* Kosovo implications: Welcome to the Rule of the Jungle


Richard Moore


Opening a Pandora's Box: Kosovo "Independence" and the Project for a "New Middle

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, February 20, 2008

Western public opinion has been misled. Unfolding events and realities on the 
ground in the former Yugoslavia have been carefully manipulated.

Germany and the U.S. have deep-seated geo-strategic interests in dividing 
Yugoslavia. Washington, D.C. and Berlin have also been the first governments to 
recognize the secessionist states, which resulted from the breakup of the 
Yugoslav federation.

The Broader Implications of Kosovo ³Independence²

The February 2008 declaration of independence of Kosovo is a means towards 
legitimizing the dissolution and breaking up of sovereign states on a global 

Eurasia is the main target. Kosovar ³independence² is part of a neo-colonial 
program with underlying economic and geo-political interests. The objective is 
to instate a New World Order and establish hegemonic control over the global 

In this sense Kosovo provides a blueprint and a ³dress-rehearsal² which can now 
be applied to restructuring the economies and borders of the Middle East, under 
the Project for a ³New Middle East.²

The restructuring model that is being applied in the former Yugoslavia is 
precisely what is intended for the Middle East ‹ a process of balkanization and 
economic control.

Kosovo¹s Pseudo-Declaration of Independence

On February 17, 2008, the secessionist province of Kosovo declared unilateral 
independence from the Republic of Serbia. The occasion was declared through an 
extraordinary gathering of the Kosovar Parliament and its executive bodies. 
Belgrade has not had any control over Kosovo since 1999, when NATO went to war 
with Serbia to impose control over Kosovo under humanitarian arguments.

President Fatmir Sejdiu, Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, and the Speaker of 
Parliament Jakup Krasniqi all marked the occasion with speeches inside and 
outside of the Kosovar Parliament.

Many in Kosovo¹s ethic Albanian majority celebrated what they believed was a 
shift towards self-determination.   The truth of the matter is that the Kosovar 
declaration of independence was a declaration of dependency and the surrounder 
of Kosovo to colonial forces.

Without any remorse Kosovar leaders have transformed their land into a colonial 
outpost of Franco-German and Anglo-American interests. February 17, 2008 also 
marked the day that Kosovo further entrenched itself as a NATO-E.U. 
protectorate. Under the so-called independence² roadmap, NATO and E.U. troops 
and police officers will formally administer Kosovo.

In reality, Kosovo would have had greater independence as an autonomous province
in an agreement of autonomy with Serbia, which had been envisaged in bilateral 
talks between Belgrade and Pristina. The majority of Kosovars would have been 
satisfied under such an agreement.

However, the talks were never meant to succeed for two obvious reasons:

1) the leadership of Kosovo are agents of foreign interests that do not 
represent the Kosovar populaiton;

2) the U.S. and E.U. were determined to establish another protectorate in the 
former Yugoslavia.

Kosovo: Another phase in the Economic Colonization of the former Yugoslavia

One of the leading global academic figures who has thoroughly documented the 
foreign-induced disintegration of Yugoslavia and the situation in Kosovo is 
Michel Chossudovsky.  He has documented the economic and geo-strategic motives 
that have acted as the fingers pulling the strings that have caused the collapse
of Yugoslavia and the drive for the independence of Kosovo from Serbia. His work
unmasks the truth behind the downfall of Yugoslavia and the tactics being used 
to divide nations and peoples who have lived together in peace for hundreds of 

A glance at the restructuring of Bosnia-Herzegovina must be made before further 
discussing the case of Kosovo.

Bosnia¹s constitution was written at a U.S. Air Force base in Dayton, Ohio by 
U.S. and European "experts."

Chossoduvsky appropriately labels Bosnia-Herzegovina as a neo-colonial entity. 
NATO troops have dominated Bosnia-Herzegovina, closely followed by the 
imposition of a new political and economic framework and model.

Chossudovsky¹s work also reveals that the real head of the Bosnian government, 
the High Representative, and the head of the Bosnian Central Bank are both 
foreigners that are hand-picked by the European Union, the U.S., and the 
International Monetary Fund (IMF). [1] This is a clear re-enactment of a 
colonial administration.

This model has also been replicated with some variations in several of the 
former republics of the Yugoslav federation. The major obstacle to the full 
implementation of this agenda is the popular will of the local people in the 
former Yugoslavia, especially the Serbs.

Serbia, like an island of resistance, is the last bastion of independence left 
in the former Yugoslavia and the Balkans, but even in Serbia a modus vivendi 
exists where the local people have made a one-sided accommodation with the 
foreign economic agenda to allow their way of life to go on for a little longer.
However, this accommodation is not meant to last.

The same Political and Socio-Economic Model is being applied in the Balkans and 
the Middle East

The process in Iraq is no different than the model applied in the former 
Yugoslavia. Divisions are fueled by foreign catalysts, the economy is 
destabilized, national dissolution is induced, and a new politico-socio-economic
order is established.

Foreign interference and military intervention have also been justified on bogus
humanitarian grounds. It is no coincidence that a  ³High Representative² was 
appointed by the American-led coaltion to govern occupied Iraq, thereby 
replicating the Bosnia-Herzegovina model, which is characterised by a E.U. 
appointed ³High Representative.² The pattern should start becoming startlingly 

The parallels between Iraq and the former Yugoslavia are endless.

In the wake of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, the U.S. and Britain 
established the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), 
which evolved into the Coalition Provisional Authority.

The head of the Coalition Provisional Authority was also called ³Special 
Representative,² ³Governor,² ³Special Envoy,² and ³Consul.²

The justifications for setting up the occupying administration in Iraq, 
similarly to Bosnia-Herzegovina, where originally humanitarian and national 
stabilization. However, the main objectives of the Coalition Provisional 
Authority were to decentralize the state and implement a mass privatization 
program of Iraqi resources and wealth.

It is no coincidence that Bosnia-Herzegovina was divided alongside ethnic and 
religious lines: Serb, Croat, and Bosniak; Christians and Muslims. To these 
various ethnic-religious divisions further sectarian divisions  were also added 
amongst the Christians:  Eastern Orthodoxy versus Roman Catholicism.

A similar strategy of ³divide and rule² was applied in Iraq.  In Iraq the same 
pattern is being replicated alongside ethnic and sectarian lines: Arabs, Kurds, 
Turcoman, Assyrian, and others; Shiites versus Sunnis. Just like in the former 
Yugoslavia the centralized economic system of Iraq was also shattered by the 
occupying administration. Under the Anglo-American occupation and its Coalition 
Provisional Authority foreign corporations entered Iraq in a second wave of 
foreign invasion, an economic takeover.

This neo-colonial project is based on two inderdependent building blocks: a 
military stage executed by NATO and a process of political, social, and economic
restructuring executed by the U.S. and E.U. with the help of corrupt local 
leaders in the occupied countries. The shock and awe of war opens the door for 
destabilization followed by ³nation building² or the restructuring process, 
which even attacks the cultural and social roots of the target nation-state. The
important cultural and historic aspects unifying the occupied nation-states have
also been systematically attacked and errased.

The Economic Colonization of Kosovo

The economic affairs of Kosovo are to be exclusively under the hands of the E.U.
in partnership with the United States. The euro was already being used in 
Kosovo, despite of the protests of Belgrade, as the official currency for a 
number of years before 2008. The utilization of the euro was part of the process
of untying the Kosovar economy from the rest of the Serbian economy and a means 
of establishing control over the sovereignty of Kosovo via monetary and 
financial means.

The Kosovar flag has been designed to match both the flags of Bosnia-Herzegovina
and the European Union. The Bosnian flag was also designed to match the flag of 
the European Union. To many these in the Balkans these flags are symbols of 
vassaldom and the protectorate status of these territories.

This unraveling process involving military means has been the modus operandi 
throughout the former Yugoslavia. The key players behind this process are the 
usual players; the U.S., Germany, Britain, and France, which have been sharing 
the spoils of war and economic colonization in the former Yugoslavia. NATO and 
the E.U. have been the agents of this process on behalf of all four Western 

An Illegal Precedent: Paving the Way for the Dismantlement of other 

In the realm of international law, a Pandora¹s Box has been opened.  A new form 
of interventionism which threatens nation-states has emerged. Worldwide, nations
have been divided into two camps in regards to Kosovo: those that recognize it 
at the expense of international law and those that do not recognize Kosovar 

There are profound implications in regards to the events in Yugoslavia. The law 
of the jungle and the concept that ³might is right² have been unveiled as the 
true ideals of E.U. and American foreign policy. From Somalia, Sudan, and Iraq 
to the Russian Federation and Central Asia,  a dangerous precedent has been 
established. The latter is intent upon fracturing and dividing.

The E.U. and NATO have also threatened Belgrade and the Serbian people with 
military action if they try and keep Kosovo. NATO had prepared for Kosovar 
independence through the holding of war games in late-2007. As Germany has 
admitted,  negotiations for a solution were never taken seriously by Western 
powers from the start. NATO¹s military preparations for the secession of Kosovo 
suggests that the negotiations were a diplomatic game, which was never intended 
to succeed.

The global ramifications of E.U.-U.S. interventionism and open disregard for 
fundamental international laws are significant. Nations combating secessionist 
movements worldwide have voiced disapproval of the Kosovar declaration of 
independence, while expressing apprehension in regards to the enthusiastic 
support shown by American, German, British, and French officials.

China has voiced disapproval out of fears that Taiwan (Chinese Taipei) may 
declare independence under the precedent set by Kosovo. Indonesia, Sri Lanka, 
Sudan, Spain, Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Russia have all voiced 
opposition because of their own secessionist movements such as the Tamil Tigers 
and the Basque separatist group ETA.

Ramifications of the Kosovo Precedent in the Caucasus and the Former Soviet 

While fully acknowledging the fact that the Kosovo precedent is internationally 
illegal, Moscow has nonetheless used the Kosovo precedent against Georgia. 
Moscow¹s objective is to strengthen its control in the geo-strategically 
important Caucasus region. Georgia has opposed the push by Kosovar Albanians for
independence because of secessionist movements in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and 
Adjara. While Adjaran separatism has declined, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have 
standing armies with close ties to Moscow and are virtually independent.

Russia is arguing that if the U.S. and E.U. recognize the independence of 
Kosovo, then the independence of Abkhazia and South Oesstia must also be 
recognized based on the same principle.

The Kosovar declaration of independence also has ramifications for 
Trans-Dniester (also known as Transnistria or Transdniestria), a tiny breakaway 
Russian-majority portion of Moldava bordering Ukraine.

The effects of Kosovar independence have also been watched carefully by the 
leaders of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, because of the 
Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. In the cases of Trans-Dniester, Nagorno-Krabakh, 
Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, all four breakaway republics believe they have far 
stronger cases for lobbying for official recognition by the Commonwealth of 
Independent States (C.I.S.), Russia, and the United Nations.

Preparing a Dangerous Precedent for the Middle East and Beyond

The ghosts of Versailles and earlier schemes that the model in Yugoslavia and 
the Middle East is replicating still hunt humanity. U.S. President Woodrow 
Wilson¹s seemingly good intentioned declaration of creating an arc of ³national 
self-determination² stretching from the Baltic Sea and the Balkans to the Middle
East after the First World War is coming into fruition.

Since the First World War, the larger and more powerful states of Eastern Europe
and the Middle East have progressively been carved up into smaller and weaker 
states. This process was  part of a colonial project to control the Eurasian 
Heartland that still survives. [2]

The board is being set for the recognition of new states in a redrawn Middle 
East in total disregard for international law. The Kosovar declaration of 
independence from Serbia is part of the broader post-Cold War balkanization and 
dismantlement of Yugoslavia. The legitimization of Kosovar independence through 
international recognition serves to extend Anglo-American and Franco-German 
influence across Eurasia and the globe. This model is tied in a straight line 
with the forthcoming plans in the Middle East to breakup countries such as Iraq,
Syria, and Iran in fragmented and easy to control protectorates managed by the 
E.U., the U.S., and Israel.

Russia and China also are aware of the real danger of plans to divide their 
territories as has been advocated for years by Anglo-American policy makes in 
Washington, D.C. and London going back to before the First World War. Iran is 
also aware of a Kosovo-like scenario planned for its predominately Arab regions 
in Khuzestan. The declaration of independence was also closely watched by the 
Kurdish Regional Government of Northern Iraq.

The synchronization of other global events with Kosovo Independence: 

The ³Arc of Instability² is yet again being exasperated and agitated. In 
Pakistan threats of civil war and balkanization loom large. In the Levant one of
Hezbollah¹s top officials, Imad Mughniyeh, was assassinated in Syria by a car 
bomb similarly to those killing Lebanese politicians.

Most probably Imad Mughniyeh was assassinated by the Mossad, the intelligence 
agency of Israel. American, Jordanian, Saudi, French, British, and German 
intelligence were almost all likely to be involved. It is an open secret that 
all these intelligence agencies have been collaborating together in Lebanon 
against Hezbollah and have been behind attempts to assassinate Hezbollah 
leaders. The timing of the assassination is extremely suspicious.

Mughniyeh¹s assassination also came just before the anniversary of the Hariri 
Assassination and could have been meant to further galvanize political tensions 
in Lebanon and create a sectarian divide amongst the Muslims of Lebanon. Israel 
has denied being behind the assassination, but it is now talking about a new war
with Lebanon that it conveniently plans to blame Hezbollah for starting with the
help of Syria and Iran.

The rupture of multiple conflicts and crises can be a means to also encircle and
envelope the westernmost periphery of Russia within an arc of conflict or in 
other words there may be a deliberate attempt to supersaturate the ³Arc of 
Instability² to paralyze Russia and other opposing players.

A Prepackaged Solution: Supranationalism?

The leadership in Serbia is playing a balancing act between its people and 
foreign interests. The Serbian people are against the foreign agenda in their 
region, but the leadership in Serbia is the spawn of a Western-funded and 
supported Velvet Revolution that occurred in 2000 and ousted Slobodan Milosevic.
A large portion of Belgrade¹s leadership supports the foreign agenda and has 
been co-opted into the neo-liberal restructuring project for the Balkans. The 
fact that the U.S. and the E.U. became major paymasters for Serbia after the 
Kosovo War is a mere testimony to this.

Surpanationalism or entry into the E.U. or a larger supranational entity for 
both Serbia and Kosovo is most probably going to be presented as the solution 
for Kosovar independence. Similarly such a solution may also be presented for a 
balkanized Middle East through such projects as the Mediterranean Union. 
Supranationalism is also being pressed as an answer to the unification of Cyprus
under the Mediterranean Union.

Returning to Serbia and Kosovo, many of the leaders of Serbia are opposing 
Kosovar secession, but this is merely a façade that is meant to occupy the minds
of the Serbian general public. These same leaders are taking a soft stance on 
the issue and also moving towards integration into the European Union. To them 
supranationalism is a solution.

On the Eve of the New World Order: Welcome to the Rule of the Jungle

While the E.U. pushes for a bridge to end national and ethnic divisions amongst 
its own members it does the opposite in the cases of Kosovo and other regions. 
Is not the American Civil War marked with honour, because the Union States 
fought a war to keep the Confederate States within the ³American Union² by 

Whatever the case, the hypocrisy of the E.U. and the U.S. in international 
relations is exposed by the recognition of Kosovar independence. Firstly, it is 
a breach of international law, but also it is insincere and for self-serving 
motives and not because of genuine principles or concerns for the people of 

In addition, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has a far more legitimate 
case of being recognized in addition to its own functioning institutions and 
maturity. Although there is a secure and stable means to peacefully address the 
desires of the Basque and the Catalans in the Pyrenees and the Flemish in the 
Flanders region of Belgium, these separatist movements are also ignored.

The Armenian majority in Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence on December 10, 
1991. Yet, the self-proclaimed and functioning breakaway republic enjoys no 
backing from either the U.S. or the E.U. unlike Kosovo. What sets Northern 
Cyprus, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and 
Trans-Dniester apart from Kosovo? The answer is: Anglo-American and 
Franco-German interests represented through the E.U. and NATO are the forces 
behind self-serving ³exceptionalism² ‹ the same force that permitted the Nazis 
to believe that they could colonize Eastern Europe and the Eurasian Heartland 
without guilt.

American and European Union leaders have argued that the Serbs are no longer 
morally capable of managing the affairs of Kosovo. What gives the governments of
the U.S., Germany, France, and Britain any moral capability after years of blood
baths and a deficit in credibility? If these claims where based on any principle
then what about the case of the Palestinians? Does Israel have any moral 
capability to occupy the Palestinians? Yet, the occupation continues. Ironically
it is not Serbian troops who occupy Kosovo, but NATO troops and tanks.


[1] Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, 
(Montreal, Global Research, 2003), pp.257-277.

[2] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The ³Great Game:² Eurasia and History of War, 
Global Research, December 3, 2007.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an independent writer based in Ottawa specializing in
Middle Eastern affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on
Globalization (CRG).

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of 
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on 

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on 
community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The 
source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global 
Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, 
contact: •••@••.•••

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not 
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such 
material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an 
effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social 
issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational 
purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair 
use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: •••@••.•••

© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2008

The url address of this article is: 

© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

newslog archives: 

How We the People can change the world

Escaping the Matrix: http://escapingthematrix.org/

The Phoenix Project

The Post-Bush Regime: A Prognosis

Community Democracy Framework: 

cyberjournal: http://cyberjournal.org

Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)