Dr. Trifkovic has a fairly recent article entitled The President’s Painted Corner. Please go to the link and read it; as always, Dr. Trifkovic's article is most excellent.
In his article, Dr. Trifkovic addresses the policy of the current Bush Administration to promote the independence of Kosovo.
My readers my not be familiar with the background and significance of Kosovo, and it is beyond the scope of this article to address that in depth. Briefly, however, Kosovo is now a mainly ethnic Albanian/Muslim area in Serbia. In that respect, it is somewhat akin to certain regions of the United States, in that the United States is predominantly an English-speaking, Protestant country, which has regions with significant Spanish-speaking, Catholic minorities. However, generally speaking, those two groups in the United States get along reasonably well; this has certainly not been the case between the 1) Slavic and Orthodox Christian Serbs and the 2) ethnic Albanian and Muslim people in Kosovo.
In the fourteenth century, Kosovo was the scene of a big battle between the Serbs and invading Muslim armies. In that respect, a comparison with the Alamo, scene of a battle between Texans seeking independence from Mexico and the Mexican Army under Santa Anna, is somewhat useful.
It should be emphatically noted, however, that such comparisons only serve up to a point; again, relations between the "anglos" and the "latinos" in America are not bad, relations between the United States of America and the United Mexican States are generally good, and, in any case, any historical animosities are neither as deep nor as old as they are in the Balkans.
For a little more background on Kosovo, you may wish to begin with the Wikipedia article.
I have reproduced here some excerpts of Dr. Trifkovic's article, along with my comments:
It is not prudent for the United States to insist that Kosovo should and will become independent—as President George W. Bush did in Tirana last June, followed by similar sermons from Dr. Rice and her aides on an almost daily basis—even as it is obvious that Russia will veto any attempt to achieve that goal through the U.N. Security Council, and even as the European Union is increasingly reluctant to participate in any scheme to bypass the United Nations. Statements by U.S. officials that Kosovo’s independence is “inevitable” are a classic case of irresponsible policymakers painting themselves into a corner on a peripheral issue, and then claiming that the issue had morphed into a test of American resolve.
Never mind that it is not prudent -- which, as we will see, it is actually quite foolish -- but why would we want to?
Keep that question in mind as you consider this topic: Why does the Bush Administration insist that Kosovo become independent?
A mature, self-confident and globally hegemonistic “hyperpower” would never allow Kosovo to become such a test for three reasons.
Quite apart from its historic, cultural, moral, and legal aspects, the issue of who controls the southern Serbian province is perfectly irrelevant to American interests. It is a small, land-locked piece of real estate, of dubious “objective” value, away from all major Balkan transit corridors, and not nearly as rich in natural resources as both Serbs and Albanians like to imagine. If Kosovo were to disappear tomorrow, no ordinary American would be able to tell the difference.
Okay, no reason there to insist on Kosovo's independence from Serbia....
The change of Kosovo’s status against the will of Belgrade, in addition to being a clear violation of international law, would set a precedent potentially detrimental to U.S. interests. To enable an ethnic minority to secede from an internationally recognized state on the grounds of that minority’s numerical preponderance in a given locale would open a Pandora’s box of claims all over the world, not least among Russian speakers in the Crimea, parts of Estonia and Latvia, northern Kazakhstan, and eastern Ukraine. It could also affect the future of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and perhaps even California, when Mexicans achieve a simple majority in those states. (The question is indeed “when,” not “if.”) State Department officials Nicholas Burns and Daniel Fried still insist that no precedent would be set by creating an independent Kosovo, but they cannot control reality, and their assurances are nonsensical.
There Dr. Trifkovic outlines some serious counterincentives.
If a group of people can simply move in to an area, and continue arriving until members of that group become a majority in that area, and then have an internationally-recognizable claim to independence from the country to which they immigrated, that would really cause some problems.
Sweden would become "balkanized", places in France would no longer belong to France, and, as Dr. Trifkovic alludes to, the United States might quickly no longer be united.
The Muslim world will not be appeased by Kosovo today any more than it was appeased by Bosnia a decade ago. America will not earn any brownie points among the world’s “Jihadists of all color and hue” (to borrow a phrase from Rep. Tom Lantos) for creating a new Muslim state in the heart of Europe. Albanian “gratitude” would prove as valuable to America today as it has, over the years, to Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China. On the other hand, the failure to create an independent, internationally recognized Kosovo would be yet another sign that Emperor Bush has no clothes and that America has no sureness of touch. Furthermore, favoring the imposition of a “solution” from the outside against the will of one of the parties could set a dangerous long-term precedent for Israel.
Danger to Israel by imposing a solution from the outside....
But, what's this about no "brownie points" for America among the world's jihadists?
Well, those guys are so mean, they hate themselves -- literally.
But, what about certain other elements in the Islamic world?
Is there anyone in the Islamic world to whom Bush hopes to endear himself? Anyone whose policies he seems to further? Anyone that he is exceptionally close to, both in business dealings and on a personal level?
Our policy is not sensible. It panders to the aspirations of a small and primitive, yet shrewdly opportunistic, polity with territorial pretensions against all of her neighbors. President George W. Bush declared in Tirana last June that America is committed to Kosovo’s independence, and he was greeted almost as enthusiastically as Benito Mussolini, Nikita Khrushchev, and Chou En-Lai had been greeted by the Albanians over the decades. As Nicholas Stavrou noted in the National Herald, Mr. Bush reflects the Albanians’ talent for choosing patrons who fulfill three criteria: They must be big enough, far enough, and willing to offend the interests of Albania’s neighbors:President Bush’s venture into the Balkan tinderbox is nothing short of a blatant provocation aimed at two nations that stood side by side with the United States in two wars, Serbia and Greece. It is part and parcel of a neo-conservative agenda, formulated by the same gang that produced the Iraq war . . . and threatens to engulf the Middle East into a regional conflagration. The ultimate goal, of course, is the conversion of Russia into a first class enemy. The new Cold War warriors view the Balkans as a “logical extension of the Middle East” that ought to be part of a new arrangement that would facilitate integration of Islamic and non-Islamic cultures. Russia, in their view, cannot be trusted with any role in their nefarious schemes to “modernize” Islam and redefine the Middle East as a “region that starts in the Persian Gulf and ends in Sarajevo.”
Serbia and Greece, two nations that have historically been on the front lines against violent Islamic expansion, the kind Osama bin Laden advocates....
And President Bush, who made the comment:
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
is siding with Kosovo, whose links to Islamic mafia and Islamic terrorists are well-known.
Our policy is perfectly sensible. We just need to (forgive me for using this over-used buzz-phrase) "connect the dots."
It is plainly irrational to insist on Kosovo’s independence, with all the risks such a policy entails, while the United States faces so much other “unfinished business” around the globe. The list is well known and depressing. Iraq is a disaster, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Afghanistan is a lesser calamity only when compared with Iraq. Any solution to the challenge presented by Iran will depend on Washington’s ability to have Russia on its side as a partner, which is impossible if Moscow’s concerns over Kosovo are treated as illegitimate. Russia is also an essential partner in helping control Kim Jong Il and devising a sustainable long-term energy policy for the Western world.
Insisting on Kosovo's independence is only irrational if you are concerned about US national security -- or the national security of Serbia, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, etc.
In short, Kosovo is an asymmetric issue. Mr. Bush cares about it only as it relates to U.S. “credibility.” The second greatest blunder of his presidency may result from his willingness to accept the assurances of inherited Clintonite bureaucrats of Mr. Burns’ ilk, who have insisted that the Serbs will cave in and that the Russians will budge.
If push comes to shove, Mr. Bush will face Moscow all alone. There is a great deal of dissent in Europe, from Madrid to Athens to Bucharest and Bratislava, but not even those Europeans who are nominally pro-independence—notably, the Germans—would sacrifice a single day’s supply of natural gas over Albanian claims. By contrast, this is, for Serbia, an existential issue and, for Russia, a litmus test of her ability to be a great power once again.
The most important reason the United States should not support Kosovo’s independence is and always has been cultural and civilizational; but trying to explain that to the chief executive who is fanatically supportive of a blanket amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens in the United States is as futile as trying to reform Islam.
George W. Bush has painted himself into a tight corner in the Balkans, and he will get a bloody nose if he does not relent. That is bad news for the church-burning Albanian Muslims of Kosovo, and bad news for their heroin-financed lobby in Washington, but it is very good news for America and the civilized world.
Saudi Arabia has been pouring a great deal of resources into Islamic communities in the Balkans.
The Saudis have been financing mosque construction and renovation, they have been training mullahs and sending them to the Balkans....
The Saudis sent mujahideen to the Balkans in the 1990's; although their holy warriors were of little use on the battlefield, they had a great impact committing atrocities against the infidels, and increasing the level of brutality in that war, provoking Serb reactions. Saudi "freedom fighters" (terrorists) even managed to irritate the Croats, who were Muslim allies against the Serbs -- so much so, that on at least one occasion the Croats were pulling troops off the lines facing the Serbs, and putting them on the lines facing the mujahideen!
The Saudis have a vested interest in Kosovo becoming independent from Serbia. They also have a vested interest in seeing that precedent set, so other lands that have growing Muslim minorities can some day have their Muslim enclaves demand independence from the nations to which the places where they live now belong.
That would mean the dismemberment of Sweden, Norway, Italy, the United Kingdom, France, Holland, Denmark, Spain, Canada and the United States, to name a few Western nations.
Russia (Chechnya!), China (Ningxia, Gansu, Xinjiang!!), India (Kashmir!!!) and other countries would not be immune, either.
And Bush is furthering this goal -- although whether deliberately or through incompetence remains to be legally established.
Allahu Akbar, Mr. President!