Kosovo Commission's report
(proposal for independent Kosovo)
Trans National Organization (TFF)
The main proposal in the independent international Kosovo
Commission's report is that Kosovo should be given conditional independence. This
PressInfo deals with this proposal and a few other aspects of the report.
THE FIRST PARAGRAPH
The very first paragraph of the report's executive statement states: "The origins
of the crisis have to be understood in terms of a new wave of nationalism that led to the
rise of Milosevic and the official adoption of an extreme Serbian nationalist agenda. The
revocation of Kosovo's autonomy in 1989 was followed by a Belgrade policy aimed at
changing the ethnic composition of Kosovo and creating an apartheid-like society."
Here are some simple counter arguments: a) nationalism alone certainly can not explain
the conflicts in the region; b) not only the Serbs used nationalism, so did Bosnian
Muslim, Croats, Macedonians, Slovenes and Albanians at the time; c) it indicates a poor
understanding of Milosevic to say that he was a nationalist; he sold out Serbs and the
Serbian 'cause' repeatedly in order to remain in or increase his personal power; d) there
was no official adoption of nationalism; e) Kosovo's autonomy was not revoked, it was
sharply reduced and, for sure, it was done in an offending, authoritarian way; f) there is
no evidence that there was an official policy in Belgrade with the aim of changing the
ethnic composition of the Kosovo province, but there was a worry over the fact that over
the preceding 30 years the Serb proportion of the province's population had fallen from
about 30% to 9%.
APARTHEID - REALLY?
The reference to apartheid is misleading. According to Encyclopędia Britannica,
apartheid is "(Afrikaans: 'apartness') name given by the Afrikaner National Party, in
office in Africa since 1948, to the policies that govern relations between the country's
3,800.000 white inhabitants and its 17,700,000 non-white, mainly black African,
inhabitants. It is also used to describe the long-term objective of the territorial
separation that is advocated by Afrikaner church and intellectual circles." Other
characteristics of apartheid are mentioned: complete domination of the white minority over
the black majority; black Africans were allowed to own land only within the 13 per cent of
the territory which were designated native reserves; sexual and marriage relations between
blacks and whites illegal; nonwhites were denied the right to vote; and all black Africans
were required to obtain a permission before they could enter and remain in urban areas.
(15th edition, Vol 1, p 439).
There was nothing even "apartheid-like" in Kosovo. Indeed, its status as
autonomous since 1974 speaks against this. It has not been a question of race relations or
based on colour, it was not a minority dominating a majority as Kosovo was part of Serbia
and of former Yugoslavia in both of which Serbs were the largest nation; Kosovo-Albanians
could vote (but boycotted elections), and they were not forced to seek permission to leave
reserves. What is true, however, is that Albanian radicals would use the term
"apartheid" in conversations with foreign visitors, either as part of their
liberation vocabulary or in perfectly understandable despair over their situation. But for
the Commission &endash; chaired by South African judge, Richard Goldstone - to make
the above statement its basic framework gives reason for concern.
