U.S. Foreign Policy Blunder

American Support for Extreme Islamists in the Balkans
Kosovo conundrum by Michael Djordjevich, Washington Times
At the forthcoming summit, among other issues, Presidents Bush and Putin will face the problem of independence for the Serbian province Kosovo.
Kosovo is unfinished business, left over from the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia in the past decade and the legacy of fundamentally flawed American policies promulgated by the Clinton administration and then perpetuated by his successor. In terms and perspective of American long-term geostrategy and the ongoing struggle with radical Islam, it is indeed unfathomable how our foreign policy establishment has rationalized its strategy in the Balkans. Already, a body of impartial evidence strongly suggests an inexplicably steady policy of accommodation by the United States to Islamist demands. Essentially, at several key junctures on the road to peace and stability in the Balkans, America gave veto power to extreme Islamist leadership and its supporters worldwide.
The U.S. objective in Bosnia has been to establish a unitary state governed by Muslims, in effect abrogating the international treaty, the Dayton Accords. Together with the European Union, the United States has exerted consistent and relentless pressure to abolish or at least severely diminish the Serbian entity.
Currently in Kosovo, America is aggressively forcing the establishment of the second Muslim state in Europe. This is in contravention of international law and despite serious misgivings in Europe and resolute resistance by Russia.
Kosovo Rather Far from Democracy and Multiculturalism U.S. Professes to Support
An independent Kosovo would be a failed state, ethnically and religiously cleansed of Serbs and other minorities. During the past eight years of U.N. and NATO control of the province, the non-Albanian population experienced ethnic cleansings, destruction of a great number of homes and more than 100 churches and other medieval evidences of overwhelming Christian presence. Add to this a flourishing international drug and white slave trafficking, Kosovo is rather far from the democratic and multicultural model that the U.S. foreign policy establishment professes to support. Obviously these are not credentials for independence.
Equally serious is the undeniable rise of the puritanical strain of Wahabbi Islam and real potential for increased interacting between heroin trafficking and crime with terrorists in Kosovo, Southern Serbia, Bosnia and Northern Macedonia.
Where is the quid pro quo for rendering such significant aid to the Islamist agenda in the Balkans? Putting aside slogans and calculated deceptions, the U.S. geostrategic balance sheet in the Balkans shows perceived assets — such as, for example, the preservation of NATO by activating it in war in Bosnia and against Serbia, testing the functioning of international laws and treaties and institutions in the post-cold war world, standing up for expansion of democracy and multiculturalism, punishing Serbia and ascertaining Russian response, stopping wars and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, imposing its will on Europe and concerns of the European Union and establishing a beachhead in Albania.
Likely, the most significant asset was recently named by the chairman of the House foreign affairs committee, Rep. Tom Lantos. Advocating independence for Kosovo, he said “just a reminder to the predominantly Muslim-led governments in this world that here is yet another example that the United States leads the way for creation of a predominantly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe.” Impartial examination of each of these strategic assets may not value them highly. They can in fact be liabilities for our long-term strategic interests and will undermine Europe.
Cartoon by Tony Auth (USA)
Comments
While I'm pleased that Michael Djordjevic is able to get published in major newspapers, writing on behalf of Serbs, I always end up somewhat disappointed after reading one of his letters or columns. He seems to usually start out strong enough, but by the end he peeters out. Djordjevic needs to make his points much more forcefully in my opinion. Is his style a deliberate strategy, do you think, to appeal to a certain part of the American population of influence or is he just wimping out?
Posted by: |Blackbird | June 30, 2007 10:56 AM
I have often had the same feeling about Michael Djordjevic's writing. I too would like to know if this is a deliberate strategy or some other unknown factor.
Posted by: Bozidar | July 1, 2007 04:15 AM