NATO Occupied Kosovo Through Military Aggression and Refuses to Give it Back
Advisor to the Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Simic assessed that United States and NATO are pushing for severing of southern Serbian province in order to set up a state in which NATO would have unlimited power, and this is the key to their unreserved support for the failed Ahtisaari plan on the future status of Serbian Kosovo-Metohija province.
“It is hard to believe that the intention of NATO to procure this kind of limitless power for itself in the ‘independent’ Kosovo stems from the sheer selflessness and admiration for Kosovo Albanians, or that it reflects their idealistic faith in a democratic and civilizational potential of moribund Kosovo. More probably, this is an experiment of sorts in establishing a NATO State,” said Simic in a text for the late issue of Belgrade weekly NIN.
While analyzing the contents of the UN Security Council-rejected Ahtisaari plan, Simic remarked that this plan, among other things, asserts that the commander of international military forces in independent Kosovo, to be appointed by NATO, would be in charge of no less than decision making regarding the use of military force.NATO Reserves the Unlimited Power
The plan pushed by the U.S. and NATO down the throats of the rest of the world stipulates that articles and regulations contained within that plan have the “legal power above all the other laws in Kosovo.”
“Even though Athisaari plan does not entail the complete ‘independent’ Kosovo constitution, it does define the key elements the constitution of the newly independent state would have to incorporate… Therefore, the whole thing is positioned in such a way that the one who has the last word regarding the interpretation and implementation of this document would, in essence, represent the actual Kosovo ruler,” Simic assessed.
According to him, it is worth questioning if the true reason behind the project of severing Serbian province isn’t revealed in the provision of the Ahtisaari plan which limits the power of the international civil representative in such a way as to exclude NATO and the military staff roaming through Kosovo from his power of authority.
“We can see that, even though the intended international civil representative was to be a political envoy of NATO member-states, NATO itself does not allow any authority above, nor any control by the international civil force, even if it is European, let alone Kosovo’s,” added Simic.
“A careful analysis of Ahtisaari’s proposal, particularly of the clauses of Annex XI, opens the question whether the world is for the first time faced with the endeavors of a military alliance to create its own state, in which civil institutions would not be able to limit its power,” wrote Simic, adding that “the significance of the Annex XI for the U.S. can be best understood through their stubborn persistence that even the so-called ‘minimalist’ resolution presented to the UN Security Council for adoption had to incorporate precisely this Annex of Ahtisaari plan.”
http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2007/08/occupiers-colonizers.html