SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (3297)7/6/2004 12:24:56 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Insurgency many miles from Iraq

By Hans Nichols - The Hill

PRISTINA, Serbia and Montenegro — <font size=4>Five years into an indefinite mandate, the United Nations’ occupation of Kosovo — backed by the boots of NATO peacekeepers — is rapidly losing support among both Kosovar Albanians and ethnic Serbs.<font size=3>

The U.N. attempt to midwife a democratic nation here in the rump of the former Yugoslavia and NATO’s fractured and inconsistent response to ongoing ethnic violence offer a cautionary tale of nation-building elsewhere on the globe, especially Iraq, say seasoned diplomats, local journalists and aid workers in Pristina, Mitrovicia and Belgrade.

Some analysts also worry that the eruption of violence in mid-March, which left 35 Orthodox monasteries in ruin, claimed 19 lives and forced an estimated 4,000 Serbs from their homes, is but the first act of a simmering Muslim Albanian insurgency that will target the international community, including U.N. officials, the next time it explodes.

But diplomats and aid workers in this quasi-capital of a quasi-state caution that comparisons between Iraq and Kosovo, while apt in many ways, should not be overwrought, especially because the American contingent of NATO’s 18,000-strong force remains overwhelmingly popular with the local population. Most of the Kosovar Albanians’ ire is directed toward the U.N. administrative body, UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo), which has a $200 million annual budget for civilian and operational costs.

In addition to Albanian criticism of UNMIK, the handful or Orthodox Christian Serbs still living in Kosovo, a region roughly the size of Maryland’s Eastern Shore, accuse some NATO peacekeepers — especially the German and the French — of complicity in what Serbs regard as reprisal ethnic cleansing. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who visited the region in May, told The Hill, “The French didn’t protect the local Serb population and the monasteries, and the Germans didn’t either. The Greeks did, and the Italians did. Same with Americans and British.

“It wasn’t until Admiral [Gregory] Johnson came and took charge did NATO troops act together.”

“It was a total break down in command,” Murtha said.

Several internal reviews are under way to assess both NATO’s Kosovo force and
UNMIK’s response to the violence.

UNMIK officials still insist that Albanians need to demonstrate their respect for minority rights before there can any kind of discussion about Kosovo’s “final status” — a euphemism for independence.

“People like us are the perfect guinea pigs for nation-building,” said Dukagjin Gorani, an ethnic Albanian who negotiated on behalf of the Kosovo Liberation Army at the Rambouillet conference in 1999.

“The Bush administration can’t fail here because they need to point to a success in the Muslim world,” said Gorani.

But Gorani, who also set up Kosovo Television after the war, said that UNMIK is still paying for its initial reluctance to stamp out radical elements in both the Serb and Albanian communities. Instead, U.N. and European diplomats are trapped in an “endless debate about how to foster civil society and the endless loop of human-rights discussions.”

“What has taken UNMIK five years now is to fix the mistake of not disarming the radicals immediately after the bombing, of not imposing martial law,” he said.

Finally freed from the yoke of Serbian nationalism, ethnic Albanians — most of whom are nominally Muslims — long for the official independence they thought the 1999 NATO air strikes promised them. Many of them blame UNMIK and its roughly 5,000 bureaucrats for an unemployment rate holding steady at 60 percent and a host of administrative problems from flagging public utilities to an unresponsive government agencies.

“The domestic legitimacy of the U.N. is being subordinated,” said Albin Kurti of the Kosovo Action Network, a nonviolent group seeking Kosovar independence.

“It is not really an ethnic conflict. People here have no jobs. Unemployment is at 60 percent. Fifteen percent of the population lives in extreme poverty,” said Kurti, citing World Bank reports.

But Kurti, who spent more than two years in a Serbian prison for protesting against the regime of Slobodan Milosevic, also admitted there is a strong ethnic component to the conflict and he blamed the United Nations for not recognizing it. “UNMIK wants to make Serbs and Albanians fall in love with each other. That is not going to happen. It is a chemical impossibility.”

Ethnic Serbs are no less harsh in their assessment of UNMIK, but they also blame some NATO troops for failing to protect their monasteries from what appeared to be a coordinated and methodical plan of destruction and intimidation last March.

Next summer, the United Nations is scheduled to review how much progress Kosovar institutions have made, with a heavy emphasis on the majority Albanian population’s respect for Serbian rights.

“It’s understandable that they would start blaming the U.N.,” said Willem Houwen, a Dutch diplomat who was seconded to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Pristina and now works on training local journalists.

Part of the problem with the international organizations is a general lack of institutional knowledge, said Houwen, who has been in the region for eight years and is writing a book about nation-building with Gorani titled After the Bombing.

“Because people are seconded, diplomats come and go and there’s no accountability and no institutional memory, so the next person has to reinvent the wheel.”

“I don’t think this country can wait so long, there will be violence again,” warned Houwen.

James Lyon of the International Crisis Group also said that the prospect of more violence was one of “when, not if.”

“Next time, the Serbians won’t be quite as restrained,” said Lyon. He also predicted that Kosovar Albanians will start attacking UNMIK intuitions and internationals, noting that the violence in March caught most Western diplomats by surprise.

Indeed, at the U.S. Embassy at Belgrade, on March 17, the first night of rioting, officials were celebrating St. Patrick’s Day, unaware of the violence raging less than 300 kilometers south. Officials were summoned back to the embassy in the early morning.

That surprise was also widespread at UNMIK headquarters in Pristina, said Mechthild Henneke, a spokeswoman for UNMIK.

“We were taken by surprise. We were aware that there are extremists groups, but we had no intelligence on their actual state,” Henneke said.

Serbians and Albanian, however, were less shocked by the outburst of violence in a situation they have watched grow more combustible each year.

“I was only surprised by the scale,” said Dejan Anastasijevic, a Serbian journalist based in Belgrade, who also has spent extensive time reporting in Kosovo.

“It will happen again because the problems that has led to these riots have not been addressed. They’re young, they’re jobless, they can’t travel,” he said.

Anastasijevic added, “There are important differences with Iraq. Iraq was only invaded last year. They are still trying to figure out how to deal with such a big problem — and in the Middle East. Kosovo is a small armpit in Europe and they still haven’t figured it out.”



To: Sully- who wrote (3297)7/6/2004 8:35:01 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Curtain call in the Balkans

Message 20285091



To: Sully- who wrote (3297)10/8/2005 5:26:29 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 35834
 
UN Might Get Around To The Kosovo Quagmire ... Real Soon

By Captain Ed on United Nations
Captain's Quarters

The London Telegraph reports this morning that UN chief Kofi Annan has taken a break from his normal duties promoting nepotism and dodging investigators to review the status of Kosovo, the region that has existed in a UN-protectorate limbo for over six years now. The status of the province has remained suspended in mystery while UN forces have occupied it since 1999 without lifting a finger to determine its final political resolution. Now Annan says that the UN might sponsor negotiations on Kosovo's final status ... real soon:

<<<

Talks on the future of Kosovo, including the prospect of independence for the former province of Serbia, are to begin in the near future, despite Nato's failure fully to pacify the region.

Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, said yesterday that he would ask the Security Council to authorise negotiations "very soon".

He is to appoint a special negotiator - rumoured to be the former Finnish president, Martti Ahtisaari, who brokered the end of the 1999 Kosovo war.
>>>

The UN took over Kosovo after NATO kicked the Serbs out in 1999 as part of the containment and eventual toppling of Slobodan Milosevic for his policies of "ethnic cleansing" against various minorities in what was formerly Yugoslavia. Despite the Left's insistence that the UN has the only mandate to enforce international agreements and stop genocide, Kosovo has long provided an example of why the UN has no capability of doing the job. It went into the ethnically Albanian province with little understanding of the politics involved, no willingness to return fire -- NATO had to take over the military aspects of occupation -- and no political plan for victory. We've seen nothing but an endless occupation and actions only designed to support the status quo; no one at the UN even had an idea whether Kosovo should remain part of the country whose forces it kicked out, or should instead get independence.

Contrast that with the so-called "planless" Iraq War staged by the Coalition in 2003.
Both actions removed genocidal nutcases from power, but the Coalition did so directly and quickly. Within a year, sovereignty was returned to the Iraqi people. Elections for a new national assembly successfully took place seven months afterwards, and now we have a constitutional plebescite and a second round of national elections taking place in the next three months.

It took the Coalition less than three years to destroy Saddam Hussein's government and grip on power, establish a democracy, transform the population from a fear-gripped set of victims to a courageous electorate, start the rebuilding of a security force answerable to civilian control, and hold two national elections.

In over six years in a much-less volatile Kosovo, what has the UN done to resolve its status? Absolutely nothing.

But maybe they'll hold a meeting to talk about it.

Very soon.

captainsquartersblog.com

news.telegraph.co.uk



To: Sully- who wrote (3297)11/23/2005 11:36:53 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
    Despite this quagmire, we kept our troops in the country 
and continued to work on a political construct based on
democracy -- and we gave it ten years without loud
demands for precipitous withdrawal prior to an effective
resolution.
   Now compare this with the hysterics over our position in Iraq.

Meanwhile, At The Real Quagmire ...

By Captain Ed on Europe
Captain's Quarters

While Congress debates on the supposed quagmire of Iraq and the lengthy time it has taken to establish a democracy, word comes out of the Balkans that the Americans have finally pushed the Bosnians to normalize their own political system -- after ten years of military occupation separating the three ethnic factions that have threatened to rip each other's throats apart. The Serbs, Muslims, and Croats of Bosnia will dump their ethnically-based tripartite executive in favor of a true parliamentary system, much like the one Americans helped Iraqis establish in less than a quarter of the time spent in Bosnia:

<<<

A pact reached in Washington under heavy American pressure aimed to overhaul the creaking constitutional machinery that ended the 42-month war in November 1995, but left the country partitioned and dysfunctional.

At ceremonies in Washington to mark a decade since the Dayton accords ending the war were sealed, leaders of parties representing Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, and Croats, as well as leaders of non-ethnic parties, agreed "to streamline" parliament and the tripartite presidency and "embark on a process of constitutional reform" that will strengthen a national government.

The ambitious US-authored scheme aims to turn Bosnia into a "normal" parliamentary democracy and reduce the role played by ethnic factors. The plan has been pushed by the US state department. Its progress is crucial to Bosnia's chances of entering the European mainstream.

On Monday the EU launched Bosnia on the path of integration, but made plain that it needs to speed up reforms to become "a fully functioning and viable state" if ultimate accession to the EU is to succeed. Yesterday's agreement, if implemented, should also bring closer the end of the international mission in Bosnia.
>>>

Let's make clear what happened here. We occupied a primarily Muslim state for the last ten years, trying to separate three different ethnic factions from each other. We initially went into Bosnia to quell a civil war and a genocide in progress, and then waited ten years for the kind of political progress that would make our presence unnecessary. Despite this quagmire, we kept our troops in the country and continued to work on a political construct based on democracy -- and we gave it ten years without loud demands for precipitous withdrawal prior to an effective resolution.

Now compare this with the hysterics over our position in Iraq. We have spent a year after the toppling of the Saddam regime fighting an insurgency while establishing a democracy designed to bring together three ethnic/religious factions at each other's throats. In two years, we have progressed much farther than Bosnia and will have the first elected, constitutional government at least a full year ahead of Bosnia's.

Three elections will have been held before the Bosnians hold one.

Why did we stay in Bosnia for ten years?

The long stay had to do with a lack of willpower to demand a resolution to the political questions, but the reason we stayed was to try to finally resolve a war that goes back six centuries between the three parties involved in the Balkans. For some reason, that has been seen as an American priority through two administrations. In Iraq, we have the opportunity to resolve a conflict that goes back decades in a region with undoubted significance to American interests. In the former, we gave ten years for our work to reach fruition, and in the latter a vocal minority won't even give it three before they cut and run.

What's wrong with this picture?

captainsquartersblog.com

guardian.co.uk



To: Sully- who wrote (3297)12/1/2005 3:22:00 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Kosovo: Clinton "lied, people died"?

by Larry Elder
townhall.com
Dec 1, 2005

The White House -- finally -- began pushing back against irresponsible charges that Bush "lied" to the American people in making the case for war.

The garrulous Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., made many "Bush lied" accusations: "There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January [2003] to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud." And Kennedy later intoned on the Senate floor, "Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie."

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said, " . . . [T]he administration intentionally misled the country into war." Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan, speaking to the president in a TV ad, said, "You were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction. You were wrong about the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. You lied to us, and because of your lies, my son died."

Question: If Bush "lied," did former President Clinton "lie" about Kosovo?

Clinton, in a March 24, 1999, Oval Office broadcast, explained his military action in Kosovo:


<<<

"We act to prevent a wider war, to defuse a powder keg at the heart of Europe, that has exploded twice before in this century with catastrophic results. . . . By acting now, we are upholding our values, protecting our interests and advancing the cause of peace. . . . Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative. It is also important to America's national interests. . . . Do our interests in Kosovo justify the dangers to our armed forces? . . . I am convinced that the dangers of acting are far outweighed by the dangers of not acting -- dangerous to defenseless people and to our national interests. . . . I have a responsibility as president to deal with problems such as this before they do permanent harm to our national interests. America has a responsibility to stand with our allies when they are trying to save innocent lives and preserve peace, freedom and stability in Europe. That is what we are doing in Kosovo."
>>>

The former president called Kosovo a humanitarian crisis.

The New York Times, on April 19, 1999, wrote:

<<<

"In San Francisco on Thursday, President Clinton said that the Serbs had displaced 'over a million Kosovars' and had killed and raped 'thousands upon thousands of them.' From interviews that journalists and relief workers have conducted with scores of refugees from Kosovo, there is no reason to doubt him. But at this point it is also impossible to prove that he is correct."
>>>

Actor/activist Mike Farrell, who opposes the Iraq War, nevertheless supported military action in Kosovo, stating,

<<<

"I am in favor of an intervention. . . . I was in Rwanda shortly after the slaughter there. I was infuriated then -- and am now -- that the international community did not step in. . . . I know that the escalation of violence and violations of human rights in Kosovo have been going on for some time. . . . I reluctantly find myself supporting the notion that something needed to be done and that it is appropriate for us to act, and if this is the only way, so be it."
>>>

But what about Clinton's assertion of the displacement of "over a million Kosovars"? According to USA Today on July 1, 1999,
    "Many of the figures used by the Clinton administration 
and NATO to describe the wartime plight of Albanians in
Kosovo now appear greatly exaggerated as allied forces
take control of the province. . . . Instead of 100,000
ethnic Albanian men feared murdered by rampaging Serbs,
officials now estimate that about 10,000 were killed."
But is the 10,000 number accurate?

The Orange County Register, in a Nov. 22, 1999, editorial, said,

    "Months after the bombing has ceased, United Nations and 
European Union investigations have bolstered what critics
had argued: NATO's estimates of Serbian genocide against
the Kosovars were greatly overblown. Many observers now
think the inflated numbers simply were part of the U.S.-
led propaganda effort to build support for the war.
    " . . . The latest evidence suggests that fewer than 3,000
Kosovars were murdered -- horrifying, yes, but not many
more than the number of Serbs who were killed by NATO
bombing attacks on Yugoslavia, roughly estimated between
3,000 and 5,000 soldiers and civilians."
Does this mean that Clinton "lied, people died"? The intelligence turned out to be wrong, very wrong. Something like this always warrants a serious examination of intelligence failures. But intelligence failures, bad intelligence or failing to properly analyze the intelligence is a far cry from accusing a commander in chief of deliberately and intentionally misleading the American people.

Can we, perhaps, now drop the "Bush lied" nonsense, and pursue the business of winning the war against Islamo-fascism? Perhaps?

Larry Elder is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist and publishes a monthly newsletter entitled "The Elder Statement."

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (3297)12/1/2005 3:53:10 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
American Intervention Creates Balkan Islamists?

By Captain Ed on War on Terror
Captain's Quarters

The Left has long held up the Balkans intervention as a model for American intervention -- low footprint, low investment, and practically ignored, although like the Iraq War, also unsanctioned by the UN and actively opposed by Russia and China.

They claim that the use of overwhelming force in Iraq has created a "training ground for terrorists" and that American troops only add to the recruitment of more terrorists. I expect, then, an explanation of how this differs from the recruitment and training of mujaheddin in Bosnia, where Islamists have built cells specifically to infiltrate heavily Caucasian nations for terrorist activities:


<<<

In particular, Islamic radicals are looking to create cells of so-called white al Qaeda, non-Arab members who can evade racial profiling used by police forces to watch for potential terrorists. "They want to look European to carry out operations in Europe," said a Western intelligence agent in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia and Montenegro, adjacent to Bosnia. "It's yet another evolution in the tools used by terrorists."

Parts of the Balkans, stuck in lawless limbo after years of war in the 1990s, are ripe recruitment territory for Middle East radicals, intelligence officials say. Bosnia is still divided among Muslim, Croat and Serb population areas, even if nominally united under the 10-year-old Dayton peace agreement that ended ethnic warfare.

Muslim enclaves in Serbia are restive, and Muslim-majority Kosovo remains an estranged province campaigning for independence six years after NATO bombing forced out Serb-dominated Yugoslav troops. The Balkans have long been a freeway for smugglers of cigarettes, drugs, weapons and prostitutes. "All the conditions are present. Embittered Muslims, arms, corruption -- everything underground operators need to get established," said the Western intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
>>>

The real quagmires have come from inaction, from an inability or an unwillingness to face unpleasant tasks in resolving international disputes.
The Balkans have been left to sit for over a decade now with no permanent resolution of the political disputes which led to their civil wars -- over 600 years of them -- and only by the intervention of a bombing campaign did the combatants get pushed into their corners. The lack of direction over the remaining period of time has allowed the depleted Islamists in the area to rebuild and redirect their efforts not so much against their local enemies, but against the West in general.

The same held true in Iraq for a dozen years. We allowed Saddam to remain and for the status quo to exist in a fugue state, through sixteen ultimately meaningless UN Security Council resolutions demanding Saddam's compliance on disarmament and recognition of human rights. During that time, Saddam simply allowed the infrastructure of Iraq to rot, keeping as much money as possible for himself in order to finance his own security and well-being at the expense of the people, especially the Shi'a. (He couldn't reach the Kurds after the end of the Gulf War, thanks to Anglo-American protection.) He hosted Islamist conferences openly attended by al-Qaeda leadership and welcomed terrorists such as Abu Nidal and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to Baghdad to live openly, for a time without fear of capture or deportation. Saddam openly paid the families of suicide bombers for their craven acts of murder, and we failed to respond until March 2003, after twelve years of dithering over what to do with Iraq.

Waiting around for difficult choices to magically get swept away clearly doesn't work. The creation of Iraq as a terrorist recruitment ground happened because we lacked the political will to finish Saddam and his sociopathic sons in 1991. Bosnia and Kosovo have turned into Islamist training grounds for Caucasian terrorists because we intervened in a fight without a clue as to the terms of the civil war, which side fought for which principles, and what to do with them after the shooting stopped. In Iraq, we had a plan, which we have followed relentelessly: create democratic structures, get the people to start voting for their own native government, and create a native security force that will eventually become strong enough to defend it -- and only then do we leave. In Kosovo, no one can even say whether the province should be independent, let alone what kind of government and security force should develop there. No wonder the natives are restless! After six or ten years of limbo, who wouldn't be?

The Iraq model shows what happens when the Americans manage the post-war process. We may experience some hiccups, but we push for progress and execute a plan for long-term success. When we leave it to the UN to manage, as happened in the Balkans, the committee approach only defends the status quo and never makes a decision to move forward towards a resolution. That approach leads to disaster, as the terrorist infiltration of the Balkans clearly shows.

captainsquartersblog.com

washingtonpost.com



To: Sully- who wrote (3297)2/12/2006 3:13:59 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Quagmire Continues

By Captain Ed on International Politics
Captain's Quarters

The Kosovars elected a new, more moderate president to continue its efforts to free the enclave from the Serbians, despite being stuck in a limbo status since Western intervention in 1999. Fatmir Sejdiu proclaimed Kosovo's independence "non-negotiable", while the Serbs responded that any proclamation of independence would result in an effort by Belgrade to liberate the province from foreign occupation:

<<< President Fatmir Sejdiu told The Associated Press Friday that he would not abandon the ethnic Albanian majority's push for independence from Serbia. But he pledged in his acceptance speech to make Kosovo a state that guarantees minority rights and is "at peace with itself and its neighbors."

"Kosovo's independence is non-negotiable," Sejdiu said in an interview at his modest house in Pristina. "For us it is very important that this road to independence is a quick one," he said. ...

Tomislav Nikolic, leader of the extreme nationalist Serbian Radical Party, said no politician in Serbia would accept Kosovo independence.

"If someone declares an independent Kosovo ... we will declare that an occupation and use all means to revoke that state of occupation," Nikolic said.

Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica and President Boris Tadic also have rejected independence for Kosovo. >>>


Kosovo has not progressed an iota since US and European troops occupied the province to stop the Serbs and Kosovars from killing each other. The intervention occurred without any plan for a political solution to the centuries-old dispute; it developed from the earlier NATO involvement in Balkan politics. NATO gave responsibility for the resolution of the Kosovo situation to the UN almost immediately, which has done absolutely nothing to create any kind of plan or proposal for a peaceful resolution to the standoff. In fact, the UN announced four months ago that it planned on scheduling talks to finally resolve the problem.

Four months ago.

After six years.

And they finally scheduled the talks for February 20th in Vienna.

In all that time, we still have the same problem we did when we first intervened: ethnic Albanians in Kosovo want their independence, and the Serbs refuse to allow it.

I'm tempted to ask what the UN has been doing for almost seven years in Kosovo, but Claudia Rosett probably has more of those answers than we care to know. This is just another chapter in the ongoing incompetence of the UN to actually move from a status quo to real resolutions in disputes. It its way, the UN offered Kosovo no more than a hudna, but in this case a truce in which both sides could gather their strength for a future conflict. Contrast this with Iraq and Afghanistan, where despite ongoing violence, both nations have created democratic governments and appear well on their way towards standing on their own without a form of martial law being imposed indefinitely by the UN.

And some people wonder why we believe the UN is useless, and in some cases even worse than that, as Congolese women and girls could explain at length.

captainsquartersblog.com

foxnews.com

captainsquartersblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (3297)7/24/2006 6:08:57 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Kosovo Talks Begin, Seven Years Later

By Captain Ed on Europe
Captain's Quarters

Talks on the status of Kosovo, the breakaway Serbian province in its south, will finally begin in a few hours seven years after NATO intervention forced the Serbian army to withdraw:

<<< Formal talks to decide the future status of Kosovo begin in Vienna on Monday involving political leaders from Serbia and Kosovo itself.

Kosovo, technically still part of Serbia, has been run by the international community since the end of the war in 1999.

These are the most important talks over its future since Nato bombing forced the Serb army out in 1999.

They are being brokered by United Nations Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari. >>>


People claim that the Bush administration had no plan for Iraq, but we helped the Iraqis form a representative government and held three national elections in less than half the time that the United Nations has sat on Kosovo. After bombing the Serbian army and forcing them to withdraw, the UN did nothing to address the status of the Kosovars for seven long years. In that time, ethnic violence has claimed the lives of dozens as the Serbs and the ethnic Albanians both jockey for position and power in advance of the talks.

In fact, NATO has just beefed up its forces, which tells everyone that they expect violence to escalate once again.

This demonstrates why the UN has little use in actual problem resolution. The UN "solution" to every crisis is to enforce the status quo, even if that means no solution at all. It should have never taken seven years just to get started on a resolution to the Kosovo question.

captainsquartersblog.com

news.bbc.co.uk