The War on Yugoslavia, Kosovo “Self-Determination” and EU-NATO Support of KLA Terrorists: Dietmar Hartwig’s Warning Letters to Angela Merkel

Hits: 2553

It seems that the recent developments in Europe, and in particular the rising secessionism (Catalonia, Flandreau, Corsica, Veneto, Scotland), rings a bell, or rather is reminiscent of certain events. The ensuing ones are shedding more light on the roles of the EU (EEC), the USA, Great Britain and Germany. One wonders to what extent those democracies have been guided by the principles of international law and democracy pertaining to the Kosovo crisis.

How much did they appreciate the reports of their (expensive) missions in Kosovo and Metohija (КDОМ, КVМ, ЕCMM) depicting the realities on the ground?

To what extent have they been defending the right to self-determination and human rights and to what extent using separatism for expansion of their geopolitical interests?

As strategies are slow to evolve, recollections of the past may help better understanding of the interests and roles of the USA, Germany, NATO, EU and other geopolitical players in the ongoing Kosovo negotiations in Brussels paired with Serbia’s accession to the EU.

Over a longer period of time, the leading members of both, NATO and the EU, have been supporting the terrorist KLA[1] by political, financial and logistic means. This was particularly visible in 1998. In June that year USA abandoned previous position that KLA was terrorist organization and proclaimed it as liberation force[2]. OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM) with personnel of about 1.300[3], from October 1998 to March 1999 was just an imposed and imported umbrella for preparation of the ensuing military aggression. This period was particularly exploited for recuperation and equipping KLA with modern NATO equipment. Subsequently, NATO treated KLA as its ground force in launching military aggression against Serbia (FRY), country which in no way was threatening any other country or organization.

The aggression in clear breach of the UN Charter, without even trying to get consent of the UN Security Council, was a turning point in the world relations towards globalization of the interventionism without authorization of UN SC. To sum it up, the countries and integrations whose highest representatives swear that they have always been upholding the principles and rule-based policies, back in 1999 had provoked the strongest blow to the global legal order and to the United Nations since the end of World War II.

The policies pursued by governments of those countries and by integrations thereof during the Yugoslav and the Kosovo crises have provoked the spread of secession movements, expansion of Islamic extremism and terrorism. Double standards policy toward separatism and terrorism backfire today in Europe and beyond.

By violating the basic principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, in the UN Charter and in international conventions and treaties, NATO and EU member countries have induced a lasting instability in the Balkans as the most vulnerable part of Europe. Siding with the extremist, terrorist and criminals of KLA, in one hand, and condemning, satanizing and even bombing Serbia, in other hand,  had been anything but token of democratic, humanistic, law based, anti extremist or anti terrorist policy. Such EU and NATO key members’ policy ought to be invoked today if we have a will and courage to explain at least some causes of the current spread of extremism, terrorism, organized crimes and separatism in Europe and beyond. If we are ready to face extremists and terrorist in proper way.

Presently, USA, Germany and Great Britain are exerting pressure against Serbia, the one they have been demolishing, deceiving and humiliating by recognizing the forcible capture of her state territory in the form of an engineered unilateral and illegal secession of Kosovo, and requesting that Serbia erases it all from track-record and forgets it all “for the sake of her European future”! What kind of future could it possibly be built upon such foundations!?

The separatist and terrorist genie that the leading countries of NATO and the EU have unleashed from the battle in Kosovo and Metohija back in 1998/99 for the purpose of furthering the geopolitical goals of the USA, Germany and the UK keeps spreading over Europe, while the EU and NATO believe they would be able to push it back into the bottle clearing they names and revive their dented unity by scarifying once again (interests of) Serbia! The real tragedy for Europe is the reasoning that truth is only what the EU commissioners declare to be the truth! The dominance of such reasoning is preventing the genuine understanding of historical maelstrom that has engulfed the Old Continent!

“War on the FRY was waged to rectify an erroneous decision of General Eisenhower from the Second World War. Therefore, due to strategic reasons, the U.S. soldiers have to be stationed there.” This was the explanation given by American representatives at a NATO conference held in late April 2000 in Bratislava, noted by Willy Wimmer, former State Secretary in the German ministry of Defense, in his report to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder dated 2 May 2000.

The first point in this report is an explicit U.S. request that NATO members and candidate members recognize ‘independent state of Kosovo’ as soon as possible, whereas the tenth, last point, reads that ‘the right to self-determination takes precedence over all others”. Should one be surprised now by the present referendum on secession of Catalonia? Or, to save their faces, Europeans should continue to keep repeating USA false, shortsighted claim that “Kosovo is unique case”?

Wimmer’s report also notes the U.S. declared position at the Bratislava Conference was that the 1999 NATO attack on Yugoslavia without UN SC authorization is “a precedent to be invoked by anyone at any time, and which is going to be invoked”. This renders any allegations of a principled and rule-based policy utterly dubious: if the military aggression launched in violation of the UN Charter is declared to be a precedent t