Despite Donald Trump’s victory and the euphoria that surrounded it in Serbia, Western-funded NGOs show no willingness to withdraw from our region.
ALTERNATIVELESS SELF-DENIAL
One of the most active NGOs currently operating in our region, the Youth Initiative for Human Rights, continues through its projects and discussions to reshape the awareness and perspective of young people on the status of Kosovo and Metohija and its “independence as an inevitable reality.” Under the guise of reconciliation and political education, workshops with the telling title “What Do You Even Know” have been organized, inviting young people with the idea of encouraging them to become more actively involved in political life. The projects are planned to take place in Preševo, Novi Sad, Belgrade, and Niš, with free transportation provided to those cities for anyone who wishes to participate and passes a security screening.
Even the invitation to the workshops conveys a tone suggesting that the recognition of so-called Kosovo’s independence is a prerequisite for the progress of both Serbia and its youth. The attempt to reframe the youth’s mindset begins with imposing the belief that the status of Kosovo and Metohija is an obstacle hindering the economic, political, and social development of the country, as well as Serbia’s “alternativeless” path to the European Union. The fact that EU countries are facing enormous social, economic, migration, and sociological problems is, of course, ignored.
The choice of slogan under which the program is implemented, “What Do You Even Know?”, suggests that the local youth do not grasp the complexities of politics and that these Western-funded NGOs will provide them with the only correct insights.
SPONSORED CHRONOLOGY
As part of the announced activities, the Youth Initiative for Human Rights has also presented a publication titled “Kosovo Chronology” by Bekim Baliji. Its content follows a narrative largely focused on justifying Kosovo’s independence and emphasizing Serbia’s guilt in the Kosovo and Metohija war. Although the stated goal of this publication is formally educational, the content and tone reveal a clear political stance with no trace of neutrality. This is not surprising, given that the sponsor of this project is USAID, which is also a sponsor of the independent state of Kosovo.
The report by the Youth Initiative for Human Rights titled “Youth Attitudes Towards War and War Crimes in Kosovo” is protected, and any further reproduction without the organization’s permission is prohibited. However, the content available at the link https://yihr-ks.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/24×16-SERBIAN-1.pdf offers insights crucial for understanding the “What Do You Even Know” workshops, which are the subject of this analysis.
BELIĆI’S APPROACH TO REALITY
The author of this publication, Bakim Belići, a professor at the University of Pristina, is naturally one of the advocates for Kosovo’s independence. As an expert in political science and state structure, Belići has actively contributed to the project of revising history and constructing the narrative of Kosovo as a state. Thus, it is no surprise that the introductory part predominantly reflects the position of Kosovo Albanians, while the Serbian perspective is either marginalized or presented solely through the lens of responsibility for the conflicts.
For example, the consequences of the war experienced by the Albanian community are highlighted, whereas the suffering, ethnic cleansing, killings of Serbs, organ trafficking, and the disappearance of Serbian individuals are rarely or not mentioned at all.
Although the concept of “reconciliation” is discussed, it is framed in a way that implies the only path to agreement is the unilateral acceptance of Kosovo’s independence by Serbia. Additionally, Serbia is portrayed as the sole party that must take responsibility and accept the “reality on the ground,” leaving no room for analyzing events from the Serbian community’s perspective or for an objective approach. The conclusion is singular: Serbia was and remains the key culprit for instability.
REALITY CONTRADICTS
In the second part of the report, which addresses political processes, particularly the Brussels and Ohrid Agreements and the issue of forming the Community of Serb Municipalities (ZSO), responsibility is directed solely at Serbia. While the Albanian side is portrayed as constructive, open, and ready for any kind of dialogue and implementation of agreements, Serbia is depicted as a highly resistant obstacle stuck in time and space.
Reality, however, contradicts this narrative. The Serbian side has fulfilled all requirements from the Brussels Agreement, dismantled all Serbian institutions, and occasionally made moves inconsistent with UN Resolution 1244, such as forming the so-called Kosovo police, which, according to the Brussels Agreement, included Serbian police forces. Meanwhile, Pristina has failed to fulfill any obligations from the agreement, particularly the establishment of the ZSO. For Serbs, this measure is also harmful as it further restricts their rights in their own country, reducing them to the status of a citizens’ association.
Another significant topic of the report is the role of the international community, particularly the European Union and the United States. The author attributes an almost messianic role to these actors as mediators and guarantors of stability, without addressing their bias and the fact that their decisions have consistently harmed the Serbian side. The report also omits mentioning that their motives are unrelated to justice or historical events but are driven by geopolitical interests. By taking this stance, the author indirectly acknowledges that the Collective West has the greatest interest in finalizing Kosovo’s independence.
WHO IS THE DESTABILIZING FACTOR?
In the third part, titled “The Situation on the Ground,” which seems more like a parallel universe than reality, the author portrays Serbs as the primary source of conflict, citing protests, barricades, and isolated incidents as insurmountable problems causing discord and obstructing reconciliation.
On the other hand, the constant attacks on Serbs, the destruction and seizure of Serbian property and that of the Serbian Orthodox Church, discrimination, and the now evident plan for ethnic cleansing, which prevents a normal life for the Serbian population, are not mentioned at all.
Instead, the author focuses on incidents where Albanians were victims, emphasizing Serbia’s alleged responsibility for fueling tensions. Such incidents are often interpreted as the result of “Belgrade’s aggressive policies.” Legitimate concerns expressed by the Serbian community through protests over the violation of their fundamental rights are described as “attempts to destabilize,” while protests by Kosovo Albanians are treated as a fight for rights and freedoms.
The report also highlights the difficult life of Kosovo Albanians, which is also attributed to Serbia’s aggressive politics and non-compliance, but it fails to mention the more than 200,000 Serbs expelled from Kosovo after 1999.
RESPECTED FACTS
The concept of reconciliation, which by definition should include dialogue and addressing all sides of the conflict, is here reduced to a process in which Serbia is called upon to recognize Kosovo’s independence as a prerequisite for any progress. There is no room for any objective approach or consideration of facts.
Although the term “transitional justice” is often mentioned in this section, its application in the publication is highly selective. The author emphasizes the need for justice, but that justice recognizes only Albanians as victims. There is no mention of the ethnic cleansing of Serbs, missing Serbs, the Yellow House, organ trafficking, kidnappings, killings, or torture of Serbs.
There is also no acknowledgment of the fact that the crimes against Serbs were committed by terrorist groups such as the KLA, which at the height of the suffering of Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija was recognized even by the international community as a terrorist organization. Despite this recognition, they were logistically and financially supported during the war and subsequently elevated to a regular army following the signing of Resolution 1244, with their previous “acts” excused. It is therefore unsurprising that this revisionism is approved and funded by the United States.
A SUCCESSFUL WESTERN PROJECT
In the section dedicated to regional and international relations, the author openly acknowledges that an independent Kosovo is a Western project, even referring to it as a “successful project of Western powers.” The positive role of the United States, the European Union, and NATO is emphasized, with the author assuring readers that they are the architects and greatest friends of independent Kosovo, serving as guarantors of peace and security (but only for the Albanian population) and as mediators. Their role in promoting Kosovo’s independence and influencing political processes is presented as unquestionable.
From today’s perspective, with many classified documents now public, it is widely known that these very powers, celebrated by Albanians for good reason, actively participated in the war in Kosovo and Metohija by training, financing, and supplying the Albanian terrorists with military and other equipment. It is also no secret that NATO’s 1999 intervention was an illegitimate action, that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was made without UN approval, and that the 2004 pogrom of Serbs occurred under the watch of these same international actors.
BELGRADE AS A RECRUITMENT CENTER
This interpretation of reality offered by this and similar brochures is to be expected, but it is concerning that these publications originate from Serbia, from NGOs based in Belgrade, which recruit young people through manipulative methods and for a handful of dollars, attempting to create an army of obedient followers ready to believe their narrative.
The first task is to convince these young people that Serbia is the main blocker of Kosovo’s integration into the international community, including the United Nations, thereby “prolonging instability in the region.” This interpretation disregards Serbia’s legitimate legal and political arguments, including adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which affirms Serbia’s sovereignty over Kosovo and Metohija and is the only legally binding document, unlike the Brussels and Ohrid agreements, which are merely political arrangements.
The author also ignores the fact that many countries, including some EU members, have not recognized Kosovo’s independence, attempting instead to create the illusion that Kosovo has been recognized by most of the world, while Serbia is isolated in its stance.
SELECTIVE MEMORY
The Church of the Virgin of Ljeviš in Prizren, the Church of St. George in Prizren, the Church of the Holy Savior in Prizren, the Church of St. Nicholas (Tutic’s Church) in Prizren, the Monastery of the Holy Archangels near Prizren, the Church of St. Elijah in Podujevo, the Devič Monastery in Drenica, and the Church of St. George in Runjevac are just a few of more than 35 churches and monasteries burned during the 2004 pogrom in Kosovo and Metohija.
More than 1,000 Serbian homes were completely destroyed, over 4,000 Serbs were displaced, and 28 people were killed. At that time, KFOR, tasked with maintaining peace, passively observed as Albanian terrorists expelled and destroyed Serbian property, tortured, and killed Serbs. This summary reflects only 2004.
There is no mention of data from 1998-2000, during which over 6,000 Serbs disappeared without a trace, or of the infamous Yellow House, where organs were reportedly extracted from Serbs, disobedient Albanians, and Roma, allegedly with the cooperation of the international community. Silence also surrounds the 200,000 expelled Serbs and the ethnically cleansed cities of Prizren, Đakovica, and Priština, where no Serbs live today. Desecrated Serbian cemeteries and the risks Serbs face when visiting the graves of their loved ones, often being stoned, are also omitted.
The focus is exclusively on Albanian victims and the portrayal of Serbs as a destabilizing factor that must completely disappear from Kosovo for Albanians to consolidate yet another state in the Balkans and continue their expansion toward the so-called “Preševo Valley,” which this NGO also actively promotes.
THE THIRD ALBANIAN STATE AND THE DESTRUCTION OF SERBIA’S CONSTITUTION
Undermining the state order does not necessarily require a public call for disobedience; far more dangerous are the covert methods involving indoctrination. Workshops under the guise of reconciliation, promotion of human rights, and democracy are a direct assault on the constitutional order. The promotion of Kosovo’s independence as the only “reality,” while simultaneously ignoring the suffering of the Serbian people and imposing guilt on Serbs for crimes they did not commit, not only undermines Serbia’s sovereignty but also harms the process of genuine reconciliation and regional stability.
This NGO operates on multiple fronts. While promoting Albanian victims through the Mirëdita festival, it simultaneously supports Albanian separatists in Preševo, Bujanovac, and Medveđa, fabricating alleged violations of their rights by the Serbian state and using these claims to attempt to create a third Albanian state on Serbian territory. The project extends to shaping young leaders who will continue to expand the network and promote harmful and destructive narratives. Ignoring such actions could lead to profound consequences, both within Serbian society and in the context of its constitutional and internationally recognized legal rights.
