- Spitfire List - http://spitfirelist.com -

FTR #627 Going Native, Part IV

Record­ed March 9, 2008
MP3: 30-Minute Seg­ment [1]
REALAUDIO [2] NB: This RealAu­dio stream con­tains both FTR #627 and FTR #628 in sequence. Each is a 30 minute broad­cast.

[3]

SS Tibetan Expe­di­tion

The broad­cast ana­lyzes Ger­man deep for­eign pol­i­cy in the Balkans—the seces­sion­ist move­ment in Koso­vo in par­tic­u­lar. Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance is the pol­i­cy of pro­mot­ing “volks­grup­pen­rechte,” or the rights of native peo­ples, as a vehi­cle for effect­ing realign­ment in the post-Cold War world. Super­fi­cial­ly appear­ing to be an enlight­ened, egal­i­tar­i­an pol­i­cy, the strat­a­gem is actu­al­ly a tac­tic for using dis­si­dent eth­nic minori­ties as a vehi­cle for desta­bi­liz­ing and frag­ment­ing tar­get­ed rival states—much larg­er states in par­tic­u­lar. British, French and Amer­i­can pol­i­cy, while cor­re­spond­ing to the Ger­man stance, did so for ide­o­log­i­cal and hege­mon­ic motives relat­ing to those nations’ own for­eign and nation­al secu­ri­ty poli­cies. Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance for our pur­pos­es is the fact that the Green par­ty and its coali­tion allies in the Fed­er­al Repub­lic sup­port­ed and con­tin­ue to sup­port the “volks­grup­pen­rechte” pol­i­cy vis a vis Koso­vo. In pur­su­ing Koso­var inde­pen­dence, the Fed­er­al Repub­lic of Ger­many and its Green con­tin­gent are reca­pit­u­lat­ing Nazi pol­i­cy in the Balka­ns. Note that one of the antecedents of the KLA is the 21st Waf­fen SS divi­sion (Skan­der­beg).

Pro­gram High­lights Include: Review of the deci­sive role of Ger­many in pro­mot­ing the dis­so­lu­tion of Yugoslavia, in con­trast with the stance of the major­i­ty of oth­er EU mem­bers; review of the “going native” or “volks­grup­pen­rechte” pol­i­cy as prac­ticed by the Haps­burg polit­i­cal front the UNPO; dis­cus­sion of the Ger­man Green Party’s tran­si­tion from being a “peace” par­ty viewed by the for­mer Sovi­et Union as a major rea­son for per­mit­ting the reuni­fi­ca­tion of Ger­many into a “war par­ty,” advo­cat­ing the seces­sion of eth­nic groups from the for­mer Yugoslavia—an event that trig­gered the Balka­ns wars of the 1990’s. (For more back­ground on Germany’s piv­otal role in effect­ing the dis­so­lu­tion of Yugoslavia, see FTR#154 [4]. For more about the Balka­ns wars and Koso­vo, see FTR#’s 147 [5], 149 [6], 151 [7], 153 [8], 159 [9], 161 [10], 165 [11], 184 [12].)

[13]

Dalai Lama and SS Tutor Hein­rich Har­rer

1. The broad­cast ana­lyzes Ger­man deep for­eign pol­i­cy in the Balkans—the seces­sion­ist move­ment in Koso­vo in par­tic­u­lar. Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance is the pol­i­cy of pro­mot­ing “volks­grup­pen­rechte” or the rights of native peo­ples as a vehi­cle for effect­ing realign­ment in the post-Cold War world. Super­fi­cial­ly appear­ing to be an enlight­ened, egal­i­tar­i­an pol­i­cy, the strat­a­gem is actu­al­ly a tac­tic for using dis­si­dent eth­nic minori­ties as a vehi­cle for desta­bi­liz­ing and frag­ment­ing tar­get­ed rival states—much larg­er states in par­tic­u­lar. (FTR#’s 550 [14], 615 [15], 616 [16] also cov­er the top­ic of “volks­grup­pen­rechte,” explor­ing how the tac­tic is exploit­ed by the Under­ground Reich. In addi­tion to the Fed­er­al Repub­lic of Ger­many, Under­ground Reich enti­ties and allies such as the House of Haps­burg and the Haps­burg polit­i­cal front the UNPO have used this tac­tic to gen­er­ate sup­port for the Dalai Lama and Tibetan activists, as well as for Uighur Mus­lim activists seek­ing seces­sion from Chi­na. Note that the advo­cates of “volks­grup­pen­rechte,” per­haps augur­ing efforts to frag­ment a weak­ened, bank­rupt Amer­i­ca in the future, have cham­pi­oned eth­nic minori­ties with­in the Unit­ed States.
(“Ger­many and the Koso­vo: How Ger­many Paved the Way for War” by Matthias Kuntzel; 4/16/2000.) [17]

2. Not­ing Germany’s empha­sis on “Going Native” or “volks­grup­pen­rechte” as a key strat­a­gem of Ger­man for­eign pol­i­cy, the pro­gram relates this strat­e­gy to Germany’s grow­ing posi­tion in the post-Cold War world. Where­as the US for­eign pol­i­cy vis a vis the carv­ing up of Yugoslavia remained rel­a­tive­ly ambigu­ous dur­ing the Clin­ton admin­is­tra­tion, it ulti­mate­ly con­formed to the Ger­man par­a­digm defined by “volks­grup­pen­rechte.” Be sure to read the entire essay in order to grasp nuanced aspects of Amer­i­can Balka­ns pol­i­cy, and how British, French and Amer­i­can pol­i­cy, while cor­re­spond­ing to the Ger­man stance, did so for ide­o­log­i­cal and hege­mon­ic motives relat­ing to those nations’ own for­eign and nation­al secu­ri­ty poli­cies. “In 1991, a del­e­ga­tion of the Ger­man Bun­destag vis­it­ed Koso­vo for the first time in order to talk with Koso­vo Alban­ian nation­al­ist lead­ers. This prompt­ed – as ear­ly as 1991! – the warn­ing by a senior mem­ber of the Yugosla­vian par­lia­ment that ‘the British and the Ger­mans would cre­ate a com­mon inter­ven­tion force with 70,000 sol­diers in order to inter­vene in Koso­vo.’ Indeed an ear­ly and accu­rate prophe­cy! So what about Germany’s role in prepar­ing for the Koso­vo war? There were and there are strate­gic dif­fer­ences between Ger­man and the US poli­cies about how to retain or enhance hege­mo­ny. ‘As a wealthy sta­tus quo pow­er, the Unit­ed States has an inter­est in main­tain­ing inter­na­tion­al order’, wrote Joseph S. Nye, Jr, a for­mer US deputy sec­re­tary of defense. ‘In a world where there are some two hun­dred states but many thou­sands of often over­lap­ping enti­ties that might even­tu­al­ly make a claim to nation­hood, blind pro­mo­tion of self-deter­mi­na­tion would have high­ly prob­lem­at­ic con­se­quences.’ Berlin, how­ev­er, in seek­ing to cre­ate con­di­tions for an ongo­ing expan­sion of Ger­man influ­ence (that means: chang­ing the inter­na­tion­al order) does not share this pri­or­i­ty. As Rupert Scholz, the for­mer Ger­man sec­re­tary of defense, explained: ‘The aim of main­tain­ing ‘sta­bil­i­ty’ in Europe seems to be a most dan­ger­ous one. There will not be any real sta­bil­i­ty, which is able to main­tain peace, if indi­vid­ual nations are held pris­on­er in unwant­ed and unnat­ur­al (‘unnatür­liche’) state orga­ni­za­tions, which have been imposed upon them.’ Since 1990, Ger­man for­eign pol­i­cy has ‘con­stant­ly per­sist­ed in active­ly advo­cat­ing a uni­ver­sal right of self-deter­mi­na­tion.’ . . .”
(“Ger­many and the Koso­vo: How Ger­many Paved the Way for War” by Matthias Kuntzel; 4/16/2000.) [17]

3. The Ger­man “Going Native” pol­i­cy in rela­tion to the Koso­vo was sup­port­ed and per­pet­u­at­ed by the Green Par­ty, its allies and ide­o­log­i­cal advo­cates: “ . . . This idea of push­ing the Kosovo´s Alba­ni­ans towards a mil­i­tary con­fronta­tion with Milo­se­vic in order to cre­ate a Koso­vo pro­tec­torate from now on became the cen­tral point of Germany’s Koso­vo pol­i­cy – either by the Kohl/Kinkel CDU gov­ern­ment or the Schröder/Fischer SPD-Green coali­tion. One con­di­tion was that inter­na­tion­al troops be sta­tioned on Koso­vo soil. As ear­ly as March 1998 Ger­many accord­ing­ly put this mat­ter on the agen­da at the Lon­don meet­ing of the inter­na­tion­al Con­tact Group on Yugoslavia. . . .” (Idem.)

4. More about the Green sup­port for Koso­vo inde­pen­dence: “ . . . Even Germany’s red/green coali­tion gov­ern­ment does not want to rec­og­nize Koso­vo as being a province of Yugoslavia. That is the rea­son why in his last major state­ment Josch­ka Fis­ch­er – Germany’s vice-chan­cel­lor and sec­re­tary of state – let the ques­tion of ‘the future sta­tus of the Koso­vo’ open claim­ing that it would be impos­si­ble to resolve this now. In an inter­view with a French news­pa­per, how­ev­er, he made clear that he had no doubts about the Kosovo’s future sta­tus: ‘The inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty is present in Koso­vo and the Balka­ns in order to show that – accord­ing to the exam­ple of resolv­ing the ‘Ger­man ques­tion’ in 1990 – the ‘Alban­ian ques­tion’ could be resolved only with the agree­ment of the neigh­bor­ing states.’ . . .” (Idem.)

5. In pur­su­ing Koso­var inde­pen­dence, the Fed­er­al Repub­lic of Ger­many and its Green con­tin­gent are reca­pit­u­lat­ing Nazi pol­i­cy in the Balka­ns. Note that one of the antecedents of the KLA is the 21st Waf­fen SS divi­sion (Skan­der­beg). (For more about the his­to­ry of the Skan­der­beg divi­sion and oth­er Balkan Mus­lim Waf­fen SS divi­sions, see—among oth­er programs—FTR#’s 414 [18], 456 [19].) “ . . . Just like 1991 Ger­many again stood near­ly alone against a huge major­i­ty of coun­tries in Europe and the world. Just like 1991 Ger­many again sup­port­ed a move­ment with a back­ground root­ed in the Nazi past, because the KLA is part­ly led by the sons and grand­sons of extreme right-wing Alban­ian fight­ers, the heirs of those who fought dur­ing World War II in the fas­cist mili­tias and the ‘Skan­der­beg Vol­un­teer SS Divi­sion’ raised by the Nazis. The ‘Nation­al Front of Alba­nia’ (Bal­li Kom­be­tar) which col­lab­o­rat­ed with Nazi lead­ers in 1943/44 today boasts about its influ­ence with­in the KLA which has a pro­gram that seems to be a mod­i­fied ver­sion of the 1943 Nazi utopia. Thus the pro­gram of ‘eth­nic cleans­ing’ which Ger­many export­ed into the Balka­ns in 1941 remained alive with­in the move­ment of the Koso­vo Alban­ian nation­al­ists dur­ing the 80s. ‘The nation­al­ists have a two-point plat­form’ wrote the New York Times in 1982: ‘First to estab­lish what they call an eth­ni­cal­ly clean Alban­ian repub­lic and then the merg­er with Alba­nia to form a greater Alba­nia.’ When­ev­er the KLA talks about ‘lib­er­a­tion’ or ‘free­ing’ this has been up to now under­stood in the Nazi-sense of ‘free of some­thing’ i.e. ‘free of Jews’ (‘juden­frei’), ‘free of Gyp­sies’ or ‘free of Serbs’. No one could be real­ly sur­prised when, begin­ning with June 1999, the de fac­to rule of the KLA turned out to be a dai­ly and a dead­ly trap for thou­sands of non-Alba­ni­ans, espe­cial­ly defense­less Serbs. . . .” (Idem.)

6. We should not fail to note that “volksgruppenrechte”—applied to Ger­man­ic minori­ties in oth­er countries—was a key diplo­mat­ic weapon exploit­ed by the Third Reich. Nazi annex­a­tion of the Sude­ten­land and Czecho­slo­va­kia as a whole was a par­tic­u­lar­ly dra­mat­ic exam­ple of this. The 1939 book Armies of Spies [20] by Joseph Golomb doc­u­ments and ana­lyzes ear­ly Nazi use of “volks­grup­pen­rechte.” The book is avail­able for down­load for free [20].) FTR#’s 615 [15], 616 [16] set forth con­tem­po­rary “volks­grup­pen­rechte” exer­cised on behalf of the Ger­man­ic minor­i­ty in North­ern Italy and used as an ide­o­log­i­cal ally and oper­a­tional par­a­digm for the “going native” strat­e­gy man­i­fest­ed by the Dalai Lama’s milieu.