforced among the Serbs the idea of Romanov Russia as the principal bulwark of Orthodox Christendom. It can be concluded that in the year of Stratimirović’s Memorandum the Russian influence already pressed back the Austrian one among the Balkan Orthodox subjects of the Sultan. This Russian approach towards Serbian lands directly influenced Stratimirović to write this document in which he supported the idea of the Russian protectorate over the Balkan Orthodox population drafted in the “Greek project” by the Russian Empress Catherine II. In the year of 1782 the Empress proposed to the Austrian Emperor Joseph II that Bessarabia, Moldavia and Walachia would be united into independent state of “Dacia” under the Russian protectorate. In addition, the Greek (i.e., Byzantine) Empire with Constantinople as a capital should be re-established on the eastern portion of the Balkans and to be under the Russian patronage. Consequently, the real aim of Stratimirović’s Memorandum was to convince the Russian Tsar to extend the Russian patronage over autonomous Serbia as well. Similarly, he believed that the recent example of established the Russian protectorate over the autonomous territory of the Ottoman Christian Orthodox subjects of the Ionian Islands (Leucas, Cephalonia, Ithaca, Zante, Cythera) in 1799 could be implemented in the case of the Serbs and Serbia as well as.

Diplomatic activities of metropolitan Stratimirović

The role of Metropoliten Stratimirović in the First Serbian Uprising is not satisfactory explained yet in Serbian historiography. Stratimirović was surely very well informed in regard to the political situation in Serbia and political wishes of the Serbs within the Ottoman Empire. Prota Mateja Nenadović, one of the most outstanding leaders of the Uprising and military commander of the western Serbia, submitted to Stratimirović the first written statement about political wishes of Serbia’s military leadership. The proposal was composed by the most eminent leaders of the Uprising at the end of February 1804. Stratimirović’s answer with personal comments on the statement reached Prota Mateja Nenadović on March 29 of the same year. Nenadović delivered Stratimirović’s answer directly to the leader of the Uprising, Đorđe Petrović-Karađorđe. Subsequently, this case led us to make two conclusions. Firstly, it clearly confirms that the Karlovci Metropolitan established and maintained uninterrupted political relations with the supreme military headquarters of the Serbian insurgents already at the very beginning of the Uprising. Secondly, it documents that he was very well informed about the political wishes, plans and ideology of Serbia’s supreme military authority.

Stratimirović, inspired and fostered by the first written statement about political wishes of Serbia’s military leadership, started to work to obtain political and military support for Serbian insurgents by the Habsburg’s court. In the same year he wrote three letters to the Austrian Archduke Carl, on May 31, June 29 and August 16 [Слијепчевић 1936, 189]. Stratimirović presented in these letters himself as the principal political ambassador of the Serbs from both the Habsburg Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire to the imperial court in Vienna. He strongly believed that a peace in rebellious Serbia would be re-established only if Serbia’s military authorities’ political demands will be accepted by the Ottoman government. Stratimirović at the same time advocated the idea of establishment of bearable Turkish system of government in Serbia which should replace the anarchy and violence of the local Turkish authorities. Finally, the Karlovci Metropolitan saw at that moment the house of Habsburgs as cardinal guarantee of the peace in Serbia. In the other words, Serbia should be put under the Habsburg’s protectorate.

Stratimirović, the head of Serbian church in the Habsburg Monarchy, however, simultaneously suggested to Serbia’s military leaders to send one political deputation to the Russian imperial court with their political wishes and requirements. His ultimate aim in fact was to convince the Russian Emperor to become the real protector of the Ottoman and Austrian Serbs and the peace-keeper in united Serbia. Consequently, Stratimirović established the road to St. Petersburg for the first Serbian deputation sent to the Russian Emperor during the Uprising. The deputation, joined by Prota Mateja Nenadović, Petar Novaković Čardaklija and Jovan Protić, departed to Russia on September 13, 1804. They submitted on November 15, 1804 to the Russian Emperor Alexander I Serbian application “for safekeeping and salvation” asking him to take Serbia under the Russian protectorate [Достян 1970, 1005-1007; Первое 1980, 58-62; Грачев В. П. 1990, 120-138. See more about the deputation in: Мемоари 1867; Љушић 1990]. Submitted application was certainly based on Stratimirović’s political idea put on the paper earlier in the same year in his Memorandum. It turned out that the Serbian deputation required in St. Petersburg exactly what Stratimirović proposed in his Memorandum: re-establishment of Serbian state (Сербское правление) and official Serbia’s loyalty towards the Turkish Sultan. Moreover, the Russian imperial court accepted also Stratimirović idea of autonomous Serbian state within the Ottoman Empire but under the Russian political-military protectorate, similar to the status of Danube principalities of Moldavia and Walachia in the Ottoman Empire [Вукићевић 1907, II, 180-199].

Stratimirović’s idea of Serbian liberation from the Austrian and Ottoman lordships was born in his head already before the beginning of the First Serbian Uprising. His political ideas about Serbian and all South-Slavic liberation and re-establishment of Serbian and South-Slavic medieval statehood were expressed by Stratimirović’s deputy, arhimandrit Arsenije Gagović, to the Russian Emperor in St. Petersburg on November 2nd, 1803. Gagović, following the instructions of the Karlovci Metropolitan, proposed to Alexander I that Russia should support liberation and political unification of South-Slavic peoples into the Slavonic-Serbian Empire. Gagović required as well that one Russian Grand Duke would be appointed by the Russian monarch as the emperor of this empire [Слијепчевић 1936, 176-179].

Speaking about diplomatic activities of the Karlovci Metropolitan the crucial question arose: why did Stratimirović look upon Russia as the only ingenuous liberator and political-military protector of the Serbs and, moreover, the rest of the South-Slavs? Stratimirović obviously thought that Russia was only European country with genuine fancy and affinity toward the South-Slavs especially towards the Serbs. The main advocator of such opinion among the Serbs was Serbian Orthodox clergy which head was Stratimirović. Imperial Russia as Orthodox country and the country with greatest Slavic population gradually inspired the spiritual-political leader of the Serbian nation during the Habsburg and Ottoman lordships, i.e. the Serbian Orthodox Church, since the end of 17th century to believe that only the Romanovs could be a real liberators and protectors of the Serbs and the rest of the South-Slavs, especially the Orthodox ones [see Ђурђев 1953]. The Serbian Orthodox clergy welcomed the Romanovs’ Panslavism – the official course of the Russian foreign policy in Europe.

The Serbian Orthodox Church pressed itself more lovingly to Russia during the 18th century when, as the consequence of the Habsburgs’ military victories over the Turks, the Roman-Catholic influence in the Balkans significantly increased [Витковић, 121]. The Serbian priests, in order to prevent Roman-Catholic predominance in the region, urged Russia to put all South-Slavic population under its own political protection. As a consequence of the Serbian Orthodox Church’s propaganda in the Russian favor, the reputation of the Russian Emperor in Serbian eyes significantly increased at the end of the 18th century. Subsequently, Serbian nobleman from Arad, Sava Tekelija noticed that in the case of the new Russo-Ottoman war the Serbs, as well the Bulgarians, would welcome Russia as their liberator [Текелија 1966, 176]. The Serbian clergy tried always to remind the Serbs about the connections which tied them with the Russians: “divine, natural and eternal bonds of the blood, language and faith” (“Божанска, природна и вечна веза крви, језика и вере“ [Љушић 1993, 119]). The historical role of Orthodoxy and language were especially emphasized in this pro-Russian propaganda. Clearly, the Orthodoxy became for all Serbs a main symbol of national struggle against the Ottoman authorities. The myth of Orthodoxy became in the turn of the 19th century the foremost instrument in the hands of the Serbian clergy in their combat against the Austrian (i.e., Roman Catholic) political supremacy in the Balkans. They at the same time supported the Russian concept of united Orthodox nations as the crucial step towards realization of the Russian policy of Panslavism. Shortly, Serbian spiritual leaders imagined the Orthodox-Slavic Russia as only sincere liberator and protector of both Southeast European Orthodox population (Romanians, Serbs, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Bulgarians and Greeks) and the South-Slavs (Yugoslavs and Bulgarians) [about Panslavism in the Russian foreign policy see in: Миллер А. Ф. 1947, 58-65].

Finally, for the Orthodox Serbs and Russians anything that was bad for Turks and the Ottoman Empire was good for them. Many Serbs unequivocally welcomed Russian military victory over the Turks in 1774, especially the article of the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji which established Russian protectorate over Moldavia and Walachia with the Russian right of guardianship of all Balkan Orthodox population in the Ottoman Empire. Stratimirović, unconditionally culturally and politically oriented toward Russia, saw in this article of Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji a very appropriate legal opportunity for extension of Russian protection over the both Austrian and Ottoman Serbs.

Stratimirovićs concept of the religion-language based Slavonic-Serbian state under the Russian protectorate

Stratimirovic’s Memorandum represents one of the earliest political programs about Serbian liberation and unification in the modern Serbian history of political thought. He recognized that the Ottoman Serbs were not able to free themselves fighting alone against the Turks. In this respect, they should rely on one powerful European country which would give military and diplomatic support to the Serbian rebels. Consequently, the problem of Serbian uprising had to be included in the broader context of European policy of great powers and international relations. Sincerely, he was deeply convinced that the Orthodox Russian Empire was a natural Serbian ally. As a result, the Russian Empire should become Serbia’s patron in her struggle for freedom and national unification. Having in mind this, the Karlovci Metropolitan sent his Memorandum to the Russian Tsar Alexander I Romanov. The vision of unified Serbia under the Russian patronage but inside the Ottoman Empire animated Stratimirović’s plan. In the other words, he favored creation of autonomous Serbia under Ottoman suzerainty but governed by the Russian Grand Duke or Viceroy. Stratimirović’s Memorandum, or the so-called the “Plan for Serbian liberation”, was submitted in June 1804 to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Duke Adam Czartoryski, by Serbian arhimandrit Arsenije Gagovic who was the Orthodox chaplain in the Russian embassy in Vienna [about the history of submission of the Memorandum to the Russian officials see: Димитријевић 1926, 12-16].

The actual political situation in Europe was elaborated in the first part of the Memorandum. Stratimirović concluded hat only Russia was a real independent and powerful Orthodox country all over the world. However, according to him, the European peoples were looking to Russia as the Asiatic country as, for instance, it was the case with the Poles, even though that they were the members of the Slavic community. The Karlovci Metropolitan explained Polish negative attitude towards the Orthodoxy and Russia by the propaganda activities of the Roman Catholic Jesuit Order in Poland which the main goal was to fight the Orthodoxy all over the Europe.

In the second part of his plan Stratimirović studied the question of liberation of the Balkans from the Ottoman lordship. On this place he revoked the Plan for the re-establishing of the Greek Empire, i.e. the plan for liberation of the Balkan Orthodox population drafted by the Russian Empress Catherine II in 1782. According to the plan, all Balkan Orthodox peoples should be included into the new Byzantine Empire with the capital of Constantinople governed by one Russian Duke as proclaimed Emperor [Driault 1904, 30-31]. But, Stratimirovic was in opinion that the Russian influence in this empire would be decreased taking into account the anti-Russian activities by the Greeks who had never been a sincere admirers of Russia. The Karlovci Metropolitan concluded that the Russian alliance with the Greeks would be a catastrophic for the first [Слијепчевић 1936, 180]. Sincerely, Stratimirović suggested to the Russian authorities that only the Serbs in the Balkans were bona fide allies of the Russian Empire. For that reason, according to Stratimirović, Russia would have more benefits by re-establishment of the Serbian state in the Balkans than the Greek one. In conclusion, in order to attract the Russian Emperor for his plan, Stratimirović launched the idea that establishment of Serbian state on the Balkans under the Russian patronage was to be the primary precondition for realization of Russian strategy to establish control over the Black Sea littoral and Thrace since Serbian state had to play the role of natural barrier against the Austrian penetration into the Russian political sphere of interest.

The third part of the Memorandum dealt with the problem of inner decomposition of the Ottoman Empire. The Karlovci Metropolitan noticed that Ottoman European possessions were already involved into the process of total and incurable disintegration and destruction, as for example every Turkish provincial governor, the Paša, became independent from the central government which was unable to prevent the empire from political inner destruction and provincial and regional separation. Consequently, at the beginning of the 19th century there were the best opportunities to create semi-independent Serbian state on the Balkans but only under the Russian diplomatic support of the Serbs.

In the fourth part of his plan Stratimirović proposed the creation of Serbian tributary state on the Balkans under nominal Sultan’s suzerainty. State-political relationships between newly established Serbian state and the Ottoman Empire should be similar to the state-political relations between the Republic of Dubrovnik and the Republic of Ionian Islands with the Ottoman Empire. Likewise the Republic of Ionian Islands, semi-independent Serbia would be put under the Russian political-military protectorate. Finally, after the creation of Serbian tributary state, the Turkish Sultan would get some territorial compensations from the Russian Emperor in Asia.

The concept of revived Serbian national state drafted in the Memorandum was essentially based on the idea that both Serbs from the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy should join it. Subsequently, the following territories of the Habsburg Monarchy populated by the Serbs should be incorporated into the tributary autonomous national state of the Serbs which Stratimirović named as Slavonic – Serbian (Славено-Сербско государство):

1) the gulf of Boka Kotorska with the city of Kotor

2) the parts of Dalmatia and Croatia eastward from the Una River, the Krka River and the city of Šibenik

3) the territory between the Danube River, the Sava River and the Vuka River

4) the main portion of Slavonia [the text of Memorandum in Димитријевић 1926, 17-24].

The following Serbian historical and ethnical lands from the Ottoman Empire would consolidate liberated Serbia too:

1) Beogradski pašaluk (from the Sava River and the Danube River to the Western Morava River, and from the Drina River to the Timok River)

2) Bosnia and Herzegovina

3) Montenegro

4) Kosovo and Metohija (with the cities of Peć, Đakovica, Banja, Priština, Prizren, Vučitrn, Mitrovica and Zvečan)

5) the nort-western Bulgaria with the city of Vidin and its hinterland and the Lom River.

However, Stratimirović in addition mentioned as well as the next territories as the ethnic space of the Serbian nation:

1) part of the western Wallachia between the Danube River and the Jiu River

2) the present-day southern Serbia with the cities of Niš, Leskovac, Kruševac, Vranje and Bujanovac, and 3) the present-day northern Albania with the city of Scutari [Руварац 1903].

Dealing with the problem of fixing the borders of the Slavonic – Serbian state the Karlovci Metropolitan implemented both principles: historical one and ethnic one. Firstly, according to the prior principle, the territory of the medieval Serbia would compose Stratimirović’s Slavonic – Serbian state. Secondly, in accordance with the latter principle, all Balkan territories settled by the Orthodox South Slavic population who spoke Serbo-Croatian language of Štokavski (Штокавски)[5] dialect were considered as Serbian ethnic space and designed as the part of Slavonic – Serbian state. What concerns the determination of the ethnic space of the Serbs Stratimirović was in this point under strong influence of the theory about the concept of ethnic-linguistic space of Serbdom created at that time by Serbian nobleman from Arad, Sava Tekelija. Tekelija’s ethnic-linguistic concept of Serbdom was drafted in his short essay Oписаније живота (Description of life). Thinking that all South Slavic population who spoke Štokavski, Kajkavski and Čakavski dialects, regardless on the religion, belonged to the genuine Serbian nation, Tekelija marked the following territories as ethnic-linguistic Serbian ones: Serbia proper, Kosovo and Metohija, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Macedonia, Republic of Dubrovnik, Carniola (Kranjska), Styria (Štajerska), Carinthia (Koruška), Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, southern Hungary (present-day Vojvodina) and the northern Albania. Tekelija suggested that all of these “Serbian” territories should compose one single Serbian national state which would have the borders on the Adriatic and the Black Sea. According to his opinion, this state would by mainly populated by the Orthodox Serbs and by minority of the Roman Catholics. The above mentioned territories Tekelija called Illyricum following at that time a wide spread theory that all South Slavs originated from the ancient Balkan Illyrs who in Tekelija’s eyes were the ethnic-language-based Serbs, i.e., the speakers of Kajkavian (Kajkavski), Štokavian (Štokavski) and Čakavian (Čakavski) dialects, i.e., languages.

Nevertheless, Stratimirović did not accept in whole Tekelija’s concept of Kajkavian-Štokavian-Čakavian language-based Serbian nation. The Karlovci Metropolitan thought that only Orthodox Cristian population of the South Slavs who spoke only Štokavian dialect belonged to the genuine ethnic-language-based Serbdom. As a result, the Slovenes (the Roman Catholic and Kajkavian speaking population from Carinthia, Carniola and Styria), the Bulgarians (Bulgarian speaking population from the eastern Balkans) and the Croats (the Roman Catholic and Kajkavian and Čakavian speaking population from Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia) were excluded from the community of Srtatimirović’s religion-language-based Serbian nation and subsequently from his Slavonic – Serbian state [about the 19th century ideas of ethnic/national identification of the South Slavs according to the South Slavic language dialects see: Обрадовић 1783/1975, 147; 1969, 363-364; Šafařik 1826; 1842/1955, 146–147; Караџић 1849; Kopitar 1810; 1984; Dobrovský 1792/1818; Kollár 1835; Miklošič 1852/1879; Теодоровић 1845; Милосављевић 1997; Starčevic 1971; Derkos 1832; Drašković 1832].

As the territorial compensation from the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Monarchy would get the ensuing lands: 1) the western part of the so-called “Turkish Croatia”, i.e., the lands between the Una River and Petrova Gora, and 2) the lands between Transilvania, the Danube River and the Olta River [Димитријевић 1926, 17-24; Ђорђевић 1956, 19-20]. In the other words, for ceding Srem and the southern Dalmatia to the Serbian tributary state which would be de iure within the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Monarchy will get from Turkey the north-western Bosnia and the south westernmost part of Walachia. According to Stratimirović’c observation, the territories which should be given to the Habsburg Monarchy from the Ottoman Empire were triple larger then the territories which the Habsburg Monarchy will cede to unified Serbia. For the Karlovci Metropolitan, inclusion of the territory of Srem into Serbia was of the extremely importance for the Serbs since 80% of its population consisted the “Greco-Orthodox believers”, i.e. the Serbs, and 20% the “Roman-Catholics”, i.e. the Croats, and also because the headquarters of the Serbian church was set up in Srem in the city of Sremski Karlovci.

In drafting his plan of Serbian state, Stratimirović took into consideration and possible negative international reactions about the re-creation of national state of the Serbs. He knew very well that there were in contemporary Europe several states, as France, Great Britain and the Habsburg Monarchy, which Balkan policy anticipated thwarting the Ottoman Empire’s disintegration. For instance, Austrian Minister-Premier Kaunitz openly announced that the survival of the Ottoman Empire was absolutely fitting to the Austrian foreign policy in the Southeastern Europe [Jorga 1913, 3]. Knowing that, and in order to keep contemporary European balance of power and European diplomatic house of cards unchanged, Stratimirović envisaged liberated and unified Serbia as the part of the Ottoman Empire.

According to the author of the Memorandum, taking into account the lower level of general education of the Ottoman Serbs, the designed national state of the Serbs had to have monarchical but not republican constitution. In the other words, he thought that the Serbs did not yet mature for the republican constitution. Stratimirović knew that the Serbs did not have at that time either the representatives of national dynasty or political aristocracy. Writing about the future head of Serbian monarchical state he found the best solution in one of the Russian Grand Dukes. In the other words, Serbia’s ruler had to be a member of the Russian imperial dynasty of the Romanovs primarily since the Russian imperial dynasty was of the same Christian-Orthodox religion likewise the Serbs. The Russian Grand Duke as the Serbian ruler would be appointed directly by the Tsar Alexander I Romanov. This Grad Duke would come to Serbia with the Russian military contingent of 4000 soldiers. They will be the principal guarantee for the Serbian liberty. Subsequently, unified Serbia would get a political form of the tributary, autonomous, semi-independent, Orthodox Grand Duchy under the Russian patronage and only formally recognising the Sultan’s suzerainty. The Moslem population within religion-language-based Serbian Grand Duchy would have right of free expression of their faith.

Further, in the case that the Russian Emperor would not express the will to nominate one member of the Russian imperial Grand Dukes to be the sovereign of Serbia, according to the Memorandum, Serbian ruler should be chosen among the German Protestant Dukes, instead of the Russian pretender to the Serbian throne. Evidently, Stratimirović’s resolute requirement connected with the question of Serbia’s monarch was: one who will govern Serbia can not be of the Roman Catholic religion! Precisely, Stratimirović had a presumption that the Roman Catholic Duke would not want to convert himself into the Orthodox faith what was a predicament to become Serbia’s monarch. In this respect, the author of the Memorandum believed that the Protestant Duke would become the member of the Orthodox Christianity much easily than the Roman Catholic one. Nevertheless, Stratimirović sincerely believed that there will be interested noblemen on the Russian imperial court who would like to be appointed by the Russian Emperor on Serbia’s throne. His belief was forged by the case of Russian Count Waldemar Schmetau who in 1774 such position required for himself even trying to prove his descent from the Serbian mediaeval Duke Lazar Hrebeljanović (killed during the Kosovo battle on June 28, 1389) [Соловјев, 120].

In the Memorandum the Karlovci Metropolitan titled his proposed Serbian national state which should be established with the Russian support and exist under the Russian protectorate as the “СЛАВЕНО – СЕРБСКО ГОСУДАРСТВО.” This Slavonic – Serbian state would be monarchical one, autonomous and Orthodox with the Grand Duke as the head of it. Consequently, his proposed national state of the Serbs should be defined as autonomous Orthodox Slavonic – Serbian Grand Duchy under the Russian protectorate within the Ottoman Empire. In conclusion, Stratimirović’s religion-language-based Славено – Сербско государство would be composed by entire South Slavic population which mother tongue was the Serbo-Croatian language of the Štokavian dialect and the national religion of the Christian Orthodoxy.

When the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Duke Adam Czartoryski, read Stratimirović’s plan about the creation of Slavonic – Serbian Grand Duchy he rejected the main idea of the Karlovci Metropolitan. Czartoryski, instead of Stratimirović’s proposal, favoured the plan of creation of the Greek Empire on the Balkans which the main ideological protagonist was the Russian Empress Catherine II. Precisely, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs had a plan to cede to the Habsburg Monarchy Croatia, Slavonia, Dubrovnik, Belgrade and parts of Walachia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina [Ђорђевић 1956, 20]. However, Catherine II in the plan about the division of the Ottoman territories between the Russian Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy did not support the principle of national determination of the Balkan population as, for example, the Serbs would be split between the Habsburg Monarchy and the Greek Empire. In this respect, Stratimirović’s Memorandum had the aim to convince the Russian authorities to finally reject the idea of creation of the Greek Empire and to accept his idea of establishment of united Serbia. From the Empress’ plan the Karlovci Metropolitan only accepted the idea of Russian political-military protectorate over the Balkan Christian Orthodox nations.

Finally, Stratimirović’s idea about creation of the autonomous religion-language-based Orthodox Štokavian Slavonic – Serbian Grand Duchy under the Russian protectorate and only de iure within the Ottoman Empire significantly influenced Serbian political thought in the very near future. Firstly, the main Stratimirović’s idea from the Memorandum was accepted by the official deputation which was sent by the Serbian rebels from Beogradski pašaluk to the Turkish Sultan in Istanbul on July 13, 1806 to negotiate the peace agreement with the Ottoman authorities. The Ottoman government also accepted the main proposals written in the Memorandum in the answer to these Serbian requirements on August 15, 1806. However, at that time the peace agreeement between the Serbian insurgents and the Ottoman Empire was not signed primarily inasmuch as the Russian diplomacy did not support the main idea expressed in the Memorandum having in mind different concept of political arrangement of the Balkans than it had Stratimirović [Маретић 1987,124; Новаковић 1903; Гавриловић 1926, 93-96; Вукићевић 1907, II, 385-387; Љушић 1993, 191-194]. Secondly, another Serbian deputation from Beogradski pašaluk went in January 1813 to Istanbul to negotiate the peace treaty with requirements which were also based on Stratimirović’s idea of creation of autonomous Serbian state within the Ottoman Empire. The Serbian requirements from 1813 were based fundamentally on Stratimirović’s idea of the Russian protectorate over autonomous Serbia. This idea was already incorporated into the Article № Eight of the Russian-Ottoman peace treaty of Bucharest, signed on May 28, 1812 [Љушић 1986, 2-3; Ђорђевић 1956, 313-314; Внешнаяя 1967, 406-407]. Thirdly, Stratimirović’s concept of determination of the Serbian nation according to the Serbo-Croatian language of the Štokavian dialect was accepted by the main Serbian ideologue of the “language-based Serbian nation” model – Vuk Stefanović Karadžić in his ideological article “Serbs Аll and Еverywhere” (“Срби сви и свуда“), written in 1836 and printed in 1849. However, differently than the Karlovci Metropolitan’s idea that only South Slavic Orthodox Štokavian speaking population belonged to the Serbdom, Karadžić was convinced that the entire South Slavic population who spoke the Štokavski dialect, regardless of their Roman Catholic, Muslim or Orthodox religious affiliations, composed the genuine ethnical Serbian nation. [Караџић 1849, 1-27]. Fourthly, Stratimirović’s notion of politically united Serbian nation from both the Habsburg Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire into the single borders of national state inspired the pivotal Serbian 19th – century politician Ilija Garašanin who launched in 1844 the idea of politically united “language-based Serbian nation” of the Štokavian dialect in his political-ideological work Načertanije (Начертаније) [Гарашанин 1844].

Conclusion

The Karlovci Metropolitan Stevan Stratimirović created the idea of autonomous tributary religion-language-based Orthodox Štokavian Slavonic – Serbian state in 1804. The state should be governed by the Russian Grand Duke, to be under the Russian political-military protectorate, as well to be only nominally included into the Ottoman Empire and finally to pay annual fixed tribute to the Turkish Sultan as its suzerain. Stratimirović’s concept of politically united religion-language-based Serbian nation within the borders of a single national state anticipated unification of the historicalal and ethnical Serbian territories from both the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy. His notion of national identification of the Serbs was rather innovative at that time. In the other words, he created the idea of Serbia nation combining the language criteria and the religious principle. As a result, according to Stratimirović’s opinion, Serbian nation was represented by the entire Christian Orthodox South Slavic population who spoke Serbo-Croatian language of the Štokavian (Штокавски) dialect. Subsequently, all Balkan territories settled by the Orthodox-Štokavian South Slavs had to be included into the unified Serbia. Stratimirović’s ideas were expressed in the Memorandum submitted to the Russian Emperor Alexander I Romanov. The Memorandum gave a great contribution to the history of Serbian pre-modern political doctrines and ideologies as one of the most important national state project. This project was created during the turning point moment in the whole Serbian history. It was the time of the First Serbian Uprising (1804-1813) against the Turkish lordship.

There were many plans during the uprising connected with the question of Serbian liberation and national political unification. The Memorandum was one of the most important of them.

Prof. Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic

www.global-politics.eu/sotirovic

globalpol@global-politics.eu

© Vladislav B. Sotirovic 2016

_____________________

References

1) Albin A., 1970: “The Creation of the Slaveno-Serbski Literary Language”, The Slavonic and East European Review, № XLVIII (113). 483-492.

2) Bérengar J., 2000: A History of the Habsburg Empire: 1700-1918. London.

3) Ćirković S., 1994: “Religious factor in Forming of Cultural and National Identity” in: Janjić D. (ed.), Religion & War. Belgrade. 146-160.

4) Derkos I., 1832: Genius patriae super dormientibus sius filiis. Zagreb.

5) Dobrovský J., 1792/1818: Geschichte der böhmische Sprache und Literatur. Wien.

6) Drašković J., 1832: Disertatia iliti razgovor, darovan gospodi poklisarom zakonskim i budućem zakonotvorcem kraljevinah naših. Karlovac.

7) Driault E., 1904: La politique orientale de Napoléon. Paris.

8) Günther R., 1966: The Military Border in Croatia 1740-1881. Chicago.

9) Inalcik H., 1973: The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600. New York.

10) Itzkowitz N., 1972: Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition. New York.

11) Jelavich B., 1984: History of the Balkans: Eighteenth and Ninetheenth Centuries. Cambridge.

12) Jorga N., 1913: Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches. V. Gotha.

13) Judah T., 1997: The Serbs. History, Myth & Destruction of Yugoslavia. New Haven and London.

14) Petrovich М. B., 1976: A History of Modern Serbia 1804 – 1918, I. New York, London.

15) Picot E., 1873: Les Serbes de Hongrie. Paris.

16) Starčević A., 1971: Politički spisi. Zagreb.

17) Šafařik P. J., 1826: Geschichte der slawischen Sprache und Literatur. Buda.

18) Šafařik P. J., 1842/1955: Slowansky národopis. Prague.

19) Temperley H. V. W., 1969: History of Serbia. New York.

20) Vucinich W. S, 1982: The First Serbian Uprising 1804 – 1813. New York.

21) Витковић Г.; “Извештај Максима Ратковића, егзарха београдског митрополита, 1733”, Гласник, № LVI. Београд.

22) Внешнаяя политика России XIX и начала XX века, 1967: VI. Москва.

23) Вукићевић М., 1907: Карађорђе, I-III. Београд.

24) Гавриловић М., 1926: Из нове српске историје. Београд.

25) Гарашанин И., 1844: Начертаније. Београд.

26) Грачев В. П., 1990: Балканские владения Османской империи на рубеже XVIII-XIX вв. Москва.

27) Димитријевић С. Т., 1926: Стевана Стратимировића, Митрополита Карловачког План за ослобођенје српског народа. Београд.

28) Достян И. С., 1970: “Планы основания славяно-сербского государства с помощъю России в начале XX в.”, Советское славяховедение, № 5. Москва.

29) Ђурђев Б., 1953: “Улога српске цркве у борби против османске власти“, Преглед, № 1. Сарајево.

30) Екмечић М., 1988: Стварање Југославије, I-II. Београд.

31) Ивић А. (ed.), 1935: Списи Бечких архива о првом српском устанку, I, 1804. Београд.

32) Јакшић Г., 1991 (reprint from1937): Борба за слободу Србије од 1788 до 1813. Београд.

33) Јовић М., Радић К., 1990: Српске земље и владари. Крушевац.

34) Караџић В. С., 1849: “Срби сви и свуда“, Ковчежић за историју и обичаје Срба сва три закона, Беч, 1-27.

35) Kollár J, 1835: “О књижевној заимности међу народи и наречјима словенским”, Сербски народни лист.

36) Kopitar J., 1810: “Patriotske fantazije jednog Slovena”, Vaterländische Bläter.

37) Kopitar J., 1984: Serbica. Beograd.

38) Летопис Матице Српске, 1885: књига 143. Нови Сад.

39) Љушић Р., 1986: Кнежевина Србија (1830-1839). Београд.

40) Љушић Р., 1990: Вук Караџић о Српској револуцији. Београд.

41) Љушић Р., 1993: Вожд Карађорђе, I. Смедеревска Паланка.

42) Љушић Р., 1995: Вожд Карађорђе, II. Београд, Горњи Милановац.

43) Маретић Е. Г., 1987: Историја српске револуције 1804-1813. Београд. (Original in German written immediately after the uprising according to author’s diary).

44) Мемоари Проте Матије Ненадовића, 1867: Београд.

45) Miklošič F., 1852/1879: “Serbisch und chorvatisch” in Vergleichende Gramatik der slawischen Sprachen. Wien.

46) Миллер А. Ф., 1947: Мустафа-паша Байрактар. Москва.

47) Милосављевић П., 1997: Срби и њихов језик. Хрестоматија. Приштина.

48) Новаковић С., 1903: “Ичков мир. Покушај непосредног измирења Србије и Турске, 1806-1897”, Глас СКА, № LXVI. Београд.

49) Обрадовић Д., 1783/1975: “Писмо Харалампију” in Живот и прикљученија. Нови Сад.

50) Обрадовић Д., 1969: “Јест ли полезно у простом дијалекту на штампу што издавати” in Изабрани списи. Нови Сад.

51) Павловић Д., 1910: Србија за време последњег аустријско-турског рата (1788-1791). Београд.

52) Пантелић Д., 1949: Београдски пашалук пред први српски устанак (1794-1804). Београд.

53) Первое сербское востание и Россiя, 1980: бр. 1. Москва.

54) Перовић Р. (ed.), 1954: Прилози за историју првог српског устанка. Необјављена грађа. Београд.

55) Поповић В., 1928: Источно питање. Београд.

56) Поповић Д., 1965: “Сава Текелија према првом српском устанку” in Проблеми Војводине. Нови Сад.

57) Руварац Д., 1903: Географске белешке о Турској Митрополита Стратимровића из године 1803 и 1804. Београд.

58) Слијепчевић, Ђ. М., 1936: Стеван Стратимировић митрополит Карловачки као поглавар цркве, просветни и национално-политички радник. Београд.

59) Соловјев А.: “Непознати кандидат на српски престо год. 1774“, Споменик, № XCI. Београд.

60) Стратимировић С., 1907: “Објашњење постанка и узроци устанка српских хришћана 1804”, Српски књижевни гласник, № 18. Београд.

61) Текелија С., 1966; Описаније живота. Београд.

62) Теодоровић Д., 1845: О књижевној узајамности између различни племена и неречија славјанског народа од Јована Колара. Београд.

63) Ћоровић В., 1993: Историја Срба. Београд.

64) Ђорђевић М., 1956: Политичка историја Србије, I, 1804-1813. Београд.

65) Чубриловић В., 1982: Историја политичке мисли у Србији у XIX веку. Београд.

66) Шабановић Х. (ed.), 1956: Турски извори о српској револуцији 1804. Београд.

Endnotes

[1] Pašaluk is Serbian version of the biggest Ottoman administrative province – pashalik. The governor of pashalik had the title of Pasha (in Serbian, Paša).

[2] The original title is: Ст. М. Димитријевић, Стевана Стратимировића, Митрополита Карловачког, план за ослобођење Српског народа, Београд, 1926.

[3] The original title is: Ђоко М. Слијепчевић, Стеван Стратимировић, Митрополит Карловачки као поглавар цркве, просветни и национално-политички радник, Београд, 1936.

[4] The original title is: Димитрије Руварац, Гeoграфске белешке о Турској Митрополита Стевана Стратимировића из године 1803 и 1804, Београд, 1903.

[5] Serbo-Croatian language is spoken in three dialects: Kajkavski, Štokavski, and Čakavski. The overwhelming majority of Serbo-Croatian speakers are speaking Štokavski dialect. Kajkavski dialect has Croatian and Slovenian version.

Study “Palestine, Israel And The Arab-Israeli Conflict. A Premier”, 2014

Study: Joel Beinin & Lisa Hajjar, “Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. A Premier”, Published by the Middle East Research & Information Project (MERIP), February 2014, pp. 16