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 . For more about the Balkans wars and Kosovo, see FTR#’s 147 , 149 , 151 , 153 , 159 , 161 , 165 , 184 .)
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 , 615 , 616  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.) 
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.) 
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 , 456 .) “ . . . 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  by Joseph Golomb documents and analyzes early Nazi use of “volksgruppenrechte.” The book is available for download for free .) FTR#’s 615 , 616  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.