To Arab World - The truth about Kosovo:
Arguments and
fact for in support its independence
Firstly, given that Kosovo was annexed by Serbia in an unlawful manner Kosovo's
independence will in no way be in contradiction with international law. On the
contrary, Kosovo independence even before being qualified as a "classic
case of secession from a sovereign state", as Serbs argue, should be
considered as "annulment of an unlawful annexation. In fact it was Serbia
that acted in contradiction with international law in 1912 when it annexed
Kosovo through military occupation after its aggression against the Ottoman
Empire, "even though Kosovo had its historic and ethnic identity,
accompanied by its right to liberation, whether that was from the Ottoman occupation
(1912) or Fascist occupation (1944), and in spite of its geographical
demographic and cultural integrity". Consequently, instead of admitting
its unlawful act, which she committed while violating international law in a
bold manner, Serbia is now using an argument which is scientifically and
historically unsustainable, namely to "preserve its sovereignty over
Kosovo", which, as proved by facts, she held in an unlawful manner for a
long period of time without ever asking the majority population of Kosovo or
having their consent. Kosovo was occupied during Balkan wars (1912-1913) in
contradiction with the aspiration of the Albanians, expressed during their
national liberation movement 1878-1912. In this manner Serbia, in spite of
getting the "international legitimacy" for the occupation of Kosovo,
in no way was able to justify the legitimacy of its act. In addition to this,
Serbian possessive attitudes towards Kosovo which refer to history are
unfounded. Firstly they are unfounded in its methodological qualification of
the national character of a territory because if history is to be taken as a
criteria, in light of contemporary national-territorial realities, Hungary has
the right to the Panonic part of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Hungary would argue
about their rights over Belgrade, Greece would claim a right over Istanbul,
Albania over Janina, Mexico over Florida and California, Sweden over Finland
and Norway, Germany over Shlezi and Sudet regions, Denmark over Shlezivik, Iraq
over Kuwait etc. Secondly, Serbia's possessive attitudes towards Kosovo are
unfounded in the aspect of material truth, since Kosovo, in spite of
allegations of such nature "in neither a cradle of Serbian nation, nor of
Serbian state". Finally, imperialistic ambitions with "historic
rights" could not be defended by England, France, Spain, Portugal,
Netherlands, which, as it is known "with centuries held many nations under
their occupation. Therefore "with the destruction of colonial empires over
120 new states were created". Serbia was "under the occupation of
Ottoman Empire for over five centuries (1389-1878). Spain "had conquered
all Latin America in the beginning of XVI century. Neither do "Russians
ever mention their historic rights over Ukraine". Historic arguments speak
very clearly that "Serbs were placed in Kosovo with their expansion under
the rule of Nemanjics'". As a result of occupations during the Ottoman
Empire, many ethnic minorities, such as Serbs, Turks and Roma, were placed in
the ethnic Albanian territories. The Serbian minority was greatly expanded with
the violent colonization that occurred between two world wars; nevertheless
their percentage never exceeded 10\% of the overall population. On the basis of
these facts the conclusion is very clear: it was in deed the Serbian aggression,
occupation and annexation of Kosovo that violated the international law and not
otherwise, namely that Kosovo independence would violate international law.
History is a witness of denationalization policies; of gross crimes against
Albanians during 1912-1918; for genocidal Serbian plans for the extermination
of Albanians; for the deportation of Albanians in Turkey and for confiscation
the lands of the population and its colonization with Serbs and Montenegrins.
The time period between February 1998 and June 10, 1999 only exceeded these
special cases and took the gravity of a general genocide of the Serbian regime
against Albanians.
Secondly, the decision for Kosovo's future cannot ignore the constitutional
position of Kosovo in former Yugoslavia although Kosovo did not enjoy the
status of a republic. However, most importantly, Kosovo was a constitute part
of former Yugoslavia with a defined territory and borders, which could not be
changed without its consent. Kosovo was directly represented in the former
Yugoslav federation same as the other republics, not through Serbia because we
would create a paradox as in that case Serbia would have three votes in the
Federation, while the other units would have only one vote. With its
political-territorial identities, its constitution, Kosovo was a federally
constitute unit of the multinational federation of Yugoslavia. That Kosovo was
not part of Serbia can be proven by the following historical and political
facts: Kosovo was not part of the independent sovereign state of Serbia with
its international personality recognized in the Berlin Congress (1878); Kosovo
was not part of Serbia in the Second AVNOJ Congress (1943); Kosovo was not part
of Serbia during its establishment as a federal unit in the Anti-Fascist
Popular Liberation Council (1944); Kosovo was not part of Serbia in the
structure of Constitutional Assembly of Yugoslavia when the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia was founded (1945). Kosovo was not included in the sovereign Serbia,
except in federal Serbia within federal Yugoslavia, during the military
occupation of Kosovo (1945). Finally it is worth mentioning that the
abolishment of Kosovo's autonomy with the amendments in the Constitution of
Serbia, an act, which occurred on March 28 1989, was done in an unlawful
manner. Even if we didn't have the essential deficiencies regarding the
declaration in the Kosovo Assembly, deficiencies that are proven, "lack of
free will", as a result of extraordinary political pressures, makes the
declaration for constitutional amendments unconstitutional.
Thirdly, the future of Kosovo cannot be compared with secessions in some other
parts of the world. The states that remain reserved towards Kosovo independence
should be mindful of this fact. They should instead look and find the
"common ground" between Kosovo and certain other countries of the
world, which have agreed to the removal of sovereignty over other territories.
In this regard, the relations between Kosovo and Serbia are comparable with the
relations of Indonesia and East Timor. As it is well known, East Timor was
occupied and annexed by Indonesia in 1975, contrary to the will of Portugal as
the external sovereign, a fact which makes the annexation of Indonesia
unlawful. In 1988 Indonesian government recognized the right to
self-determination to the East Timor people. Singapore is another example that
should be taken under consideration. This country was partitioned from Malaysia
in 1965. The example of Eritrea is also meaningful for Kosovo. It was the Ethiopian
government that recognized the right to self-determination to Eritrea in 1991.
The case of Kosovo is also similar to the case of Namibia. Partition of Namibia
from South Africa and its independence occurred in 1991. Therefore Kosovo's
independence should not be compared with secession of territories that were not
annexed in a unilateral manner (against the will of the people of the original
sovereigns), which joined existing states but that they are operating in
territories that were part of these states at the time when they were
established. In this way even the separatist movements in Transdnjestrovle
(Moldavia), in Southern Osetia and Abkazia (Georgia) that do not have the
ethnic basis that Kosovo has and which didn't have an autonomous or federal status
at the time of dissolution of former Soviet Union as Kosovo had at the time of
dissolution of former Yugoslavia. Finally, Kosovo Albanians are not comparable
with Catalonians, Scots, Wellsians, Basks or Corsicans… because they did not
face a massive deportation from the states, which controlled them.
Fourthly, the existence of Albania as an Albanian state cannot hinder the
independence and sovereignty for Kosovo, because as we can recall from history
neither did the status of Romania hinder the independence of Moldavia nor did
the existence of France hindered the establishment of the canton-state of
Switzerland. Finally, even if Kosovo was constituted as an Albanian state in
the Balkans, this would be a handicap rather than an advantage of Albanian
population in the Balkans. Consequently Kosovo fulfills all the criteria for
being an independent and sovereign state. If it is about the size of the
territory, 34 states with smaller territory are members of the UN. If it is
about the population, 58 states with a smaller number of population are members
of the UN. If it is for the acceptance or not of new states in the UN, it
should be noted that between 1990 and 2002, UN has accepted 34 new member
states. The proverb that "wherever we have facts, words become
unnecessary" is not meaningless.
Republic of Kosova declares independence.
February 17th 2008, at 15:49 CET
We are honored and humbled that it is our generation that lives to see this
day,and we are aware and ready to take up the path that begins from here.
Our future is with Europe.
In memory of those that gave and lost their lives, and loved ones.
May peace and light prevail.
Republic of Kosovo is 41 days old.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Hany
M. Salah, hanysalahiol@hotmail.com
From "Feim
Dragusha" <feim_dragusha@hotmail.com>
