Kosovo is finally free...

The expected arrived today. A decision by breakaway Serbian province Kosovo to finally declare it's independence.

While hardly surprising, the news is still good. For the last century, Serbia's hawk-like eye has been on this former province of the Ottoman empire and the Serbs have used every tactic in the playbook - from alliances with 'the great powers' to invasion and ethnic cleansing - to get their mitts on what murky Serbian folklore has always touted as 'the heart of Serbia.'

In truth, Kosovo hasn't truly been a part of the Serbian nation since the Battle of Kosovo, way back in the fourteenth century. After five hundred years of Ottoman rule (which saw the demographic of the region change from Slavic to Albanian) the Serbs have spent a century trying to reclaim their 'lost' province - but their claim simply doesn't hold water.

Quite rightly, the UN and the European Union seem ready to support Kosovo's well deserved liberation from Serbian imperialism.

But while celebration is the order of the day in Kosovo, dark clouds are gathering on the horizon. Firstly, Serbia has shown a worrying enthusiasm for solving diplomatic problems with violent and bloodthirsty military action. Secondly, the great Russian bear is peering at the Serbia/Kosovo conundrum with a growing sense of unease. As more regions of the former Soviet bloc gear up for independence, the liberation of Kosovo would give them increased legitimacy.

At best, the liberation of Kosovo will drive a thick wedge between the West and the former Soviet Union. But at worst? Serbia could gain enough support from Russia to launch it's own military 'reclamation' and bring war right back to the heart of Europe.

Kosovo about to Declare Independence?

Foul-mouthed and opinionated blogger The Exile, who whines about the plight of the British working class while sipping Negra Modelo in the sunshine of Mexico City, posted a pretty terrifying quote from Yuri Baluyevsky, Chief of General Staff at the Kremlin.

"We do not intend to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons."

What is Yuri talking about?

Well, doubtless he's referring to Kosovo's imminent declaration of independence. With the Serbian presidential election set February 3rd, the province of Kosovo is poised to declare their independence should nationalist candidate Tomislav Nikolić win.

Tomislav Nikolić took over leadership of the nationalist Serbian Radical Party when former leader Vojislav Šešelj left for The Hague, to face charges of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

If Tomislav Nikolić defeats moderate incumbent Boris Tadić, things will look bleak for the war torn province of Kosovo. It seems wise to strike out for independence while there's still a UN presence to protect them from Serbian retaliation.

But Yuri Baluyevsky's words are worrying. While most of the UN supports Kosovo's pleas for independence, Russia is highly skeptical of granting them freedom from Serbian oppression.

Not because of any concern or comradeship with the people of Serbia. Simply because Kosovo's UN-supported independence would throw an awkward spotlight on Russia's brutal treatment of breakaway provinces within their own nation.

If Baluyevsky is to be taken seriously, Russia might commit supplies, support, troops and even nuclear weapons to prevent Kosovo from achieving it's well-deserved independence.

It's a very thinly veiled threat of war - and the UN might well be left with no option but to call their bluff -or else back down and let vile vulture Vladimir Putin bully democracy into submission.

The Neil Clark Story

UPDATE: Score change.

KAMM 1 / CLARK 1

Game is tied - with so much left to play for!

PLEASE SEE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST

They say being magnanimous is one of the 'measures of a man.'

I'm not sure I entirely believe that - but I will say one thing. I'm big enough to come clean when I've been wrong about something.

And when it comes to scrappy journalist Neil Clark, I won't admit being wrong about my opinion of him - but a recent discovery has put my opinion of the Guardian contributor into a new perspective and I think it bears repeating here.

I first discovered Neil Clark through the blog of Jenn of the Jungle, who runs rightwing website Screw Liberals Dot Com and manages to combine the outspoken opinions and total babe-like hotness of Ann Coulter with that oh-so-rare quality called sanity. And she loves dogs.

Neil next popped up on my radar during the 2007 Weblog Awards, where I wrote a long piece explaining in excruciating detail why his blog was totally unworthy of winning the prize as best UK blog.

Further proof why democracy is overrated was given when Neil went on to win the award with an overwhelming majority.

Since then, I have continued to wage a guerrilla war against the forces of 'Neildom' by highlighting his most idiotic posts (or why people who wear hats are more civilised) and grudgingly agreeing with some of his more Eurocentric posts. At the end of the day, as much as I dislike his politics, we are both self-publicists with an occasional cute turn of phrase.

In tackling Neil's ridiculous politics, I've occasionally resorted to mentioning a rather nasty incident between him and Times contributor Oliver Kamm. Neil has the dubious distinction of being the first man to attempt to sue a 'blogger' for slander and defamation of character on the Internet.

The court case itself was thrown out and a good job too - free speech must be protected when courts often accomplish what legislators can't. But the fact that Neil handled the matter with spectacular incompetence doesn't detract from the reality that he has a legitimate reason to consider himself a victim.

So since new evidence has come to my attention - and I've grudgingly shifted my position in Neil's favor - I think it's worth doing what I can't do anywhere else and set the record straight.

Clark Vs. Kamm

I should warn you that this is a post-modernist tale and there's no clearly defined 'good guy' or 'bad guy.' In fact, both our leads act like unrepentant dicks during various stages of this story, but that's the stuff the best French cinema is made of.

Back in 2005, Oliver Kamm published a book called "Anti -Totalitarianism: The Left-wing Case for a Neoconservative Foreign Policy."

By all accounts, it's an excellently written book - even better when you see through Oliver Kamm's facade of being 'left wing' and realise he's a moderate/conservative like the rest of us. No true self respecting British 'left winger' would have left the socialist Labour Party in disgust, as Kamm did in 1988, only to rejoin it when Tony Blair arrived with his suitcase full of hijacked Tory policies in 1997. You're a shameless Tory, Kamm. Own up to it!

Oliver Kamm's book was reviewed by Neil Clark in the Telegraph in December of 2005.

Apparently.

Both Oliver Kamm and Neil Clark link to this review despite that fact that UNLIKE ANY OTHER BOOK REVIEW IN RECORDED HISTORY it fails to actually mention any of the books it's meant to be reviewing.

Hey, I warned you this story wasn't pretty. It involves self publicists with political delusions wallowing in their own self impotence [I think you mean 'importance' - Editorial Bear].

Now Neil Clark managed to achieve wonders. Not only did he 'review' a book without mentioning it's title or contents in any way - he also managed to piss Oliver Kamm off in the process. Not by calling him unconvincing or dishonest - which he did in his article - but by apparently not reading his book.

That's what Oliver Kamm alleged in his blog. After reading Neil's article in the Telegraph, Oliver suggested that the reason Neil hadn't mentioned many specific details of his book (like, ummm, the title) was because he'd never got further than reading the blurb on the back before scribbling his article.

Which is a LIE and SLANDER. Because The Telegraph would never publish such a dishonest and fraudulent contributor (for example, they don't publish my articles.) We hope.

In any event, Oliver Kamm also alleged that Neil's review features a misrepresented quote in it. Specifically that Bosnian leader Alija Izetbegovic used to recruit for the SS during World War II - long before he battled against genocidal Serbs in war torn Yugoslavia.

[Note to Oliver Kamm. You call that misrepresentation? Have you actually read any of the articles in newspapers? Militant Ginger gave an exclusive interview to The Sun once and they still managed to get his name and age wrong on the front cover. - Editorial Bear.]

The claim that Izetbegovic was an SS recruiter is clearly fictional - as Kamm points out, the late Bosnian president was only a teenager when World War II ended. However, whether the claim is true or not is irrelevant to the journalistic bickering that occurred regarding it.

Neil Clark quoted his sources for the Izetbegovic allegations as being the "Institute of Strategic Studies Organisation." Oliver Kamm, in researching Neil's sources (geeze, doesn't this guy have a life?) discovered that this organisation didn't exist.

If you google it, through, you come up with the International Institute of Strategic Studies - a world renowned strategic studies group with a reputation for honesty in what is basically seen as a ridiculously dishonest business (please see Thank You For Smoking to explain what Strategic Studies are - basically official studies designed to reach a predetermined conclusion.)

Kamm's further research (for God's sake, this guy needs a hobby) revealed the truth. Neil Clark's source for the Izetbegovic allegations came from a similarly named International Strategic Studies Association. Their impartiality on the whole Yugoslavia situation can be called into question by a 2003 report which suggested that the Bosnians had made up the whole Srebrenica massacre thing.

Yes, this situation IS as retarded as it sounds. Neil wrote this. Oliver wrote that. Basically it ended up as a pissing contest [Ohmygod that sounds disgusting - Editorial Bear] between two self important journalists who thought somebody out there actually gave a toss.

By that point, the higher moral ground was somewhere lower than the Mariana Trench, but somehow Oliver Kamm actually managed to sink even further.

Soon after this incident flared up, the editors who commissioned Neil Clark's articles started to get emails from a mysterious fellow called George Courtenay. They were sent (with minor variations) to the Guardian, Australian, First Post, Morning Star, New Statesman, Spectator and Daily Express - all the papers Neil contributes to.

To: The Editor
Subject: Neil Clark sources

Dear Sir,

I see you have published an opinion article by Neil Clark today. That's all good to print a range of views but you may be interested that Oliver Kamm of the London Times has been investigating Mr. Clark's use of sources.

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/02/more_on_balkan_.html
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/02/balkan_claims_r.html

Mr.Clark doesn't say the same thing in his new article but as he's lied to other editors I'm bringing it to your attention.

G. Courtenay

Research into a couple of other disputes involving Oliver Kamm revealed a rather worrying trend - George Courtenay was a name that cropped up again and again! Much like The Saint's pseudonym Sebastian Tombs or Adventure Eddy's adopted alter-ego of Nedwood Dewbolt, the self-publicist in Kamm clearly extended to his AKA as well!

NB: Please see discussion below, where the allegation that Oliver Kamm wrote the 'George Courtney' emails is disscussed in further detail.

Oliver Kamm was pissed off with Neil Clark and apparently out on a single minded and mean spirited crusade to cause his rival journalist as much professional mayhem as possible.

Things don't get pretty [They were pretty before? - Editorial Bear]

There was no way to respond to these supposedly 'anonymous' emails, but Neil Clark decided to respond to Oliver Kamm's blog allegations.

There were various options. 'Turning the other cheek' as Jesus did. Writing a brutal response to show up and humiliate his rival - or turn to the age-old American classic and 'sue his ass.'

Which is just what Neil Clark did.

In April 2006, he filed legal proceedings with his local county court, claiming the maximum damages of £5,000 for slander and defamation. He made Internet history as the first person to sue a blogger for libel.

Unsurprisingly, his case was laughed (not thrown, laughed) out of the court by the judge - but not because his allegations were invalid. More because only somebody of supreme legal ignorance would think of filing a libel case with a small claims court.

Even worse, Neil had marked his letters to Kamm's solicitors 'Without Prejudice' which sounds all good 'n legal, but actually means that a party's legal rights have, in fact, been determined and lost. Had the case gone to trial, Neil would have lost on the grounds that he'd dismissed his own case in his allegation letters.

Trial and Error

But the point is not Neil Clark's spectacular legal incompetence! In fact, if anything, his astounding courtroom cock-ups are a message of hope to greedy lawyers everywhere.

And despite going to court and railing against free speech, Internet autonomy and the basis of everything he (as a journalist) stands for, Neil Clark still manages to come out of this as the 'good guy.' [There's a good guy? Editorial Bear]

Because Oliver Kamm is a shit.

Disagreeing with Neil Clark is one thing - in fact, it's mandatory. Reading his 'review' of Kamm's book, I think it's perfectly valid to wonder if he'd even actually OPENED the book before he opinionated about the contents.

Giving Neil a hard time about his opinions or articles is also to be expected (yet he still manages to get things published, so give Clark his due.)

However, writing under an assumed name to all his editors in order to kill his journalistic career is both cowardly and despicable.

So for the record LET ME STATE THE CASE CLEARLY.

Oliver Kamm and 'George Courtney's' allegations are false. Fake. Fabricated.

Neil Clark did not misrepresent his 'source material' in his articles or blog. He didn't claim his quote about Alija Izetbegovic's alleged SS connection came from the International Institute of Strategic Studies when they actually came from the International Strategic Studies Association.

As it happened, he was apparently incapable of identifying his own sources and claimed they were the Institute of Strategic Studies Organisation - which doesn't exist. But being such an poor researcher is A LONG way from fraudulently presenting one source as another.

And even if it wasn't - writing anonymous emails to try and wreck somebody's career is just really shitty behavior. Whatever the allegations thrown at Neil Clark, they tend to pale in comparison to that.

So, what now?

For the sake of Internet prosperity, I've set the record straight.

Both Neil and Kamm have written their sides of the story - but only in a neatly controlled format. Oliver Kamm is too cowardly to allow any comments on his blog while Neil Clark rigorously edits or censors any which mention the scandal.

Personally, I think Neil's doing himself a disservice here. Instead of buggering about with the legal system (and ending up looking like a knob) he should have ranted and raved to his heart's content and shot down every criticism with the one weapon he has and Oliver Kamm doesn't - The Higher Ground.

In any event, I hope any interested parties will finally be able to look through the censored versions on their sites and find something approaching the truth here - from an unbiased source unswayed by bribery [Neil, Oliver - the bribery window is still open - Editorial Bear]

In Conclusion

So Neil Clark's clearly in the right here. But I don't have to like it - and I still stand by everything I've written about him.

In the last few months, I've gained a grudging respect for Neil. In general, he's been patient and gentlemanly with my robust interference with his blog. I might disagree with the opinions in his writing, but the guy can spin a yarn pretty well and we both agree the smoking ban was a bit fascist.

But just because I've gained a respect for him as a person doesn't mean I have to soften my opinion about his blog. I still say it's ugly. I still say he writes pompously and throws in ridiculous socialist propaganda - coining phrases like 'turbo-globalism™.' *

I think he's cruel for betraying the Iraqi translators. I think he's a fool for defending Milosevic for his genocidal imperialism. I think his socialist ideology is hopelessly outdated (although it's pretty cute and old fashioned.)

But I kind of like the guy now I've got to know him - and I think it's about time somebody stood up and said 'straight up' that he's 'in the right' in the Neil Clark/Oliver Kamm debacle

* Turbo-globalism is copyright Neil Clark 2006. Used without Permission

FURTHER DISCUSSION

In response to this post, commentor William McB raised some issues that I feel need addressing.

William McB: You have adduced no evidence to support the proposition that Kamm was directly responsible for the e-mails to Clark's commissioning editors. Neither, to my knowledge, has Clark adduced any such evidence. Yet you both write articles which leave the reader inevitbly to infer that that was the case. It is not remotely unbelievable to suggest that it was supporters of Kamm's who, unknown to Kamm, e-mailed editors of their own accord. I have contacted editors when I feel they have employed innapropriate journalists for certain tasks and have received thoughtful replies.

I think this is a very valid point. I merely repeated the allegation that Neil Clark had made suggesting the George Courtney was none other than Oliver Kamm himself.

The evidence supporting these allegations was an internet link on Neil's page - a link which has since become defunct. It claimed that in several other Internet arguements, the name of George Courtney has cropped up with disturbing regularity to support Oliver Kamm's position.

However, coincidence is very far from certainty. I think your suggestion that it was one of Kamm's supporters who actually wrote those emails is perfectly valid.

In either event, the emails themselves cast a grave shadow on Oliver Kamm's journalistic credibility. He was entirely justified in being unhappy with Neil Clark's terribly written 'review' of his book. However, there is a marked difference between writing a letter of complaint to the editor of The Telegraph and launching a systematic campaign trying to wreck somebody's journalistic career.

Whoever set out to contact each and every one of Neil Clark's commissioning editors was acting very maliciously. It's fair to suspect it was Kamm itself. It's just as or more likely that it was one of his 'supporters.' In either event, it's very unprofessional conduct and Oliver should be deeply ashamed to have links to his blog in an email set out to destroy a fellow journalist's career.

Clark was directly questioned by his editor on the Telegraph about the factual basis for some of his assertions in his review. He led the editor to believe, whether inadvertently or not, that the basis for the allegations was firstly an international body of some repute or, failing that, some international organisation. It was neither. The source for this scurrulous lie is the work of racist, fraudulent cranks.

As far as I can see - encompasing both Neil and Oliver's recollection of events - the quote in question Neil claims came from the Institute of Strategic Studies Organisation.

In actual fact, the quote was sourced to the International Strategic Studies Association - which is not a company of 'racist fraudulent cranks.' It's a company of thoroughly ruthless, manipulative and amoral fraudulent businessmen, producing cynical 'studies' reaching predetirmined conclusions despite overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary.

For example, 'reporting' that Bosnians lied about and invented the genocide they suffered at the hands of Milosevic's ruthless Serbs.

I'm not sure what boggles the mind more. That Neil didn't even have the journalistic competence to accuratly copy the name of his source - or that he bothered including the ridiculous allegation that Alija Izetbegovic was an World War II SS/Nazi recruiter in his review at all. The kid was only 19 when the war ended!

The utterly ridiculous claims are not the issue. What is regards Oliver Kamm's very specific allegation that Neil misrepresented his source as being the International Institute of Strategic Studies.

Kamm has no track record of obfuscating his identity on the internet. On the other hand, Clark has a recorded history of doing so under a number of different names. Kamm has always published under his own name, has made no attempt to hide his views, and in his writings properly attributes sources. In these and many other respects he is the moral opposite of Clark.

Now this is an interesting topic.

It is a clear and documented fact that Neil Clark has been busy on the Internet behind invented personas such as City Lights Girl and Green Goddess. Stephen Pollard caught him bang to rights in an article here.

However, Neil alleges that Oliver Kamm has specifically set out to manipulate Wikipedia and comment on blogs under the assumed identities of Elena Zamm and Slim Virgin.

I will admit, I can't prove Neil's allegations. However, it is very interesting that these two identities seem to crop up ONLY in relation to Neil Clark or Oliver Kamm. Visit Oliver Kamm's Wikipedia Page and you'll see them both making positive changes.

Visit Neil's Wikipedia page and you'll see Slim Virgin and Elena Zamm in action attacking him as well.

And, just for a giggle, you'll see Neil editing his own page under the name of City Lights Girl!

Now I have no proof of this, but I peronally think it's fairly clear. The circumstantial evidence points to Oliver Kamm doing exactly what Neil does and hiding behind (of obfuscating - good word that) a fake Internet identity.

It's amusing since the word 'Virgin' is often linked to Oliver Kamm via The Exile's slightly obsessive quest to spread his baseless accusation that Oliver Kamm was a virgin all through university.

I think The Exile's obsession with Oliver's virginity says a lot more about The Exile than in does against Kamm!

In any event, I strongly suspect that Oliver Kamm does exist under several anonymous Internet identities, but I can't prove it. I will say this, however. The harder you defend him and deny such accusations, the more egg you'll have on your face if (or when) he gets caught with his hand in the virtual cookie jar (like Neil did with Green Goddess.)

Remember - I could well believe that Oliver Kamm is the moral opposite of Neil Clark. However, morality is a circle and the fast they fly away from each other in one direction, the sooner they come together on the opposite side.

This is a serious accusation and one I would not throw about lightly. Kamm has a number of supporters willing to come to his defense.

Now, I could be wrong, but I reckon I detect a certain threatening undertone in that message. I'm not very impressed by that at all. Remember what I said about 'friends like these...' I'm sure Oliver Kamm wouldn't like to think people are trying to intimidate others in his name.

However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not what you meant.

To appear to take Clark's side in any dispute between him and Kamm speaks volumes about your character.

No, but the very fact we're having a dicussion about it does illustrate that I'm open minded, interested in other opinions have haven't decided my loyalty based on gut feeling.

Kamm has never posed as anyone else online.

As we have discussed above, I suspect that he might have done exactly that. I can't prove it, but there is a growing pile of circumstantial evidence and that swings my opinion.

Kamm has never lied about sources to hide a historical untruth.

That's true, to the best of my knowledge. In fact, Oliver Kamm is a terrific writer and I enjoy many of his articles - especially the one about Huckabee (which agrees largely with what I say, except with more long words in it.)

When I first 'met' the writing of Clark and Kamm, I instantly jumped into the Kamm camp because I agree more with his politics and I think he's clearly a better writer.

However, in this specific skirmish in the long-standing internet feud between Clark and Kamm, I was willing to be open minded based on the evidence.

Kamm has never had his personal friends appear in order to defend him on websites without revealing their true identity.

You're contradicting yourself here. You said yourself the emails to Neil's commissioning editors could have been written by a 'supporter' of Kamm's.

And assuming that Oliver Kamm isn't a rockstar with coke-fueled groupies stalking people because 'my poster of Oliver Kamm told me to,' whichever 'supporter' of Oliver Kamm wrote those emails to Neil Clark's commissioning editors (assuming it wasn't Kamm himself) was at least an aquiantence of his.

Listen, I'll be open minded. I'll mention the possibility that he was entirely gleefully innocent, but the weight of circumstansial evidence (and those links to his blog in the email itself) are pretty damning indications that he's involved somehow.

Throw in the likes of Slim Virgin, who apparently only visit the internet to damn Clark and praise Kamm, and you've got a pretty strong case for thinking something's screwy.

And, most importantly of all, Kamm has never made excuses for a would-be genocidal, anti-democratic racist.

I agree with you 100% here. As you've see from my various posts about him, I'm very far from a supporter of Neil's politics. At best, he lives in a delirious fantasy world in which socialism was a viable system and didn't make everybody poor and miserable. At worst, he's advocating the betrayl of our Iraqi allies and trying to dismiss the allegations of genocide and corruption aimed at Milosevic as 'pro-western propoganda.'

Funny how it's always 'pro-western propoganda' when it's attacking his cause, but he's more than happy to link to it when it's supporting him.

However, disliking Neil's politics doesn't detract from the fact that Oliver Kamm made allegations against him that are worthy of slightly deeper examination.

Your article above constitutes a smear against Kamm and one I suggest you reconsider.

Again, I'll assume that's not a threat! But I am open to reconsidering things.

You make one very valid point that I think it's worth including in this article. I don't have any proof that Oliver Kamm wrote the letters to Neil's commissioning editors. I have changed my post to reflect that (and sent them down here to read further discussion on the matter.)

It's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to think Kamm is guilty of writing those emails, but since I can't prove it and the circumstantial evidence certainly isn't conclusive, I'm willing to notch one up to the Kammster.

In many respects, he and Neil are each as bad as each other, constantly bickering and referencing each other in their blogs like an old married couple.

But despite incessently mentioning it, niether of them have really opened up the floor to 'set the record straight.' Oliver Kamm refuses to allow any comments on his blog, while Neil Clark has an agressive Stalinist policy of censoring and editing any mention of the scandal.

There are interested parties out there, so I'm hoping to use this as a forum to consolidate all the evidence in one place and let people make up their own minds.

Your opinion about the 'Courtney' letters is very valid. Therefore, I think it's time to change to scoreboard and admit that Kamm's got one firmly between the goalposts.

SCORE
Kamm 1 / Clark 1

The game is tyed, with everything to play for.

Some More on Kosovo

Because 88% of the inhabitants of Kosovo are ethnic Albanian - and the fact that the region has been seperate from Serbia proper for the majority of the last 700 years - it's actually pretty difficult to put together a convincing arguement as to why the war-torn Balkan province should be forced under the yolk of Serbian authority.

But that's not to say people haven't tried. In fact, one Californian writes a surprisingly well-written blog making his narrow-minded opinion on the fate of the disputed region very clear. You can 'enjoy' it here - SerbBlog.

In one post in particular, he points out some rather worrying trends emerging from Kosovo that have neatly ducked under the radar of the international press.

The fact is, distracted all the ethnic cleansing and angry rhetoric of the angry Serbs, we often forget that the people of Kosovo aren't all that cuddly either.

Transparency International - an international organization dedicated to exposing corruption - recently published a list of the world's five most 'corrupt' countries. Albania was first and coming in forth and fifth were Macedonia and Kosovo respectively.

The three regions which make up 'ethnic Albania' - or rather, the demographic that makes up what might one day become 'Albania Proper.'

Under the auspices of the United Nations occupation, ethnic Albanians are funnelling drugs, weapons and even people from East to West via the disputed Balkan region. Heroin from Afghanistan, weapons and explosives (the same explosives used by al-Qiada to make the bombs in Madrid and London) and, according to Amnesty International, an increasing number of girls and women forced into prostitution across Europe.

All of this crime is being encouraged by two factors.

Firstly, the moribund state of Kosovo. The country, with most of it's infrastructure destroyed by Milosevic and his Serbian security forces, is understandably unable to rebuild while it floats in the Limbo of UN administration. There is 40% unemployment across the region and in a country without industry or law, crime is sadly the most logical way to make a living.

Secondly, the stranglehold criminal organisations have on the region. During Milosevic's brutal campaign to reclaim Kosovo, the 'freedom fighters' known as the Kosovo Liberation Army ran a guerrilla campaign against the Serbian security forces. But like many paramilitary organisations, their aims became somewhat diluted over time. Now, much like the criminal Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland, the KLA is known as much for arms dealing, smuggling and intimidation as for the 'freedom fighting' they did in the nineties.

Throw into that the spreading evil of fundamentalist Islam - which burns like wildfire through a largely Muslim population struggling with poverty, crime and oppression - and you've got a recipe for disaster.

On SerbBlog, the writer declares that this is further evidence to support rejoining Kosovo to Serbia. Personally, I think it's a very convincing argument to do just the opposite.

It's amazing to me that the Kosovo crisis has gone on for as long as it has without resolution. In Iraq, American and British troops are struggling to build an infrastructure and government to prevent the spread of crime, terrorism and anarchy. Meanwhile, practically in the heart of Europe, we have a lawless region waiting - as Kosovo has done for hundreds of years - for it's fate to be decided by the shadowy 'great powers.'

The answer seems simple to me - give Kosovo what it so richly deserves. The right to choose it's own fate as a sovereign nation. At least as a country - with it's own government and authority - it can start to tackle it's own internal crisis.

Any other option is just inviting disaster. Give Kosovo back to Serbia and we're repeating the same mistakes of the 20th century. All we'd see is more aggressive 'policing' from Serbia and a resurgence of the KLA - swelled by the legitimacy of another Serbia 'occupation.'

Whatever flimsy 'evidence' there is linking Kosovo to Serbia's history, the facts are indisputable. For well over a century, the population of Kosovo has been made up of a vast majority of ethnic Albanians. The current figure is 88% of the population. These are people who do not recognize Serbian authority over their region and have the weapons, manpower and desperation to fight bitterly against it.

Give Kosovo back to the Serbs and we'll watch the region burn.

Kosovo

Poor old Kosovo.

Since 1999, this little province of Serbia has been under United Nations administration. The vast majority of the Kosovo population - up to 90% by some estimates - are ethnic Albanians and want to secede from Serbia and become their own ruling country.

In theory, this is fair enough. The vast majority of the population want to break free from Serbian rule and when you're talking about such a vast percentage of the population, it's kind of reasonable to bow to democracy.

However, two obstacles stand in their way.

Firstly, the United Nations made Resolution 1244 in 1999, which said that Kosovo could not become an independent country without their thumbs up.

Secondly, Serbia itself is fiercely opposed to letting it's province break away. It's taken brutal military action in the past to ensure that Kosovo remains under their jurisdiction.

Serbia's obsession with Kosovo dates back. Way back.

The Battle of Kosovo

It was actually the Battle of Kosovo, in the year 1389, that really set this whole unfortunate situation up. Until that time, Kosovo was part of a medieval Serbian state and her population was made up of Slavic Serbs. However, the advancing armies of the Ottoman Empire had their eye on this prize piece of land and in 1389, the armies of Prince Lazar of Serbia and Sultan Murad of the Ottoman Empire clashed to decide possession.

The Ottoman's outnumbered the Serbs two-to-one and scattered the defending army. Prince Lazar himself fell to Ottoman swords. However, defeat was not total. A cunning Serbian knight, Miloš Obilić, assassinated Sultan Murad just after the battle, leaving a vacuum at the head of the opposing army.

The battle of Kosovo left the region in the hands of the Ottoman Empire. However, they'd regrouped after Murad's death and a small portion of Kosovo remained under the leadership of the Serbian House of Branković, which was little more than a vassal state under de facto Turkish authority.

Following the Battle

Kosovo remained firmly in Ottoman hands for the next five hundred years. However, the Serbs never forgot the crushing defeat of 1389 and talk had always been of one day reclaiming what they saw as Serbian territory.

In fact, Serbia had made sporadic strikes into Ottoman territory throughout the last decades of the 19th century. In 1912, under the united banner of the Balkan League (along with Montenegro Bulgaria and Greece,) they moved forward in a united push. The Kingdom of Serbia reconquered Kosovo.

However, the demographics of their prize left it hard to hold onto. The vast majority of the population was Muslim, loyal to the Ottoman Empire. The only option was a powerful surge of recolonization, matching the Albanian population with Serbs loyal to the Kingdom.

What followed was a rather brutal period of ethnic cleansing, with ethnic Albanians driven from Kosovo's towns and cities and replaced by Serbs. This was seen as 'revenge' for the 1389 Battle of Kosovo (as any James bond fan will know, the Eastern Europeans have long memories.)

So with a larger Serb population in place and Serbian troops stationed to enforce sovereignty, the Conference of Ambassadors in London (in some ways, a forerunner to the UN) acknowledged Serbian sovereignty in Kosovo.

World War I

And that should have been the end of the story, but it wasn't.

The outbreak of World War I changed everything. Serbian troops, fighting against the Austro-Hungarian Empire - were forced to retreat from Kosovo territory. This enabled the Albanians, who joined the fight in support of the Germans and Austro-Hungarians, to surge into Kosovo and 'liberate' it from the Serbians.

And it was liberation, no doubt about that. The vast majority in Kosovo was still ethnic Albanian and they heralded the 'invasion' with cheers.

It wasn't until the end of the war, in 1918, that the crippled Serbian army had recovered sufficiently to press home a counter attack.

Unable to count on the support of the Central Powers, who were themselves battling the British, French and Russian armies, the Albanians retreated and Serbs once again swept into Kosovo - committing countless atrocities and ethnic cleansing to once again lay claim to this war torn province.

Following the War

The peace treaties that ended World War I saw Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia (including Kosovo) united in a great Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

While Yugoslavia was a largely Serbian/Slavic state, the territory of Kosovo still consisted of an 80% Albanian population. In 1921, they begged the League of Nations to allow them to secede from Yugoslavia and join their countrymen as part of Albania. This request was refused and the Serbs identified Kosovo as a troublesome province that needed sorting out.

This 'sorting out' consisted of even more colonization and ethnic cleansing.

Land and housing was roughly appropriated from the Albanian population and an estimated 150,000 Albanian Muslims were forced from Kosovo soil. Vasa Cubrilovic, a Serbian intellectual, was the father of this plan - a simple solution to reduce the Albanian population of the territory by simply deporting them.

World War Two

The Serb/Kosovo conflict played an important part in the treatment of the territory during World War II.

The Nazis swept into Serbia from the north and the fascist Italians, under Mussolini, conquered Albania and Kosovo in vengeance for the Italian army's defeat at their hands in 1920.

Soviet Influence

Following the defeat of Germany and Italy at the hands of the Allies, Kosovo was once again clumped with Serbia in another European restructuring. The parliament of the newly reconstructed Yugoslavia then democratically elected a communist ruling party and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was born.

Although at first allied with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia remained an independent communist state following president Josip Broz Tito's falling out with Stalin.

As part of his regime, Tito planned to end the hundreds of years of ethnic antagonism between Serb and Albanian by way of his Brotherhood and Unity policy - the belief that all Yugoslav ethnicities should be recognized as equal national groups and coexist peacefully in the federation.

What followed was a relatively blissful time for Kosovo. Although part of Yugoslavia, their province was pretty much autonomous and the Albanian population even had independent Albanian-speaking schools and universities to reinforce their cultural identity.

In fact, the living and economic prospects and freedoms the Albanians enjoyed in Kosovo were so good that actual Albanians fled their post-war People's Republic to come to Kosovo!

The rise of Slobodan Milošević

Tito's successful regime was based partly on his policy of subjugating the Serbian majority. While Kosovo was made up of an Albanian population, Serbs themselves made up the majority of Yugoslavia's 12 million residents and it was only by reducing their influence that the Brotherhood and Unity policy could work.

Within Yugoslavia itself, Serbia was as autonomous as Kosovo - recognized as a Republic. This led the Serbian leaders to start questioning their place in the Yugoslavian federation. In 1986, the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SANU) decided that Serbia was contributing more than her fair share.

It was Kosovo that angered them. Since they'd started enjoying the fruits of Tito's regime, the government in Kosovo had been strengthening the position of the Albanian majority by firing Serbs from positions in government and industry. The Serbs living in Kosovo rebelled and protested.

This led a relatively unknown communist party member, Slobodan Milošević, to travel from the Republic of Serbia to meet with the Kosovo Serbs and see if he could quell their anger. There, he witnessed Kosovo police beating the protesting Serbs.

In an impromptu speech that won him the support of Serbs on both sides of the border, Milošević was seen on the Serbian evening news announcing to the Kosovan Serbs: "No one should dare to beat you again!"

He followed his new-found popularity by returning to the Serbia and organizing a coup d'etat. Slobodan Milošević became president of the Serbian Republic and leader of Yugoslavia.

Kosovo under Milošević

The regime change in Kosovo was brutal.

It went beyond countering discrimination of Serbs by the ethnic Albanians. When Milošević took power, he immediately revoked the autonomy of Kosovo and replaced her leaders with his own men - strengthening his position in Yugoslavia.

The Province of Kosovo lost it's government and political institutions. Albanian language media, such as the newspaper Rilindja and radio and television broadcasts in Albanian, were banned outright.

Serbian troops replaced the police and security forces. The Albanian-language university was disbanded, throwing over 20,000 students onto the streets. All the sovereignty and identity Kosovo had enjoyed since 1945 was eliminated overnight.

Kosovo became a police state - so tightly controlled by the Serbs that 80% of the Albanians found themselves unable to find work. Families were faced with starvation under Milošević’s rule.

The Fall of Communism

Meanwhile, as the Berlin Wall fell and communism ended across Eastern Europe, there was common cry throughout the other republics that made up the Federation of Yugoslavia. They wanted independence.

In 1991, Croatia and Slovenia both broke from the Yugoslav Federation, to be closely followed by Bosnia and Herzegovina. Slobodan Milošević strongly opposed this succession and what followed was a brutal period of violence and bloodshed known as the Yugoslav Wars.

The Battle for Independence

In order to regain control of these errant territories, Slobodan Milošević equipped Croatian and Bosnian Serbs (who made up a minority in their respective republics) with supplies, weapons, money and leadership in order to combat their governments and prevent each nation's independence.

It was a bloody struggle. Milošević's Serbs fought with ferocity and brutality. Their tactics were violent and inhuman - in Bosnia, for example, Serbs ruthlessly massacred 8,000 boys and men in the town of Srebrenica just to avoid them possibly fighting for independence.

In the end, it took the UN and NATO bombardment to quell the atrocities the Serbs were committing and bring about the independence of Bosnia and Croatia.

Kosovo Seeks Freedom

The success of the breakaway Bosnia and Croatia inspired Kosovo to break free from Milošević's oppressive rule as well. In 1995, Albanians organized into the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and launched a bitter campaign of bombings and murders against Serbian police and civilians living in Kosovo territory.

It was a situation that mirrors struggles for independence throughout the ages. To the people of Kosovo, the KLA were Freedom Fighters. To the people of Serbia, they were terrorists.

The Serbian response was brutal. In 1997, as the KLA grew in strength, Serbian police responded to attacks by killing dozens of civilians, both women and children. Over 300,000 Albanians were 'displaced' by the Serb forces. Tens of thousands of Albanians fled to the woods, where they faced a bitter winter without adequate food or shelter. Serbian security forces committed atrocities, murdering hundreds of civilians as they fought the KLA.

But after the successful independence of Croatia and Bosnia, it was difficult for Milošević to retain control of the disputed territory. The United States did not recognize the KLA as a terrorist organization and the US envoy, Richard Holbrooke, was photographed with KLA members, further strengthening the independence movement's legitimacy.

As more and more atrocities emerged, the United Nations offered Milošević a deal. Stop the military action in Kosovo or watch American bombers reduce Belgrade to rubble.

When Milošević failed to negotiate, the bombing started. The goal of NATO was clear - to get Serb forces out of Kosovo, to bring United Nations peacekeeping forces in and to allow the hundreds of thousands of Albanian refugees back home.

But Milošević did not go down easy. Serbs stepped up their campaign of ethnic cleansing, killing hundreds and driving almost a million Albanians from their homes. They called it Operation Horseshoe - a deliberate plan to ensure the 'Serbinization' of Kosovo by driving the ethnic Albanian population out.

It was only after continued bombardment that Milošević surrendered. His Serbian forces withdrew and a UN Peacekeeping Force, backed by NATO troops, entered Kosovo to help bring stability and peace.

As American tanks rolled into Kosovo, the grateful Albanian population, both young and old alike, greeted the NATO troops by cheering and throwing flowers.

The Aftermath

As the smoke cleared, UN Security Council passed Resolution 1244 - placing Kosovo under transitional UN administration until her fate could be determined.

Bruised and bloodied, Slobodan Milošević tried to consolidate his position in Yugoslavia by calling early elections - and ordering his security forces to assassinate his political opponents.

However, when the opposition party won the first round of elections, Milošević rejected the decision and in doing so, sparked 'The Bulldozer Revolution,' which saw his regime collapse. His back-up plan, a brutal coup d'etat, was foiled when the Army commanders he'd counted on to support his regime refused to support him.

Vojislav Koštunica took the presidency - and without the immunity of the highest office, Yugoslav officials arrested Milošević and delivered him to the United Nations, where he was charged with the atrocities committed by his Serbian forces during the Yugoslav and Kosovo wars.

He died from a heart attack in the detention centre of The Hague.

The Future of Kosovo

For almost eight years now, Kosovo has been under the authority of the United Nations - and during that time, the population has continued to demand independence from Serbia.

While the international community generally acknowledges Serbia's sovereignty over the province, there is widespread sympathy for Kosovo. The vast majority of the population is not Serbian and has no ties to that country. After Croatia and Bosnia successfully battled for independence, it seems grossly unfair that this small province should be denied the same right.

But there's more at stake than just the future of the ethnic Albanians.

Russia, a traditional ally of Serbia and a fellow Slavic nation, is battling her own independence problem in breakaway states such as Chechnya. If the United Nations was to accept Kosovo's right to breakaway from Serbia and become independent, it would put great pressure on Russia to allow member states to do the same.

In addition, there are still Serbs living in Kosovo. If the country did become independent, Serbia would most likely send troops to protect the minority population still living there. As recently as the 1980s, the ethnic Albanian population has show itself just as capable of discrimination as the Serbs.

Right now, there's stalemate.

The Americans and British are backing Kosovo's independence, which is clearly the right thing to do. Kosovo has a long and bloody history as a pawn between greater powers. The nation deserves an independent run.

However, the Russia we see now is very different from that which gave grudging support to the UN in the days of Milošević. Premier Vladamir Putin is harboring a warm nostalgia amongst his people for the days of Communism - it's been just long enough for them to have forgotten what it was like really like living under the regime of the Hammer and Sickle.

Putin knows that the future of his country hands in the balance. The decision of the UN will either support or break apart his fragile hold on member states with itchy feet. Now that Russia has regained some of her former clout, this ruthless KGB officer will fight tooth and nail to ensure that the UN plays the game on his terms.

Kosovo itself in a betting chip in a newly reenacted battle between East and West.