Developing new NATO Strategic Concept

On 22 October 2009, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen discussed the process of developing the Alliance’s new Strategic Concept in a keynote speech at the security conference in Bratislava.
Mr. Rasmussen pointed to newer challenges such as global terrorism, climate change and threats to energy security that have created the need for a new Strategic Concept. Reaching consensus within NATO on whether and how to respond to such challenges has become increasingly difficult, he said.
The Secretary General also stressed the need for continued military transformation, “…to allow us to cover the full spectrum of tasks, from collective defense to peace support operations.” And in the context of the current financial crisis, he said it was all the more pressing to make efficient use of resources through better cooperation, coordination and collective solutions.
The new Concept must include a “Comprehensive Approach”, promoting better coordination with other international actors such as the United Nations, the European Union and the NGO community. It should also “…reaffirm a long-standing NATO objective: to help complete the consolidation of Europe as a continent that is whole, free and at peace. NATO’s open door policy will continue,” said Mr. Rasmussen.
On relations with Russia, he said that we must not let differences between NATO and Russia hold the relationship hostage, because they share a number of common interests such as in Afghanistan, combating terrorism and preventing nuclear proliferation.

Decision to reduce NATO troops in KOSOVO

NATO Defence Ministers on 11th June agreed in Brussels to reduce the KFOR troop presence in Kosovo, taking into account the steady improvement of the security situation there.
“The decision to gradually reduce troop numbers will reflect this [security situation] development,” reads a report issued by NATO headquarters.
The ministers accorded that the transition of KFOR to a “deterrent presence” is to be implemented only gradually, indicating that there would not be a sudden withdrawal of large numbers of troops
NATO Defence Ministers reaffirmed that KFOR would remain responsible for a safe and secure environment in Kosovo and would stay in Kosovo in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 as long as necessary, and until the UNSC decided otherwise. NATO troops entered in Kosovo on June 12, 1999, after 78 days of air strikes on Serb positions aimed at halting ethnic cleansing against Albanians under the regime of Slobodan Milosevic. During the initial days of the conflict, NATO's peacekeeping operation had approximately 50,000 troops on the ground.
Currently, the Alliance has 13,800 troops on the ground in Kosovo, and it is expected that ministers will decide to reduce that number to 10,000 by January next year. Kosovo media report that if the security situation in Kosovo remains calm, NATO would reduce its troop numbers by up to 2,000.

The 60th Anniversary of NATO

As NATO celebrates its 60th anniversary, it is in greater demand than ever before.
The Alliance is keeping the peace in Kosovo, it is engaged in both stabilisation tasks and combat operations in Afghanistan, runs an anti-terrorist naval operation in the Mediterranean, assists defence reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina, trains Iraqi security forces, and provides support to the African Union.
NATO is at the heart of a vast and expanding network of partnerships with countries from across the globe and is developing closer cooperation with key civilian institutions. And the Alliance’s enlargement process remains a strong incentive for aspirant countries to get their house in order.
In short, at age 60, NATO has become such an indispensable part of the international security environment that it is hard to imagine that it ever could have been otherwise. And yet it was. The initial duration of the 1949 Washington Treaty was modestly set at 20 years, by which time, it was assumed, the post-war recovery of Western Europe would have been completed and the transatlantic defence pact become obsolete.
Few of the people who were present at NATO’s creation would have dared to hope that this Alliance would not only outlast the Cold War conditions that brought it into being, but indeed thrive in a radically different security environment.
The reason why NATO turned from a temporary project into a permanent one is not difficult to understand. It is because the logic of transatlantic security cooperation is timeless. The need for Europe and North America to tackle security challenges together remains as pressing today as it was 60 years ago.
So does the need for a transatlantic institutional framework which allows for political consultation, joint decisions, and common action. Actually only NATO can provide this framework ( article from NATO review).

THE PRESIDENT OBAMA PLAN for RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT

With each passing day, families across America are watching their bills pile up and their savings disappear.
That’s why President Barrack Obama has put forth an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will jumpstart job creation and long-term growth by:
-Doubling the production of alternative energy in the next three years.
-Modernizing more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills.
-Making the immediate investments necessary to ensure that within five years, all of America’s medical records are computerized.
-Equipping tens of thousands of schools, community colleges, and public universities with 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries.
-Expanding broadband across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world.
-Investing in the science, research, and technology that will lead to new medical breakthroughs, new discoveries, and entire new industries.

Balkan States: it's time to secure the peace

Bosnia and Kosovo have largely disappeared from public view. Washington and Brussels are hoping the promise of European Union accession will ultimately triumph over remaining ethnic tensions in the region.
Bosnia is a nonfunctioning state living under the constant threat its autonomous Serb region to hold a referendum on independence. The Bosnian Muslim prime minister wants to throw out the Dayton agreement that concluded the Bosnia war in 1995, end Serb autonomy and form a unitary state.
To prevent the return of ethnic violence in Bosnia, the High Representative, who administers the implementation of the Dayton agreements, needs to be reinvigorated with visible backing from the EU, including maintaining its peacekeeping forces. The High Representative should revive constitutional reforms that three years ago came within two votes of approval in the Bosnian parliament.
Newly independent Kosovo, unrecognized by two-thirds of the world's states -- including five EU members -- barely functions after 10 years of U.N. rule. It has high unemployment and little foreign investment and needs enormous foreign assistance.
Given Moscow's opposition, it is not possible to get U.N. Security Council agreement on Kosovo. But the U.S. and the EU, whose new Kosovo mission now operates in the north, can begin the process of reintegrating the Serb-controlled portions of the newly independent state by ensuring that law and order there is not administered by Belgrade.
In Bosnia, Belgrade is working with Moscow to strengthen Serb autonomy with political and particularly economic support.
The root cause for most of this instability still rests in Belgrade. Although its new government is eager to become part of the EU, it insists on governing Serbs in Kosovo and is doing everything possible to reverse its independence.
Despite its constant assurance to seek a European future, Serbia remains mired in the past, failing to turn indicted war criminal Ratko Mladic over to the Hague Tribunal.Acting together, Brussels and Washington managed to end the Balkans wars of the 1990s. It is now time they work together to bring lasting peace to the region. (source Wall Street Journal).

Montenegro, Macedonia recognize Kosovo's independence.

Both Montenegro and Macedonia recognized Kosovo's independence on Thursday, 9th October. Serbia called the moves by its Balkan neighbors a betrayal and expelled the Montenegrin ambassador from Belgrade.
The moves represent a major blow to Serbia's diplomatic efforts to maintain a claim over Kosovo, considered by Serbs to be the cradle of their Orthodox Christian religion and statehood.
Montenegro and Macedonia — both seeking membership in NATO and the European Union — have been under pressure from the United States and some EU countries to recognize Kosovo's February declaration of independence. The two coordinated with one another in recognizing Kosovo. Montenegro's Foreign Minister, Milan Rocen, said : "This is not a decision against Serbia, but for our future".
The Macedonian Foreign Minister also suggested the move was inevitable.
The Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic said Montenegro's move was a particular betrayal, given that the country was both a close ally and a neighbor. Montenegro separated from Serbia only in 2006, and its officials sided with Serbia during the region's ethnic wars in the 1990s.
However, pro-Serb officials are not a part of the current government in Montenegro, a tiny Adriatic Sea State almost equally split between Montenegrin and pro-Serb nationalists.

Montenegro on the way to NATO

Montenegro is one of the newest members of the Partnership for Peace, joining in December 2006. Within this framework NATO and Montenegro are developing cooperation with a focus on democratic, institutional and defence reforms, as well as practical cooperation in other areas. Montenegro agreed with NATO its first Individual Partnership Programme (IPP) in January 2008, which lays out the programme of cooperation between the country and NATO. In June 2008, Montenegro presented its Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) to deepen cooperation with NATO, and a first round of staff-level consultations opened the country’s Intensified Dialogue with NATO on its membership aspirations and related reforms.
The NATO Allies recognised Montenegro’s independence very shortly after it was declared in June 2006 and invited the country to join the Partnership for Peace (PfP) at the November 2006 Riga Summit. The country formally joined the Partnership in December of that same year. In April 2007, Montenegro delivered a PfP Presentation Document to the Allies detailing the country’s aims and proposals for cooperation within the PfP framework. The document became the basis of the country’s first IPP agreed in January 2008.
As with all NATO’s Partner countries, the extent of cooperation ultimately depends on Montenegro's desire to pursue democratic, institutional and defence reform processes.

EULEX a controversial mission

The EU mission to Kosovo (EULEX ), recently has faced many obstacles which are delaying its own deployment, foreseen by 15th of June. The EU's plan was to send a mission comprising 2,200 members to oversee the police and judiciary in Kosovo. The initial idea was for the mission to start operating by June 15th, when the new Kosovo Constitution will take effect. Unlike the UN, whose mission has been deployed since 1999, the EU intended to transfer most of its authority to Kosovo institutions and retaining jurisdiction over the judicial system and police.
According to EU representatives, disagreements on dividing responsibilities between the UN and EULEX could delay the deployment. EULEX is awaiting authorization to take over the country's police and judiciary, but objections from EU member states that have not recognized Kosovo's independence are stalling it, according to EU security chief Javier Solana.
In addition Russia has refused to accept the EU mission's deployment without Security Council approval; Serbia also opposes the deployment of EULEX, demanding that the mission obtain a UN mandate first.
Serbian Minister for Kosovo Slobodan Samardzic says: “Belgrade and the Kosovo Serbs recognize only the UN mission and will not co-operate with EULEX. The objective of EULEX cannot be legalized in the UN, because that objective is the implementation of Kosovo's independence, whereas the UN's goal is to implement the essential autonomy of Kosovo. Those are two different goals that cannot be harmonized,"

Albania and Croatia road to NATO

The two countries have now formally begun accession talks to join the Alliance, as they were invited to during the Bucharest Summit on 2-4 April 2008.
Nevertheless the process to obtain the full membership foresees some other steps.
First of all the invited countries meet with a team of NATO experts on a number of sessions (generally two) to discuss and confirm their readiness to assume all of their obligations as new members of the Alliance.
NATO will then prepare accession protocols for each one of the invited countries. The protocols are amendments to the North Atlantic Treaty, which once signed and ratified by the Allies, will enable Albania and Croatia to become parties to the Treaty and members of NATO.
After the conclusion of the talks, the foreign ministers of Albania and Croatia will send a letter of intent to NATO confirming their interest, willingness and ability to join the Alliance. Together with the letters they submit a timetable for necessary reforms to be completed before and after accession in order to enhance their contribution to the Alliance.
With the reception of this letter, and the reply sent by NATO’s Secretary General, all requirements are met for the signature of the accession protocols, which has been scheduled for 9 July 2008.
Once the accession protocols are signed, they still have to be approved by all NATO member countries. This may be a time-consuming process as the 26 Allies have to ratify the protocols according to their national requirements and procedures.
When the ratification process will be completed, the NATO Secretary General will invite the prospective new members to become parties to the North Atlantic Treaty.In the meantime, Albania and Croatia will deposit their formal instruments of accession with the United States (the United States Department of State is the depository), and formally become parties to the North Atlantic Treaty and thus members of NATO.
At the end this will be the sixth round of enlargement in the Alliance's history. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia joined in 2004; the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1999; Spain in 1982; Germany in 1955 and Greece and Turkey joined the Alliance in 1952.

Kosovo independence

KOSOVO celebrated its independence on last Sunday 17th February, becoming soon the seventh nation from the old Yugoslavia.
The unilateral declaration of independence defied the international law, which recognizes Kosovo as part of Serbia ( UN resolution n.1244); it was emboldened by the support of the US and most EU members ignoring the resistance of Serbia and its ally Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that the Kosovan move is a dangerous provocation that could lead Moscow to support breakaway movements in other "frozen conflicts" with its own neighbours such as Georgia and Moldova.
Mr. Putin said the western Europeans were being hypocrites by demanding independence for Kosovo but opposing the same treatment for other breakaway regions such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia and Trans-Dniester in Moldova.
Anyway Russia and Serbia have ruled out military responses to Kosovo's declaration, with Serbia saying it would stick to diplomatic and economic retaliation against any nation that recognizes Kosovo's independence.
The US, Britain and France have recognized Kosovo immediately, after them have followed Germany and Italy. EU is replacing the UN administration with its mission “EULEX”, which has overseen the territory for almost a decade.
Not all EU members are happy about supporting a unilateral declaration of independence, with Cyprus in particular fiercely opposed because it fears setting a precedent for its own Turkish-dominated northern region.
Fellow EU members Romania and Slovakia are expected to refuse to recognize Kosovo's independence and others, including Spain and Greece, are likely to delay any decision.
Serbia, lost its dominance over the former Yugoslavia, remains a nation of 7.5 million people with no access to the Adriatic Sea and sour relations with most of its European neighbours.
Kosovo has a poor economy and 50per cent unemployment rate but sees itself as a viable state because, with two million people, it has about the same population as Macedonia and Slovenia, bigger than Montenegro (with 620,000 people), less than Croatia (4.6million) and Bosnia (4 million).
The crucial difference is that unlike those other new nations, Kosovo was never a separate republic within Yugoslavia, instead being a part of Serbia and considered by many Serbs as the spiritual heartland of their nation.
Slovenia is the only ex-Yugoslav state to have already joined the EU and NATO and, by coincidence, it now holds the six-month rotating presidency of the union, giving it a key role in coordinating the EU response to Kosovo's declaration.

SCHENGEN ZONE ENLARGEMENT EFFECTS

The expansion of the Schengen zone, which now includes 22 EU countries, plus Norway and Iceland, will make conditions harder, for Croatian citizens, to travel around these countries using only their identity documents.
Unless they have their passports with them, Croatian citizens will need to have a special card issued to them to confirm that they are not in the EU illegally.
These special cards will be for single use only, and they will need to be stamped when Croats enter and leave the Schengen zone countries - Hungary, Italy and Slovenia.
While the expansion of the Schengen zone will complicate travel for Croats, the media in Slovenia welcomed the enlargement as a historic step towards the greater integration of Europe.
Only five current EU countries are outside the Schengen zone which was launched in 1985.
Recently-joined members Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania, which are obliged to become part of the Schengen zone, will do so when they are ready, which is expected over the next few years.
Among the older EU members, Britain and Ireland, have shown little interest in joining in the near future.

Washington and Ankara work together to combat the PKK.

During a meeting held on 5th November 2007 with Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, at the White House, US President George W. Bush is urging Turkey not to mount a unilateral incursion into northern Iraq and promises stronger military co-operation and intelligence-sharing to aid in the fight against the terrorist PKK.
"The PKK is an enemy of Turkey, a free Iraq, and the United States of America. And it's in our joint interest to work effectively to deal with the problem" .
Bush suggested it was not in Turkey's interest to launch a major unilateral incursion into northern Iraq, as such a move could spark confrontation with Iraqi Kurds and lead to greater instability in the region.
Instead, US President proposed reviving the three-way military mechanism among Turkey, the US and Iraq, and establishing better communication channels between top Turkish and US military officials, including the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.
However, the head of the foreign affairs committee in the Turkish parliament, Murat Mercan, turned down the suggestion, saying Turkey's only counterpart is the Iraqi central government. He also accused the Iraqi Kurdish regional government of providing logistical support to the PKK.
Erdogan welcomed Bush's promise, but said his country had no plans to withdraw the estimated 100,000 troops massed on the border with Iraq. "We are not after a war, but we have a mandate from the Turkish Parliament to conduct an operation," he said.

Difficult talks on Kosovo status

The United States and most of the European Union will recognize Kosovo if the Balkan province declares independence from Serbia in early December, when last-ditch negotiations end, United States and European officials said last Monday.
The talks will end on Dec. 10. If an agreement on the province’s future will not reached between Serbia and Kosovo, Kosovo could made a unilateral declaration of independence.
According to European diplomats, while the European Union has been seeking an end to the impasse through the United Nations, it has begun losing patience with the struggle to find a consensus in the Security Council.
Mr. Putin, who wants the issue kept inside the United Nations, has opposed independence. Russia, as a permanent member of the Security Council, can veto or block any resolution calling for Kosovo to be independent.
Wanting to end this precarious status, the United Nations last year appointed a former president of Finland, Marti Ahtisaari, to draw up a plan in which Serbs in the province would be granted a wide degree of political and cultural autonomy once Kosovo was independent from Serbia.
The European Union agreed to closely monitor the implementation of the Ahtisaari plan by replacing the United Nations protectorate there with a strong police and judicial system in which European officials would supervise Kosovo’s independence for a certain period. NATO, which has 17,000 soldiers deployed in the province, would remain.
While the Kosovo leadership overwhelmingly accepted the Ahtisaari plan, Boris Tadic, Serbia’s president, and the Serbian prime minister, openly rejected it. Russia insisted on giving the diplomatic track another chance, which the United States and European Union accepted, but with the condition that the talks last no more than 120 days.
The Europeans appointed Wolfgang Ischinger, the German ambassador to London, to lead three envoys that includes Alexander Botsan-Kharchenko of Russia and Frank G. Wisner of the United States.

Reasons for ineffective of Israeli Palestinian Peace Plans

Till now no plan has succeeded in ending the Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. It is likely that the real problems have never been addressed by any plan. There are two intractable difficulties. The first problem is in the hearts of men. It is the tragic conviction of too many people on both sides that all of the land belongs only to them and to no-one else, and that the continued presence of the other side on the land is illegitimate and a historic injustice.
The second problem is that outside forces, especially in the Arab and Muslim world, have taken care to stir up and maintain this conviction and to arm those who will fight for it.
In addition there are several levels of "requirements" of parties to a conflict that might be conditions for resolution of that conflict. Basic requirements are those that are needed for human survival and well being: land, water, security, access to the sea if possible, a place to call your own. National requirements are those that are needed in order to survive and prosper as a nation among nation states. Freedom to pursue legitimate national goals, self determination and cultural development are among them. However, some other "requirements" are often confrontational issues, that have been developed in order to perpetuate a conflict.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict includes several such confrontational issues, that were never perceived as issues by either side until they were deliberately inflated and brought to national significance. There is no way to resolve those issues by logical formulae, because the purpose of the issue is to prevent resolution of the conflict. Essentially, the real content of each such issue is "we will make peace only when the other side admits surrender" and the issues are advanced because it is believed that the other side will never accept it and can never accept it. Therefore, the issue can be used to show that the other side does not want peace.

European deal on Reform Treaty

An agreement on the reform of the EU institutions was reached at the European Council in Brussels on 23 June. After two days of tough negotiations, EU leaders agreed on a mandate for an Intergovernmental Conference which will draw up the Reform Treaty by the end of 2007. If ratified, this treaty could enter into force in June 2009, ahead of the next elections to the European Parliament.
The EU leaders found sustainable solutions to a number of difficult issues. The new text will make the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding. The EU will have a High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and a permanent president; other achievements include an increased role for national parliaments and a reduced number of Commissioners from 2014. The double majority voting system, will enter into force in 2014, with at the request of a member state a transition period allowing the current voting weights to be applied until March 2017.
Institutional reform was not the only item on the Council's agenda. Leaders welcomed Cyprus and Malta to the Eurozone, thereby paving the way for the enlargement of the euro area to 15 member states as from 1 January 2008.
The Reform Treaty is the EU's answer to the negative outcome of the French and Dutch referenda on the European Constitution two years ago. The Commission had called for a period of reflection to let national parliaments, Europeans and various parties have their say on how they see a future EU.

Presidential Change in France: new foreign policy

In the wake of his impressive electoral victory, President Nicholas Sarkozy of France will now face the challenge of keeping his campaign promises to carry out reform at home and to elaborate a new foreign policy. Sarkozy has considered the importance to attach to the European Union and in the meantime has reached out, once again, to the United States. The Middle East, in general, and Israel, in particular, are known to be on Sarkozy’s agenda.
Franco-Israeli relations have undergone many upheavals in the past. Sarkozy’s election has now raised expectations of a dramatic improvement in relations between the two countries; many in Israel have taken note of Sarkozy’s Jewish roots (his Jewish grandfather immigrated to France from Greece). However, while some improvement is indeed likely to happen, that hardly means that the new President will adopt a significant pro-Israel posture.
There is no doubt that President Sarkozy is markedly different from his predecessors.
With respect to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Sarkozy has expressed full support for Israel’s security while attaching great importance to the creation of the Palestinian state with the 1967 lines.
Concerning Lebanon and Syria, the new President shows little no signs of being bound to traditional French constraints. So if there is further convergence of French and American approaches to the Iranian nuclear question their understanding of the American dilemma in Iraq and their overall reading of the Middle Eastern strategic map, France’s desire to be an active partner in the Middle Eastern peace process could well elicit greater responsiveness by both the United States and Israel. The struggle against terrorism could also be an issue on which France and Israel might cooperate more closely although here, too, a really significant upgrading of ties would require inclusion of the United States as the third leg in a triangular relationship.
Finally, Sarkozy’s effort to breathe new life into the French economy could provide an important stimulus to enhanced technological and industrial cooperation between France and Israel. All these elements underpin the assumption of greater understanding and strategic convergence between the two countries.

NATO – Russia Council meeting on 26th April 2007

The subject meeting was part of the two-day informal meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in Oslo, 26-27 April.
Practical NATO-Russia cooperation, missile defence, and the CFE treaty were the three main issues discussed by Foreign Ministers at a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council.
Ministers welcomed the practical cooperation in the NATO-Russia relationship, noting in particular joint work on countering the Afghan narcotics challenge, Operation Active Endeavour, and theatre missile defence.
They also discussed strategic missile defence, specifically US discussions to base missile facilities in Europe. It was clear that, while the 26 NATO Allies believe that these US plans can in no way upset the strategic balance in Europe, Russia has fundamental concerns.
There was a consensus on the need to take this discussion forward in the NATO-Russia Council in the future, focusing in particular on threat assessment.
Finally, Allies expressed profound concerns and disquiet over President Putin's announcement, earlier on 26th April, that Russia would unilaterally suspend its adhesion to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE).
NATO Allies have always complied fully with the existing and adapted CFE treaties, and hope for the ratification of the adapted Treaty as soon as Russia fully meets its Istanbul commitments to withdraw personnel and equipment from Georgia and Moldova.
Again, this issue will be further discussed in the NATO-Russia Council.

The Arab Peace Initiative for Middle East

On the 28th of March 2007, the Arab League Summit was held in Riyadh/ Saudi Arabia. During the summit was discussed this question: what to do in order to promote the Arab Peace Initiative adopted in Beirut (2002)by the Arab Summit.
The significance of the Arab Peace Initiative is that it provides all interested and concerned parties with a comprehensive solution process in order to solve all the aspects of the Middle East conflict.
The significance for Israel is that it provides Israel with recognition, normalization and security guaranteed by 22 Arab countries together, provided it withdraws from all the Arab territories occupied in 1967 and provided it adheres to an agreed solution to the Palestinian refugee problem that is achieved in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
For the Palestinians it means the establishment of a Palestinian independent state based on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital.
For the Syrians it means the return of the Golan Heights.
With the impasse in the peace process, and with the failure of the gradual solutions in the last 15 years, the Arab Peace Initiative provides the alternative way-out towards comprehensive peace and reconciliation.

Serbian Parliament rejected a UN Kosovo plan

The plan was rejected by a vote of 255-15, on Wednesday 14 February. The Serbian rejection means that a resolution to the dispute over Kosovo’s final status will probably have to be imposed by the UN Security Council.
The proposal, drawn up by UN envoy Martti Ahtisaari, does not explicitly call for Kosovo’s independence, but envisions granting the province its own flag, anthem, army, constitution and the right to apply for membership in international organizations.
The plan would protect Serbian Orthodox Church sites and the Serbian language in the province. It would also grant the 200,000 Serbs, who fled Kosovo after the war, the right to return and reclaim their property and personal possessions.
Belgrade has offered broad autonomy for Kosovo, which it considers the medieval cradle of its statehood. But Kosovo Albanians, which account for 90 per cent of the population, demand complete secession.
The parliamentary rejection dooms hopes of a compromise between Serbian and ethnic Albanian officials at the final round of negotiations on the plan scheduled to start in Vienna, this week. There are, also, concerns the plan may trigger a showdown between the United States — long an advocate of an independent Kosovo — and Russia, a traditional ally of Serbia.

Lesson learned in Iraq

One lesson of Iraq is that it is very difficult to win a "limited war," because a "limited war" is only limited for one side. The other side may have far fewer resources, but it won't hesitate to use all of them. All they have to do is hang in there, and sooner or later, the uncommitted side is going to give up.
Sooner or later, someone will have to find a solution or get out of Iraq, at whatever cost. Perhaps, just perhaps, there is a solution, because Iraq is not like Vietnam (yet) in one very important way. In Vietnam, there was an organized government pouring resources and men into the field, supported openly by world powers. In Iraq, there is no Ho Chi Minh, and no USSR to support him. As long as the US maintains some force in Iraq, it is unlikely that insurgents could claim a victory. If that time is utilized properly, to train cadres of intelligence personnel and American administrators and liaison persons who understand their environment, then it might just be possible to win, assuming we can define what "winning" means. Intelligence personnel could infiltrate the enemy. Officers would train Iraqi army units. Administrators and liaison people could help Iraqis adminster development programs.

The almost four years that elapsed since the war should have been sufficient to start on such a program, but the US didn't try. They put their trust in the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people, and the recent White House program is still based on the vague hope that the Iraqis will overcome their sectarian differences, stop their corruption and get with the program. The Iraqis, at least those currently in charge, manifestly have different priorities and different loyalties. Without any effective local knowlege, there is no way the US could change the nature of the Iraqi government. The Iraqis are "with the program" but their programs are different from those of the US.