When will Russia apply "The Reverse Holbrooke?"

It could be time to turn the Richard Holbrooke Doctrine upside down, in a new doctrine known as "The Reverse Holbrooke"...

NEW YORK (Special to Tiraspol Times) - Great powers have been known to distance themselves from their ethnic kin abroad. Depending on the given particulars, the reasoning for such a stance can range from valid, to lame, to traitorous.

In the early 1960's, Algeria's French population felt betrayed by Charles de Gaulle's government. The French patriot de Gaulle correctly calculated that France's historical attachment to Algeria was strictly colonial in nature, with the French having never made up a significant portion of Algeria's population. Besides de Gaulle, many other French persons thought that Algerian independence was the practical route to take.

On the more traitorous side, in 1995, the JNA (Yugoslav National Army) was in idle as Croat forces ethnically cleansed the majority 150,000 Serbs from Krajina. Agim Ceku was a key military leader in that operation. Ceku is now considered a worthy representative for Kosovo's Albanian population, as that community strives for independence from Serbia. For those insisting that Kosovo should be independent unlike Trans-Dniester, kindly contrast the backgrounds of the Kosovo Albanian leadership to that of Trans-Dniester's. The former features several bona-fide war criminals unlike the latter.

Holbrooke and the Dayton Accords

Shortly after the ethnic cleansing campaign in Krajina, the West put then Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic on a pedestal by allowing him to participate in the Clinton Administration orchestrated Dayton Accords, which ended the Bosnian Civil War and determined the fate (at least in writing) of that troubled former Yugoslav republic. To the delight of the Serb adversaries, the Bosnian Serb leadership was kept out of that process. At the time, the not so Serb friendly New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis gave toned down commentary on Milosevic. Likewise with Bill Clinton's foreign policy honcho Richard Holbrooke, who played a lead role in advancing the Dayton Accords. For many Serbs, Milosevic sold out Serb interests in Krajina, to go along with his not getting the best possible deal out of Dayton.

At the time of the Dayton process, Milosevic was unpopular with many Serbs. This was an ideal moment for the West to support Serbian opposition against him. The West chose not to because Milosevic was doing what Western governments desired. A few years later, the West would turn sour on Milosevic when he defended Serb sovereignty over Kosovo.

Unlike Algeria's relationship to France, Kosovo is a land demographically, historically and geographically linked to Serbia. For much of history, Serbs predominated in that province. Massive illegal immigration from Albania and a series of ethnic cleansing campaigns over the past 100 years changed Kosovo's demographics (many sources state that Albanians now make up 90% of that province).

Fast forward to the present and Richard Holbrooke is again trying to influence the status of disputed former Communist bloc territories. Without much in terms of a challenge, it's typical to find Holbrooke at Anglo-American mass media outlets, where he erroneously claims that Kosovo is the "special case" for independence unlike the disputed former Communist bloc territories; each of them having their own varying claims to independence.

Time to confront Holbrooke's mistakes

The official and semiofficial Russian reply to this can be arguably firmer. The Kremlin is correct for noting that Kosovo independence sets a precedent for favoring the validity of the independence minded disputed former Soviet regions of Trans-Dniester, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Nagorno Karabakh.

Is it not time for Russia to apply "the reverse Holbrooke" by actively detailing why Trans-Dniester should be independent unlike Kosovo? Truth and reason solidifies the validity of the reverse Holbrooke. Along with some others in his crowd, Holbrooke carries on like a pit bull in stating aggressively misguided policies. You don't successfully confront a pit bull by behaving like a St. Bernard.

For its own reasons, Romania is also not so keen on Kosovo independence. Moldovan sympathizing Romania knows all too well that Trans-Dniester (which Moldova claims) has a better case for independence than Kosovo. On this point and so as to not repeat myself, refer to The former Moldavian SSR: A non-country which broke in two (The Tiraspol Times, 27 December 2006) and Russia's Sane Position on Kosovo (Serbianna, 22 March 2007).

The issue of seeking independence is akin to applying to a prestigious school (in this instance, substitute school with independence). Some of us are more qualified and get accepted unlike others. Trans-Dniester clearly has a great case for independence unlike Kosovo. Suggesting the reverse is on par with job discrimination.

Kindly note that this is written by someone sincerely having the best interests of his native American homeland at heart. Throughout much of history, Serbia and Russia have been great allies of the West. Their yearning to be on good terms with the West need not be foolishly dissuaded. - Michael Averko

See also:
» Transnistria independence before Kosovo, says top Washington expert
» No precedents in the unique case of Transdniester
» Kosovo independence far riskier than independence for Transdniestria
» Kosovo report linked to Transnistria independence