Does Putin Not Have a Point?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted 02/13/2007 ET

"A soft answer turneth away wrath," teaches Proverbs 1:15.

Our new secretary of defense, Roberts Gates, seems familiar with the verse. For his handling of Saturday's wintry blast from Vladimir Putin at the Munich security conference was masterful.

"As an old Cold Warrior, one of yesterday's speeches almost filled me with nostalgia for a less complex time," said Gates, adding, "Almost." A former director of the CIA, Gates went on to identify with Putin: "I have, like your second speaker yesterday ... a career in the spy business. And I guess old spies have a habit of blunt speaking.

"However, I have been to re-education camp, spending the last four-and-a-half years as a university president and dealing with faculty. And as more than a few university presidents have learned in recent years, when it comes to faculty it is either 'be nice' or 'be gone.'"

Gates added he would be going to Moscow to talk with the old KGB hand, who will be retiring as Russia's president around the time President Bush goes home to Crawford. Excellent.

For one of the historic blunders of this administration has been to antagonize and alienate Russia, the winning of whose friendship was a signal achievement of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. And one of the foreign policy imperatives of this nation is for statesmanship to repair the damage.

What did we do to antagonize Russia?

When the Cold War ended, we seized upon our "unipolar moment" as the lone superpower to seek geopolitical advantage at Russia's expense.

Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from Eastern Europe voluntarily, and Moscow felt it had an understanding we would not move NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only did we bring Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, and virtually the whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother Russia's front porch. Now, there is a scheme afoot to bring in Ukraine and Georgia in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin.

Second, America backed a pipeline to deliver Caspian Sea oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, to bypass Russia.

Third, though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the old Soviet republics for the liberation of Afghanistan, we now seem hell-bent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.

Fourth, though Bush sold missile defense as directed at rogue states like North Korea, we now learn we are going to put anti-missile systems into Eastern Europe. And against whom are they directed?

Fifth, through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and Democratic auxiliaries, and tax-exempt think tanks, foundations and "human rights" institutes such as Freedom House, headed by ex-CIA director James Woolsey, we have been fomenting regime change in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics and Russia herself.

U.S.-backed revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia, but failed in Belarus. Moscow has now legislated restrictions on the foreign agencies that it sees, not without justification, as subversive of pro-Moscow regimes.

Sixth, America conducted 78 days of bombing of Serbia for the crime of fighting to hold on to her rebellious province, Kosovo, and for refusing to grant NATO marching rights through her territory to take over that province. Mother Russia has always had a maternal interest in the Orthodox states of the Balkans.

These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a small point?

Joe Lieberman denounced Putin's "Cold War rhetoric." But have we not been taking what cannot unfairly be labeled Cold War actions?

How would we react if China today brought Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela into a military alliance, convinced Mexico to sell oil to Beijing and bypass the United States, and began meddling in the affairs of Central America and Caribbean countries to effect the electoral defeat of regimes friendly to the United States? How would we react to a Russian move to put anti-missile missiles on Greenland?

Gates says we have been through one Cold War and do not want another. But it is not Moscow moving a military alliance right up to our borders or building bases and planting anti-missile systems in our front and back yards.

Why are we doing this? This country is not going to go to war with Russia over Estonia. With our Army "breaking" from two insurgencies, how would we fight? By bombing Moscow and St. Petersburg?

Just as we deluded ourselves into believing this war would be a "cakewalk," that democracy would break out across the Middle East, that we would be beloved in Baghdad, so America today has undertaken commitments, dating to the Cold War and since, we do not remotely have the resources or will to fulfill. We are living in a world of self-delusion.

Somewhere in this presidential campaign, someone has to bring us back to earth. The halcyon days of American Empire are over.

Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author)

Kosovo says Yes to UN plan but Serbia says No

February 2, 2007

By Ellie Tzortzi and Matt Robinson

BELGRADE/PRISTINA (Reuters) - United Nations envoy Martti Ahtisaari on Friday unveiled a plan to set the breakaway province of Kosovo on a path to independence, an outcome immediately welcomed by Kosovo Albanians and rejected by Serbia.

Ahtisaari's proposal did not mention the word "independence" or address the loss of Serbia's sovereignty over the territory. But both sides said this was clearly what it implied.

"Kosovo will be sovereign like all other countries," said Kosovo president Fatmir Sejdiu after meeting Ahtisaari in Kosovo's capital Pristina, where there were celebrations.

Prime Minister Agim Ceku, a former guerrilla in the 1998-99 Kosovo Liberation Army which fought the forces of the late Serb strongman Slobodan Milosevic, said the document "is very clear for Kosovo's future".

After a meeting in Serbia, President Boris Tadic agreed that the plan "opens up the possibility of independence". But Tadic said he told the envoy: "Serbia and I as its president will never accept the independence of Kosovo."

Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica has condemned Ahtisaari for "anti-Serb bias", and took the lead in rejecting his plan in advance, refusing even to meet the envoy on Friday.

The plan gives Kosovo access to international bodies usually reserved for sovereign states and to use its own flag, anthem and other symbols.

"The settlement provides for an international representative to supervise the implementation," Ahtisaari told a news conference. The NATO-led peace force "will continue to provide a safe and secure environment ... as long as necessary".

It includes measures to "promote sustainable economic development including Kosovo's ability to apply for membership in international financial institutions", he added.

LAST CHANCE

Ahtisaari declined several opportunities to address the issue of Kosovo's ultimate status, saying this would be settled by the United Nations Security Council once he formally presented his plan, following a last round of consultations.

He said the diametrically opposed positions of the Serbs and Kosovo Albanians were "extremely fixed", but he was allowing them "one more chance" to find compromise.

Invitations would be sent for a meeting in Vienna on Feb. 13 and it would be up to Serbs and leaders of Kosovo's 90 percent ethnic Albanian majority to decide whether to turn up.

The former Finnish president mediated months of largely fruitless talks in 2006. "Maybe they have had enough," he said. "I can't force anyone to participate."

There was no point in waiting for a new government to be formed following Serbia's inconclusive election last month, he said. "Whether it's now or a little bit later, the same people would be on either side of the table."

"The final process starts when the plan enters the Security Council," Ahtisaari said, indicating that could be next month.

The European Union urged both sides to respond "positively and constructively" to Ahtisaari's proposals. The U.S. State Department said the proposal "is fair and balanced. It is a blueprint for a stable, prosperous and multi-ethnic Kosovo".

The poor landlocked province of two million is cherished by Serbs as the medieval homeland of their nation.

Kosovo has been run by the U.N. since 1999 when NATO bombing forced Milosevic to withdraw troops accused of killing 10,000 Albanians during a counter-insurgency war. About 100,000 ethnic Serbs remain. Some predict violence and secession, and both NATO and the U.N. mission have made contingency plans for a crisis.

"There is nothing more we can do," said Kosovo Serb accountant Milica Knezevic, "there's no life for us here."

President Tadic has told Serbs Kosovo might already be lost.

Kostunica says he will never accept this and is urging all parties in the next government to solemnly pledge that Serbia will cut ties with any country recognising the province as an independent state, including major Western powers.

(Additional reporting by Beti Bilandzic, Monika Lajhner, Ivana Sekularac in Belgrade and Matt Robinson in Pristina)

Copyright © 2006 Reuters

Delay in recognising Kosovo will invite more bloodshed

Post-bombing western guilt is making things worse in the Balkans. Serbia's nationalists have to see the game is lost

Jonathan Steele
Friday January 26, 2007
The Guardian

Remember Kosovo, the small province of Serbia that sparked the first shooting war in Nato's 50-year history? Astonishingly, it is almost eight years since US and British bombers went into action over Belgrade, and the problem has still not been solved. Kosovo's large Albanian majority has not got the independence it was demanding after decades of oppression that culminated in a merciless campaign of ethnic cleansing by the now dead Yugoslav strongman Slobodan Milosevic. For their part, Serbs are still obsessed with the issue. Their election last Sunday revolved around it, giving the ultra-nationalist Radical party as impressive a victory as it had in 2003.

Meanwhile, international efforts to broker a solution continue to stumble. A UN envoy who was appointed over a year ago to consult all sides and come up with a compromise package will present his proposals today. But there is a looming danger that his work will be in vain, unless Europe and the US radically alter their current line. It seems incredible that countries which went to war to enforce their views should now be lapsing into delay and dither. But that appears to be the case. It is even more incredible given that the envoy's proposals for Kosovo's future squeak as softly as a church mouse. I am told they do not even use the word "independence".

In the eight years since the Nato war, a gamut of thinktanks and experts, not to mention western diplomats, argued that the best solution for Kosovo would be "conditional independence". The suggestion was that even a free Kosovo would need a form of temporary international supervision, backed by foreign troops and police, in order to protect the Serbian minority but also to deter any attempt by Belgrade to reconquer the province by force.

The UN envoy is Martti Ahtisaari, a distinguished former president of Finland and one of Europe's most experienced negotiators. He was asked to proceed on the understanding that there could be no partition of the province, no change of borders, and no return to Serbian rule. There was also an implicit principle that an agreed solution was better than an imposed one.

Reluctant Kosovo leaders were pressed into negotiating with their former masters in Belgrade. They made a series of concessions on local government that allow the Serbian enclaves in Kosovo to become municipalities, run their own affairs, and keep financial links with Serbia. Ahtisaari patiently listened to both sides, as well as to Russia, Serbia's principal backer, and to Quint, the shorthand name for the US, Britain, France, Germany and Italy.

The result is a package to go to the UN security council for approval. It will fudge the independence word by not attempting to define Kosovo's future status and not allowing the territory a UN seat. It will be boringly technical, focusing mainly on property issues, international lending arrangements, and mechanisms by which the EU and a so-called International Civilian Office can take over a reduced version of the UN's supervisory role in Kosovo.

All fine and constructive. The snag is what happens to the package next. One might have thought that after you appoint a statesman to study an issue, conduct complex diplomacy, and craft a compromise, you close the process by implementing it. Not a bit of it. The Quint decided last week that a new round of consultations is needed. John Sawers, the British Foreign Office's political director, was in Pristina this week to break the news to the Kosovans.

This could be fatal, since the Serbs are masters of delay. Under pressure from Quint, Ahtisaari gave Belgrade an unnecessary concession last autumn by delaying the announcement of his package until after Serbia's elections. Serbian politicians are now saying there should be more delay until a coalition government is formed, a process of haggling that could last months. Only then can meaningful talks take place. After that there may be presidential elections, etc, etc.

Why the western spinelessness? Three factors are in play. One appears to be post-bombing guilt. Having made war in 1999, Nato and its EU members are now wooing Serbia on all fronts. In November, Nato took it into the Partnership for Peace programme after dropping its requirement that Serbia arrest the indicted war criminal and butcher of Bosnia, General Ratko Mladic, and send him to The Hague.

The second factor is a western illusion that Serbia is divided into "nationalists" and "pro-Europeans". So the west takes heed of the latter's siren voices that constantly tell gullible EU ambassadors "Shh, we need your help. Protect us from the radicals. Don't put pressure on us for concessions." Last Sunday's election result exploded that fraud. The few parties which accept that Kosovo is lost won only 7%. On the "pro-European" side all that happened was a redistribution of votes among four competing parties. President Boris Tadic's Democratic party did best out of this, largely because he showed he was still a good nationalist last year by supporting a backward-looking new constitution that says Kosovo can never be detached from Serbia.

The final factor is anxiety about a Russian veto on the security council. Diplomats say the new consultations are to show Moscow the west has "gone the extra mile". But Russia's role ought not to be exaggerated. Under Ahtisaari's modest proposals, the UN would not recognise Kosovo's independence. It would be left to each country to do so if it wished - and however the Russians vote.

On Kosovo, the EU is more important than the UN. If the EU holds firm when its foreign ministers meet next month it can salvage the situation by coming out strongly behind Ahtisaari, putting a short time limit on further consultations, and declaring it will recognise Kosovo, whatever Russia does. Much will depend on Germany. As current president of the EU, Germany has a chance to show leadership on a major European issue. Many Europeans charge Germany with helping to precipitate the Balkan wars of the 1990s by hasty recognition of Croatia. It would be ironic if Germany over-compensates now by delaying the recognition of Kosovo, and thereby precipitating Balkan violence again.

Those are indeed the stakes, and they are far from trivial. Until Serbia's nationalists see the game is lost and over, they will never be marginalised. Only then will Serbs become the nice modern Europeans the EU wants them to be.

j.steele@guardian.co.uk

Jonathan Steele is a Guardian columnist, roving foreign correspondent and author. He was the Guardian's bureau chief in Washington (1975 to 1979) and Moscow (1988 to 1994). In the 80s he reported from southern Africa, central America, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe. In the 90s he covered Kosovo and the Balkans. Since 9/11 he has reported from Afghanistan and Iraq as well as on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He has written several books on international affairs, including books on South Africa, Germany, eastern Europe, and Russia.

Serbia's Next PM Faces Imperial Carve-Up

Related UN plan for Kosovo promises independence, with strings --- January 27, 2007

And the Winner Is…

by Nebojsa Malic

The general elections in Serbia, held on January 21, were described as "low-key" by the BBC. Somewhat greater voter turnout than in the past – 60% of the electorate showed up at the polls – didn't translate into clear results, however. Of the 250 seats in the Skupstina, the Serbian Radical Party (SRS) got the biggest share – 81 – but not enough to form a majority. Sixty-four seats went to the Democratic Part (DS) of President Boris Tadic, and 47 to the Popular Bloc of outgoing Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica. His former coalition partners, G17 Plus, won 19 seats. Sixteen went to the Socialists (SPS), once led by Slobodan Milosevic, and eight were filled with candidates from ethnic minority parties. Fifteen seats went to a coalition led by Cedomir Jovanovic's Liberal Democrats (LDP). Cheering from the Sidelines From the very beginning, the campaign was influenced from the outside – first by the decision of the UN to postpone its recommendations on the future status of the occupied Serbian province of Kosovo, and then by the constant pressure from the EU and US to elect "pro-Western" candidates. UK and US ambassadors wrote editorials in Serbian papers, hectoring voters. So did the British PM Tony Blair. US diplomat Daniel Fried openly cheered for the Democratic Party. After the results were announced, these same people issued congratulations to the "democratic victors" – obviously expecting their favorites to somehow overcome their internal disputes and form a government that would obediently accept diktats from the Empire, just as DOS once did. Winners and Losers Even though they got the largest share of the votes, the Radicals didn't really win the election. They cannot form a government of their own, and the odds of other parties forming a coalition with them are slim. This is mostly because the Radicals are reviled by the Empire, and the other parties are competing mainly in who can grovel more and better before Washington and Brussels. Similarly, the Democrats may claim victory, but they won far fewer votes than they hoped for, and now have the unenviable choice of making deals with parties they've sniped at in the past. Some analysts float the mathematical possibility of a DS-G17-LDP minority government, but the leadership conflicts in this arrangement make it an unlikely development in reality. Kostunica and his Popular Bloc didn't do too well, but are still in a strong position to influence policy, and may well become a junior partner in the new government. The biggest winners by far are Cedomir Jovanovic and the LDP. Formerly a fringe splinter of the Democrats, the LDP gathered up all the loud, malicious voices of Jacobinism and Empire-worship and won parliamentary representation. Already wielding public influence widely disproportionate to their marginal political strength, the Jacobins now have a parliamentary outlet. Conversely, the elections were an utter defeat for Vuk Draskovic, whose coalition with Kostunica in the last government got him the position of Foreign Minister. His party, once considered the main opposition to Milosevic, didn't even qualify to enter the parliament. The post-Milosevic Serbia has been cursed by an astoundingly poor choice of top diplomats in times when diplomacy was crucial – first the treacherous Goran Svilanovic, then the uncouth, self-centered Draskovic – so whoever follows on the job would almost have to be an improvement by default. This being Serbia, that is by no means a foregone conclusion. Kosovo Looming Unfortunately, what Serbia needs most at this juncture is a strong government and a strong diplomacy. After delaying the proposal for "resolving" the status of occupied Kosovo for almost three months, UN envoy Martti Ahtisaari has met with Contact Group representatives in Vienna this Friday, and is scheduled to announce his plan to Belgrade and the Albanians next week. Ahtisaari – and more importantly, those in the US and Europe pushing for a separation of Kosovo from Serbia – are seizing on the moment when the government in Belgrade is in transition. Another clue is in the perception of the Democrats: "The major parties all say they will not accept the loss of Kosovo, but the Democratic Party of President Boris Tadic – the party favored by the West – has come closest to telling Serbs that it might be inevitable." (Reuters) Britain's Daily Telegraph phrased it similarly, calling the Democrats "the only major party to accept that Kosovan sovereignty is probably a fait accompli." Western cheerleading for Tadic and his party now begins to make sense. Ahtisaari's Plan In a feature published Thursday, Reuters writer Douglas Hamilton rightly described what's coming as the "carve-up" of Serbia. Hamilton cites Ahtisaari's claim that his proposal "provides the foundations for a democratic and multiethnic Kosovo in which the rights and interests of all members of its communities are firmly guaranteed and protected." That is, of course, complete and utter nonsense. If human rights of non-Albanians could not have been protected in the past seven-plus years, with a UN government and a presence of up to 60,000 NATO troops, how can anyone honestly expect that a KLA-dominated Albanian regime running an independent Kosovo would guarantee them? The systematic murder and expulsion of Serbs, and destruction of Serb property and heritage, that have taken place during the occupation are crystal clear indicators that no Serbs would survive in an independent "Kosova." Otherwise, why would NATO be "braced for a possible Serb exodus"? (Reuters) Matt Robinson of Reuters cites "diplomatic and UN sources" as to the contents of Ahtisaari's plan, considering Kosovo's separation a fait accompli. According to these enthusiastic leaks, the proposal "gives Kosovo the right to enter into international agreements and apply for membership of international organizations and institutions… talks of the right to ‘dual-citizenship' and urges Pristina to establish good relations with Serbia and other neighboring states." Of course, all this would be done under the supervision of 15,000 NATO troops and an EU governor, with similar powers to those of the Bosnian Viceroys since Dayton. As "compensation," Serbs would get some local autonomy, empty promises about protection of heritage, and the possibility of getting money from Belgrade – so long as Pristina takes a cut first. "In effect, Kosovo would be given the attributes of independence but remain under the wing of the international community … similar to the status given to Bosnia in 1995," comments the Financial Times. Deliberate Attrition Faced with unexpected opposition from Belgrade and Moscow over the past year or so, the US and EU imperialists appear to have decided the solution to their Kosovo conundrum should be more of the same. They know they have no legal grounds for declaring the occupied province independent. A recent LA Times article analyzing the "inevitable" loss of Kosovo, contained this interesting passage: "US diplomats queried on the point said that lawyers had not looked at the precedents but that Kosovo's case was different because it had been a UN protectorate, and that the Serbian ‘ethnic cleansing' there in 1999 in effect ended Serbia's right to control the province." This sort of "logic" is ludicrous. Kosovo was made a UN protectorate in 1999 following an illegal NATO aggression, launched not to stop alleged "ethnic cleansing," but to impose a peace agreement (Rambouillet). Faced with a shortage of arguments, the Empire is trying the argument of force; to effect, continuing the occupation until "status quo" becomes so entrenched that independence remains the only option. Ahtisaari's proposal doesn't end the occupation, but rather redefines it – to benefit the independence cause. The rationalization offered by editors at the Los Angeles Times, who endorsed the Ahtisaari proposal, confirms this reasoning: "…the UN compromise is the only practical solution for now… The two sides aren't ready to be peaceful neighbors, but taking small steps in that direction, while preserving the peace, would help them get used to the idea" 'Nice, Soft Landing' Imperial policymakers may think that by establishing a "democratic" government in Belgrade they've neutralized Serb opposition, and that Moscow would accept some sort of payoff (neither of which may be true), but that still leaves the Albanians themselves to manage. Promised independence by the KLA, having seen NATO support it in 1999 with bombs and boots on the ground, and assured near-constantly by the partisan press and high-powered allies in the West that their seizure of Kosovo was a foregone conclusion, the Albanians are getting impatient and unhappy. Certainly many of their leaders understand what Ahtisaari's proposal will eventually accomplish, but how do they communicate this to the masses they've fired up to extraordinary lengths of single-minded hatred? EU's foreign policy commissar Javier Solana, himself a key player in the events of 1999, told the Albanians this week, "It is very important that everybody behaves properly if we want the last part of the journey to have a nice, soft landing." Facing a Choice In order to make Kosovo's separation "nice and soft," the Empire needs Serbia's acquiescence. The pressure is again on Serbia to approve of this land grab. Whoever ends up leading the new government in Belgrade will have to make a choice: defend Serbian sovereignty, constitution and interests, or submit to Imperial coercion. While Moscow's support is promising, Russia can't – and shouldn't – fight battles the Serbs themselves aren't interested in fighting. However watered down, Ahtisaari's proposal is still secession. There is no way Belgrade can, or should, agree to this. Nebojsa Malic left his home in Bosnia after the Dayton Accords and currently resides in the United States. During the Bosnian War he had exposure to diplomatic and media affairs in Sarajevo. As a historian who specializes in international relations and the Balkans, Malic has written numerous essays on the Kosovo War, Bosnia, and Serbian politics. His exclusive column for Antiwar.com debuted in November 2000. "Balkan Express" appears every Thursday. For more of his thoughts on the Balkans and other topics, check out his blog.

KOSOVO....

January 26, 2007

KOSOVO....James Joyner comments on the latest from the Balkans:

Fifteen years ago, when then-Yugoslavia was falling apart in a series of ethic civil wars, those of us who opposed American military intervention argued that no significant threat was posed to U.S. vital interests. The caveat was always that, if things got out of hand in Kosovo, we'd have little choice but to jump in to prevent it becoming a regional crisis.

When that did indeed come to pass, the idea that Kosovo's independence would eventually follow would have seemed incredible. Now it's buried on A10 of the Post.

It's more "independence-lite" than actual independence at the moment, and it's not yet a completely done deal: Serbia (obviously) is opposed, Russia is holding out for concessions, and even Spain is nervous about the whole thing. Still, it looks increasingly likely that Kosovo is on track to become an independent country in the near future. More background here.

—Kevin Drum 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (2)

NATO girds for "hot spring" in Afghanistan, Kosovo

Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:52 PM ET

By Mark John

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - NATO chiefs, meeting on Friday, will gird the alliance for a rough ride ahead, with the threat of a new Taliban offensive in Afghanistan and ethnic tensions in Kosovo sparked by a U.N. ruling on its independence claim.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who called the meeting of alliance foreign ministers, is due to announce billions of dollars more U.S. aid for Afghanistan after a policy review to put more emphasis on the need for fast reconstruction.

The alliance also wants to ensure its peacekeepers are not caught napping by any violence in the breakaway Serbian province of Kosovo, as they were in March 2004 when 19 people died as ethnic Albanian mobs burned U.N. vehicles and Serb homes.

"We are heading into a spring period that could be very hot indeed," said one NATO diplomat.

NATO's credibility is pegged on the success of its two largest operations, with the 32,000-strong Afghan mission proving to be the most hazardous in its 58-year-old history.

There has been a total of 357 NATO and U.S.-led coalition deaths in Afghanistan since the 2001 U.S. invasion.

The Pentagon announced on Thursday more than 3,000 troops will stay on longer than planned to boost NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan ahead of an expected spring offensive by Taliban militants.

"We have to ensure the only spring offensive comes from NATO and the Afghans," said one NATO diplomat.

Alliance officials insist that despite taking heavy casualties last year, they are broadly satisfied with military progress. But they acknowledge reconstruction work must be speeded up to help many Afghans living in dire conditions.

U.S. officials say the Bush administration could seek up to $6 billion in a supplemental budget request to Congress that would cover a stepped-up effort to train the Afghan military and police as well as improve infrastructure. The Washington Post reported on Thursday the figure could be as much as $8 billion.

SERB EXODUS

"We are going to announce significant contributions to this effort tomorrow...and we are looking for others to step up their effort with us -- stepping up across the board," U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher told reporters in Brussels on the eve of the meeting.

But little is seen emerging from other allies at Friday's meeting, with European nations pointing to the billions of euros of aid they have already pledged to the country since the U.S.-led invasion to oust the Taliban in 2001.

"No one else is expecting to offer anything substantial," said one senior NATO diplomat. "There is no lack of money, it's just a question of how you spend it," he added.

On Kosovo, foreign ministers will hold a first discussion on a U.N. plan seen granting the province limited independence from Serbia after U.N. special envoy Martti Ahtisaari unveils details of his recommendations at a separate meeting in Vienna.

"We have got to make sure we are ready -- and we are ready -- for repercussions such as a mass Serb exodus out of Kosovo," said one diplomat of the risk that the Serb minority there will decide to flee the province.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has also signaled that the alliance would be ready to take on the training of a Kosovo security force if Ahtisaari makes such a proposal and the Kosovars accept.

(Additional reporting by David Brunnstrom in Brussels and Andrew Gray in Washington)

Rift widens among nations over Kosovo

Jan. 26, 2007, 8:39AM

By WILLIAM J. KOLE Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press

VIENNA, Austria — Russia is pressing for more time to examine a U.N. proposal for the future of Kosovo, Western and Russian officials said Friday, underscoring a widening rift between Moscow — a key ally of Serbia — and the United States and its European allies.

"Russia wants a longer period" to consider the plan, which U.N. special envoy Martti Ahtisaari presented in Vienna to diplomats from the so-called Contact Group — U.S., Russia, Britain, France, Germany and Italy — a Western official told The Associated Press.

Other members of the Contact Group insisted that "we've got to set a time limit" on the roadmap for the independence-minded province, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss details of the proposal and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Russia is a traditional ally of Serbia, which considers Kosovo the heart of its ancient homeland and insists that it remain part of Serbian territory. Kosovo's ethnic Albanian majority has been pushing for outright independence.

The U.N. Security Council will have the final say on Ahtisaari's plan, which the former Finnish president will formally present to both sides on Feb. 2.

Moscow's apparent misgivings — and its veto power at the U.N. — have raised the possibility of a diplomatic showdown with the United States, which backs the province's drive for statehood.

The other members of the Contact Group "agreed that the plan should go to the parties" without delay, the Western official said. But a Russian diplomat told the AP that the Kremlin "would prefer to wait" at least until Serbia, which held parliamentary elections earlier this month, forms a new government.

"We would not favor hasty moves," the Russian official said. The Russian official also was not permitted to discuss the proposal publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Ahtisaari's deputy, Albert Rohan, called Friday's meeting "very good and positive," but declined to provide details. The diplomats planned to take the document to their capitals for further review, spokesman Remi Dourlot said.

In Pristina, Kosovo Prime Minister Agim Ceku reacted with impatience to the Russian request, insisting: "There are no more reasons to delay the status process."

Ceku said he realized the proposal "may contain elements that are not that favorable — not all will be what we want."

"But it will be an acceptable package, we believe, for the people of Kosovo," he said. "I am confident that Kosovo will be independent and that when Ahtisaari goes to the Security Council he will propose independence for Kosovo."

His deputy, Lufti Haziri, said the U.N. blueprint was crafted around "two main issues, two main principles: Kosovo's right to its future and Kosovo's obligations toward minorities."

But diplomats and officials have said the proposal likely will not mention the word independence, although it is expected to give Kosovo some attributes of a sovereign state, such as access to international institutions and provisions for a security force.

Kosovo has been under U.N. control since mid-1999 — when NATO airstrikes ended former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's crackdown on ethnic Albanian separatists — and is currently patrolled by a 16,000-strong NATO-led peacekeeping force.

Ahtisaari has said his plan focuses on the protection of Kosovo's small Serbian minority and envisages a strong international presence backed up by the NATO peacekeepers.

International mediators have held yearlong talks between ethnic Albanian and Serbian leaders on issues such as giving self-rule to Serbs in areas where they form a majority, protecting their religious and cultural monuments and offering them constitutional guarantees so they are not overruled.

Oliver Ivanovic, a moderate Kosovo Serb leader from the ethnically divided city of Kosovska Mitrovica, said he was briefed earlier on key elements of the plan. He said Serbs "will have special rights in security, health services, education and cultural matters."

Diplomats said the plan also outlines post-status international supervision, with the European Union's top envoy in Kosovo likely to have veto power over laws and government decisions.

That would resemble the Dayton accords that ended Bosnia's 1992-95 war and established an international administrator to oversee that country's day-to-day affairs.

Associated Press writers Aleksandar Vasovic in Vienna and Garentina Kraja in Kosovo contributed to this report.