Neither Partition, Nor Adjustment of Kosova Borders

The purpose of this essay is to clarify wrong and speculative concepts and views about colonial issue of Kosova. I believe that this time when Kosova becomes independent from colonial Serbia (February 17, 2008) should not insist in the changing or adjustment of its borders with Serbia because that would turn into new armed conflicts as in the 1990’s between them. Surely that would impact on neighbouring countries as a consequence of the domino political theory.

First of all, both Hashim Thaçi (a President of the Republic of Kosova) and Alexander Vucic (a President of the Repulic of Serbia) before they reach any bilateral agreement in order to change or adjust borders between Serbia and Kosova, should take into account these main historic and political reasons.

First, Kosova is not a minority, but a colonial problem. Second, Kosova is a part of the integral indigenous territory of Ethnic Albania, not of Serbia. Third, the right solution of the future politicial and juridical status of Kosova as an independent and sovereign state as a subject of international law and as a member of the United Nations must be according to the contemporary international law of self-determination and de-colonization forms which are the basis of one, and should be applied on Albanian Kosova in conformity with the principle of equal rights of nations, large and small (Preamble,Chapeter I, Artcle 1 Purposes and Principles of UN Charter). Fourth, these undeniable arguments should take into account by the United States of America and its Western European allies who already have recognized Kosova as an independent and sovereign nation since February 17 of 2008.

In order to accomplish these very important tasks, this work must take into consideration the relevance of the criteria and values (freedom, security, order, justice, democracy, peace, welfare and human rights etc.) of the New World Order as a lasting basis and hope that the international system will becoming more peaceful and just for all nations, large and small, such is Albanian nation in Balkans, too, which 50% of it’s territory is still under colonial rules of neighbor Serbian-Slavs, since 1912. Beside of the United Nations, in this context, the main role ought to play the United States of America as a creator, and defender of the New World Order, democracy, human writes and legal rules of international community.

There are scholars, statesmen, analysts and so on, who don’t know the historical, ethnic and geopolitical truth about Albanian Kosova, as a result for lack of their insufficient professional acknowledgement about real historical Albanian sources. They are used to being served only with Serbian false and sophisticated ones. There’s no doubt that they’re sui generis self-victims of “Serbian truth,” because of the fact that they still believe to Serbian state anti-Albanian irrational propaganda, and to bad-fame Serbian Orthodox Church myth that “Kosovo is cradle and heart of Serbia and Serbs.”

Among these one-sided and misbalanced scholars, politicians and analysts there’s no doubt professor of the Northwestern University School of Law of Pittsburg, Anthony D’ammato is for unknown reasons protecting Serbian anti-historical, anti-juridical and non-political thesis that “Kosovo should be partitioned between Albanians( 90%) and Serbian minority(7%).”

In order to “justify” his “juridical thesis” that partition of Kosova would be the right solution, A. D’amato expounded these “arguments”: (1) ” The United States is on the verge of pushing a resolution through the UN Security Council declaring Kosovo to be an independent multi-ethnic state. The result will almost certainly be a human rights disaster for the 200,000 Serbs living in that tormented land.” (Anthony D’amato: “Kosovo: The UN Plans a Human Rights Disaster” in[1]

Apart from this wrong scientific view and appraisal of professor Anthony D’amato about the United States official politics about Kosova, it’s true that United States has the legal and moral right to support the independence of Kosova, because of the fact that ones did a lot of work (such as human, economic, politic, diplomatic and military) to help Albanians escape (over 90%) from Serbian genocide and aggression in 1999.

This support is in conformity to president George W. Bush a New Doctrine of the National Security Strategy of the United States, who among others, said: “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” AP,21.01.2005)[2].

Either valid and very important argument why the United States helped, and will help Kosova which stressed (Ambassador James W. Pardew, Jr. Special Representative for Kosovo Implementation, U.S. Department of State is European stability) : “Kosovo is fundamentally a European security issue, and the NATO is the proper international security to deal with it. The European security and stability is a vital interest to the United States. However, there is more to our interests in Kosovo, than regional stability. The Serbs have displaced one million people in an effort to change the demographics of Kosovo, and, in the process, the have committed atrocities on a scale not seen since World War II.” (NATO Southeastern Europe, IFPA,MA, 2000,p.64-65).[3]

How will the “inevitable disaster” be caused for the Serbian minority (7%), when Kosova becomes an independent state?

This is a main reason and justification why the United States is going to push a new resolution on Kosovo independence which ought to be adopted by the United Nations Security Council during these two months (April-May) of this year. This is not contestable, but disputable is fickle ascertainment: “The result of pushing that resolution of Kosovo’s independence by the United States through the UN Security Council will almost certainly be a human rights disaster for the 200,000 Serbs living in that tormented land.” (Anthony D’amato: “Kosovo: The UN Plans a Human Rights Disaster,” Ibidem).[4]

This conclusion sounds more propagandistic and paternalist than concrete and objective because of the fact that prof. Dr. Anthony D’amato predicts “a human rights disaster for the 200.000 Serbs” What kind, and from whom will come that disaster for Serbian minority of 7%, if Albanian majority over 90% granted with “conditional independence” by the United Nations? How did he “dream” that kind of disaster? In this case, for A. D’amato, the “disaster” will come from Albanians as majority(90%), if they become independent from Serbia? Why, this so gloomy “dream” about the future of the Serbian minority in Kosovo?

Why such a big intimidation for Serbs in Kosovo, if Kosovo get its independence according to Marti Ahtisari Plan, when is very well known that plan is more favorable (because within native Albanian territory in virtue of the “decentralization standard” is predicted set up national-political and cultural autonomy for the Serbian minority of 7%, and Serbian Orthodox Church, thus, this “international principle” which in the future will lead to the partition process of Kosova’s territory, would be in the opposition to the historical right and international law of Albanians to their Kosova) for the Serbian minority, than for the Albanians as a majority (90%) because one doesn’t predict the right to self-determination of Kosova which would be the best way for progress, promotion and acceleration of the whole Balkans region towards EU integration, lasting peace and stability. Also, the only right and reasonable way to ensure the peaceful coexistence of Albanians and Serbs is to recognize full independence of Kosova which is necessary condition to achieve historical reconciliation between them because of the fact that Kosova’s unresolved colonial status is one of the major potential threats to the security and stability not only in the Balkans, but and in Europe, too.

D’Amato’s Wrong Theses

Because of the fact that Kosova gained its independence in February 17, 2008, but did not expel any Serbs and no confiscated their properties in Kosova.

Therefore, this D’amato’s thesis is wrong and unjustified when he says : ” The sad prognosis is that a Kosovar-dominated independent government will lose no time in confiscating the property and rights of the Serbian minority. Some 200,000 Serbs in Kosovo could lose everything they own and maybe their lives.” (Anthony D’amato, Ibidem)!?[5]

It is obviously that the author A. D’amato has speculated, and improvised with his political prognosis without valid arguments and reasons with “political probability” in detriment of Albanians, trying to reflect them as very dangerous, disastrous and denies of the future of the Serbian minority, if Kosova will get its independence, such as is engaged with their strategic plane the United States, the OUN, the EU being supporting the independence of Kosova under “international supervision.”

Why this A.Damato’s dismal, and astrological prognosis will never become concrete reality in Kosova, I would argue that taking into account the historical retrospective of the relations between Albanians as a majority an Serbs as a minority since 1912 up to now, Serbs have never been mistreated , massacred, terrorized, expelled, or killed in mass by any Albanian governments even though Kosova in continuity of its history was inhabited by Albanian majority, but Albanian majority has been that victim who paid a high price, and suffered from the institutionalization, extermination, massacred, terrorized, expelled, jailed, and killed by Serbian state and Serbs terrorists, and bands as that was the last genocide in Kosova committed by the Serbia (1998-1999).

Damato’s Strategema: “Partition as the Right Solution”

The challenge to make the future strategic and historical decision about Kosova’s status we mustn’t seek in anti-Albanian “scientific,” political and propagandistic efforts of Serbia and Serbian Orthodox Church and their Serbian-American Lobby be it in the United States, or in the other part of the Serbian diaspora spreading in the whole the world that by all means ( openly and furtively) are engaging to split out of the indigenous territory of Albanian Kosova. But the historic right and the international law guarantees the right of the self-determination to Alabanians in Kosova to have their independent and sovereign nation like the other nations in Balkans and Europe. This right was also verified by the International Court of Justice on 22 July 2010 in The Hague, assessing that “The declaration of independence of Kosovo did not violate international law.” ((

This is the right decision to vanquish age-long Serbian colonialism on Kosova. (1912-1999).

Otherwise, the other approaches in solution of the Kosova’s colonial issue aren’t regarded as rule of international law, and the United Nations Chart objectives and principles.

Therefore, to understand Kosova’s issue is necessary to take into account the self-determination as an anti-colonial legal principle which is key to understand the present world community. In this context, “The United Nations has a very important role to play in this regard [i.e. with regard to the implementation of the self-determination]. Wherever the exercise of the right to self-determination is violated, it is only natural that the mater be dealt with in the world organization. The denial of this right anywhere is a concern of peoples everywhere.” (Antonio Cassese, Self-Determination of peoples A Legal Reappraisal, Cambridge University Press,1996,p.156-157).[6].

In light of this example, we need to stress and this very important question of Antonio Cassese’s : “How, can we understand a polity without exploring its history?” In this sense, how, can we propose the partition Albanian Kosova, which legally has never been part of the Serbia, but its colony, only?

How, can do realize this unacceptable concept, when A. Damato knows very well that none of the parts in conflict neither Albanians, nor Serbs), and international actors involved in Kosova’s crisis won’t agree with it, as he considers , so : “What about partitioning Kosovo into a Serbian and an Albanian territory? There are for immediate problems with partition. The United Nations is opposed it together with The United States and the European Union (EU).” (Anthony D’amato, Ibidem).

Against these serious and insuperable obstacles, A D’amato has proposed this type of partition of Kosova’s territory: “The northern part of Kosovo consists of the land south of the boundary with Serbia and north of the Ibar river. Most of the religious buildings and places associated with the Christian Orthodox Church (Serbia’s historic heritage) may be found here. In total the well-demarkated area constitutes 15% of the territory of Kosovo. The simple and ideal partition plan would be to designate this territory as belonging to its Serbian population (it is currently populated almost exclusively with Serbs), and provide for Kosovar sovereignty over the remaining 85% of Kosovo.” (Ibidem). [7]

Even if Prof.Dr. Anthony D’amato had just read the book “Kosovo A Short History” written by Noel Malcom(1999), he certainly wouldn’t had suggested his “ideal partition plan” of Albanian Kosova in two parts (85% for Albanian majority, and 15% for Serbian minority). As he’s written, (obviously, not accidentally, but as convenient to Serbia and Serbs geopolitical and economic vital interests) he “reserved the right” for Serbs to keep 15% of the Northern Mitrovica city where there was no “Serbian historic heritage” as A. Damato says, but the biggest “Economical Serbian Orthodox Church” that called mine Trepca with its mineral resources (gold, silver, lead, zinc) because of these relevant indisputable historical arguments: (i) Just mine Trepca is the main cause why Serbia tries to separate Northern Mitrovica city which is not inhabited exclusively by Serbian minority, but by Albanians and other minorities. (ii) It’s not true, as A. Damato hard argues the fact that “Most of the religious buildings and places associated with the Christian Orthodox Church (Serbia’s historic heritage) may be found here.” (Ibidem). If the Northern Mitrovica is the main religious Serbs “heritage,” then, what about Monastir Gracanica, Monastir Decan and Patriarchate of Pec, which Serbs in continuity consider as “their heart and cradle” of ones civilization and culture, where are those located? – In “The northern part of Kosovo consists of the land south of the boundary with Serbia and north of the Ibar river.” (Ibidem) as noted in his proposed “ideal partition plan” A. Damato (which would be in favor to the Serbian minority of 7%)? – The response is negative, because they are located in central and Western territory of Kosova which is populated with Albanian majority of 90%, not in alluded Northern Mitrovica as he wrote in his analysis “Kosovo: The UN Plans a Human Rights Disaster.”

I reference to the issue (to refutation of A. Damato’s arguments about “Serbia’s historic heritage in northern part of Kosovo” because there hadn’t Serbian sacral heritage in Kosova, but in Serbia) where, and when are founded the Serbian sacral objects in Albanian Kosova, I would have quoted these historical axiomatic arguments which A.Damato didn’t take into account in his mentioned analysis : “The seat of the Serbian Orthodox Church was not founded in Kosovo; it merely moved there after its original foundation (In central Serbia) was burnt down. Nor does the Patriarchate have any continuous history as an institution: it was re-created by the modern Yugoslav state in 1920( having been defunct for 154 years), and since that date the Patriarch has tended to reside mainly in Belgrade. As for the Serbian empire, this was a medieval state which had its origins not in Kosovo but in Rascia, an area beyond Kosovo’s north-western border, and most of the important early medieval Serbian monasteries and churches were built outside Kosovo itself.” (Noel Malcolm, Kosovo A Short History , Introduction,1999,p. xxxi).[8]

Meanwhile, with regard to A. Damato’s very wrong mooted question: “according to international customary law, why should Kosovars (Albanians) get 85% of the land, and Serbs should be getting 15% of Kosovo when they only comprise 10% of the population?” – There are a lot of arguments why Serbs cannot getting any percent (zero percent) of Albanian Kosova. First, Serbian minority of 7% in Kosova is a colonial remnant. Second, Kosova is indigenous and integral part of territory of Ethnic Albania, not of Serbia.

These historical data are known from “Appianus and Herodotus and archaeological and anthropological findings, it is an established fact that, since ancient times, and today, too, Albanian Kosova has been inhabited by the Illyrians, who are the ancestors of the present-day Albanians who constitute 90% of its habitants, and henceforth must be rightly called Albanian Kosova.” (Të drejtat e Shqipërisë Etnike, vëll.I/fotoprint i origjinalit të botuar në Shkodër, më 1944,f.61-62; [9]

Third, Albanians in continuity of Kosova’s history have been majority, not minority as Serbian official statistics, false historiography, and Serbian Orthodox Church false data, too, have been presented for their public opinion, and external one. Fourth, “Serbia does not have a continuous history. For several hundred years, Kosovo was not part of Serbia, because there was no Serbia to be part of: during most of the long Ottoman period, Serbia did not exist as an entity at all. Kosovo was annexed de facto by Serbia within living memory, in 1912; de jure, it was not annexed by the Serbian kingdom at all.” (Noel Malcolm, Kosovo A Short History, Ibidem, p.xxxiii).[10] Fifth, Kosova has the right to self-determination and to be supported by the United Nations, the United States, the European Union (EU), NATO, OSCE etc., because it will contribute to the security, stability and lasting peace not only in the Balkans, but in Europe.

This unambiguous rational concept which is in favor to the Kosova’s independence, officially and rightly has assess MacShane “Speaking at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg/ October 4, 2006/ he says Kosovo Should be Independent. Denis MacShane MP, former Europe minister, has said that it will not be possible for Kosovo to be ruled by Serbia and that the international community should now accept that Kosovo will be an independent state within Europe. “There is no more chance of Kosovo returning to rule from Belgrade than there is of Latvia or Estonia returning to rule under Moscow. The time has come to let Kosovo be Kosovo. I believe Serbia has a great future as a European nation and one of the leading nations in all the Balkans. But the Serbs have to look to a 21st century future and that will not include being masters in Kosovo.” Mac Shane/.[11]

Serbia Has Zero Percent Sovereignty in Kosova

Apart from point of view that Serbia will never endorse independence of Kosova one, historically and legally has never had its sovereignty upon Kosova, but colonial sovereignty, only(1912-1999). This is the main argument why Serbia doesn’t have any legal right to interfere , and to be a part of the negotiation’s process organizing and maintaining by the international community (OUN, EU, NATO, USA) because one has spent its colonial sovereignty definitively in 1999, when Serbia did its last genocide in Kosova. Therefore, there’s no more any valid legal and political arguments that Kosova, and during this century(XXI) still be under colonial rule of Serbia.

Even if A. D’Amato had taken in consideration the right historical and juridical arguments that Kosova merits be independent state because it had the colonial status almost for 100 years under Greater Serbia, he wouldn’t continue with his “victim arguments” by claiming and preferring the partition of Albanian Kosova on behalf of Serbian sovereignty on Kosova?

As the top Serbian official authorities such as Alexander Vucic (current president) and Ivicia Dacic (Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister),and professor A. D’Amato should be cleared with their very wrong political, juridical and historical explanation about Kosova’s status because of the fact that Serbia has no more any percent of its legal sovereignty on Kosova. This crucial argument which must knows A. D’Amato and Serbia’s government.
Being that Kosova was a Serbia’s colony in continuity from 1912 up today (1999), in this case, professor A. D’Amato cannot be recalled on the name of “the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, and The United Nations Charter /as a legal international instruments in order/ to divide Kosovo into two parts of 15% and 85%, the Security Council will be acting under its Chapter VII powers to maintain or restore international peace and security.” (, ibidem).[12].

On the contrary, as the Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928, so “the United Nation Charter” with all its chapters legally prohibit all of types of the wars as well as of the colonial rules i.e. colonial wars within international community. In this case, there’s no excuse and exception for Serbia’s colonialism and hegemonism in Kosova.

However, against these arguments which supported the historical and legitimated truth about Albanian rights to Kosova, A. D’amato unclearly wrote: “If we analyze the question prior to the time of the civil wars in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, international customary law would clearly support Serbia’s claim to sovereignty over Kosovo. since then, if anything, that divested Serbia from its territorial rights in Kosovo?” (, ibidem).[13].

Unfortunately, and this Anthony D’amato’s conclusion is wrong because of the fact that in 1990’s in Yugoslavia there were not “civil wars,” but three Serbian aggressions in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosova in order to keep still these territories under cruel colonial rule of Greater Serbia, maintained by Slobodan Milosevic( ex-president of Yugoslavia: Serbia and Montenegro).

Why A. D’amato’s “international customary law” won’t “clearly support Serbia’s claim to sovereignty over Kosova”

My Arguments

First, by virtue of the SFRY Constitution of 1974, Kosova was recognized as one of the eight constituent sovereign entities of the SFRY with equal sovereign rights and the power to take part, together with the other independent entities making up the, in federal structures of the SFRY, including the Federal Executive Council and the Presidency, and the amendment the federal constitution. This was done apparently in application of the international law of self-determination and de-colonization, just as the Soviet Union did. Each of the eight sovereign entities of the SRFY attained the attributes of the “state”: defined frontiers not capable of beign altered without its consent, own constitution, own assembly, and own defence forces. The 1974 SFRY constitution does not contain any significant legal differences between the six republics and two autonomous provinces. Due to those provisions, the SFRY Constitution of 1974 asserted the real legal character of the SFRY as a regional international organization, not an unitary state. The structural connection of Albanian Kosova with Republic of Serbia under that constitution, was inferior to that legal status of separate identity, sovereignty, independence and statehood, and hence legally meaningless . That status of Albanian Kosova was thereby recognized by the other units of the SFRY. Since the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a member of the UNO, the status of Albanian Kosova as such was equally recognized by the states members of the United Nation Organization. This recognition cannot be withdrawn, neither by the other seven entities which were members of the SFRY nor by the states members of the UNO.

Second, In the collision of the constitution of the SFRY, Albanian Kosova was illegally and by force re-annexed in 1989 by the Republic Serbia, which matter breaks any structural connection between the two entities, and constitutes the obstruction of Albanian Kosova’s exercise of its independence, statehood and sovereignty. It was this annexation by force, and the commission of all forms of total obstruction of sovereignty, oppression and genocide that incited anxiety throughout the other republics of the SFRY, and pressurized them, except Montenegro (which from June, 2006 becomes independent state, separated from Union of Srerbia), to issue declaration asserting their sovereignty, independence , and statehood. This lead to the collapse of the SFRY and the genocide operations incited and carried out by the Serbian genocidal-expansionists. The collapse of the SFRY for that reason reveals the respect and the reaffirmation of the seceding four republics of the equal independence, statehood an sovereignty of Albanian Kosova.

Third, since the SFRY was in fact a regional international organization, its collapse renders its sovereign constituent entities free to enter or not to enter into a new regional international organization in the area of the former Yugoslavia.

Fourth, the obstruction by force of the statehood and sovereignty of Albanian Kosova and the collapse of the SFRY led necessarily to the declaration of independence of Albanian Kosova made by its Assembly in July 2, 1990 and was followed by /i/ its Constitution of September 7,1990 declaring Albanian Kosova a republic, /ii/ its declaration of September 22, 1991 as a sovereign independent state with the right of constitutional participation in the league of sovereign republic-states of Yugoslavia. /iii/ the declaration of October 19,1991 of Albanian Kosova as a sovereign independent republic on basis of the referendum held from September 26 through 30,1991 in the presence of international observers , with 87,01% of the electorate voting, from which 99,87% voted in favor of independence from SFRY, in assertion of Albanian Kosova’s separate identity, sovereignty, and the inalienable rights recognized by contemporary international law for the preservation of dignity, security of its indigenous people, territorial integrity, independence, statehood, and sovereignty.

Fifth, On the basis of the proclaimed declarations of independence and its own constitution, the independent republic of Albanian Kosova held in 1992 and 1998, in the presence of international observers, elections for the Parliament and the President of the republic, with the great majority of the registered electorate voting.

Sixth, the international legal status of Albanian Kosova is thus the status of an independent republic representing the genuine exercise of self-determination by its indigenous people, which is being obstructed by the Republic of Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

Seventh, The Government of the Republic of Albanian Kosova submitted on December 21, 1991 a formal communication to the European Union (EU), expressing its commitment to human rights and other criteria laid by the community and emphasizing that “it has never initiated, nor does it ever intend to initiate extra-territorial claims towards a neighboring countries, or that the Government has or intends to initiate hostile propaganda activities against a neighboring states, including the use of a denomination which implies territorial claims.”

This provides ample evidence of the peaceful and cooperative attitude of Albanian Kosova despite the repeated subjection of its indigenous people to genocide.

Eighth, the second London Conference on the Balkans convened by Western Powers in August 1992, admitted Albanian Kosova only as an observer and treated it as a “former autonomous province,” despite its legal history and its achievement of statehood and sovereignty as pointed above.

The results of that conference were as negative for Albanian Kosova as for Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Second London Conference adopted the principle of non-recognition of territorial gains by force, and called for “negotiations” without recommending any to put an end to the then ongoing Serbian genocidal-expansion in Croatia, in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Albanian Kosova.

Ninth, Affirming that the ongoing obstruction of the independence, statehood and sovereignty of Albanian Kosova is a form of the crime of aggression under contemporary international law, which urges the use of individual and collective self-defense by all means to retrieve the freedom to exercise self-determination, independence, statehood, and sovereignty.

Tenth, Considering that the above mentioned facts aggravate the Serbian colonial genocide against the people of Albanian Kosova, as is if Albanian Kosova with its 90% Albanian indigenous people would still belong to the 7% Serbian minority in Albanian Kosova an the Serbian nationalists outside Albanian Kosova, while those nationalists should assert their nationalism on their own lands an not on the lands of others, and this regard stressing that if the historical title is invoked, this title, in conformity with contemporary international law, necessary belongs to the Albanians in Kosova, being the indigenous people of that country, not to the Serbs, being the invaders.

The otherwise, invaders in history would have the right to re-invade and re-colonize, which acts are considered crimes in contemporary international law and would and would lead chaos, aggression and genocide throughout the world, and furthermore stressing that the international law of self-determination and de-colonization forms the basis of contemporary international law and should be applied on Albanian Kosova in conformity with the principle of equal rights of nations, large and small (Preamble of UN Charter),and again emphasizing that Albanian Kosova has already been decolonized and achieved in 1974 the status of an independent sovereign constituency of the former SFRY and, by the collapse of that regional international organization, exercised the inalienable right of self-determination of its indigenous people, and its statehood is again being obstructed since 1989 by the crimes of aggression and genocide committed by Serbian genocidal-expansionists, and in this regard deploring the use of the term “ethnic cleansing” to refer to the com, while those acts are forms of genocide, and “ethnic cleansing” is the end-in view of the commission of genocide.

Eleventh, Albanian Kosova has the inalienable right to exercise self-determination affirmed and reaffirmed in contemporary international law, and in particular by the UN law of de-colonization.

Twelfth, the members of the Security Council of the UN should resolve the political status of Albanian Kosova on basis of a meaningful self-determination according to the 1960 UN General Assembly “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People” (Resolution 1514 of Dec.14,1960) and its Resolution 2105 (X) of December 20,1965, in which the UN General Assembly ruled that the crime of colonialism has to be ended immediately without regard to the consent or wishes of the colonizing state, and that self-determination can only mean complete independence.

* The author is Permanent Member of the Albanian-American Academy of Sciences and Arts in New York.

Mehdi Hyseni is an Albanian Ph.D. in International Political Relations, residing in Boston.