[an error occurred while processing this directive]
By M. Bozinovich
The Revenge of the Prophet by Vojin Joksimovich is a significant book because it demonstrates the depth of the Jihadist nexus and its European aims once they are now there. By siding with Muslims in the Balkan wars, says the author, Clinton brought the al-Qaeda into Europe and in return got the bragging rights that America is not against Islam because it is indifferent to the destruction of Christian heritage in the Balkans.
Writes Gregory Copley in the Foreword of Joksimovich's book: "It would
be fair to say that Islamist terrorism has its 'forward command and control'
in Bosnia Herzegovina and has achieved the great goal of the psychological
warrior: it has caused the Western societies to host it, subsidize it,
and protect it."
Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Philippines, Kashmir, Sudan... are all wars Muslims are involved in with their cultural neighbors and this book signals a reader that these are not haphazard events allegedly caused by intolerant Christians, Hindus, animists... but a planned and organized Jihadist campaigns to acquire "lebensraum" at the expense of lives and heritage of non-Muslims.
Indeed, Joksimovich is correct that starving the Jihadists of funding will greatly reduce the Islamist potential for global violence: the author lays blame for this funding squarely on Saudi Arabia and virtually equates that Islamic kingdom with the root cause of the terrorism problem. Starving the beast for money, as a practical policy prescription for the West that the author advocates, is then indeed correct but only if West is interested in containment of the beast, and then live happily ever after in fear: of rogue states, open borders, drug and people smuggling, hostile Middle East dictators...
Clearly, containment is not about victory but of minimizing losses and even as of this interview it remains debatable if funding is the root cause of Islamic violence or perhaps just acts of prophet's disciples that happened to be blessed by petrodollars and are now in a hot pursuit of an Islamic utopia much like their prophet once acquiring wealth of Medina Jews.
Perhaps Bosnia and Kosovo were loss minimization adventures by the West with the Christian Serbs as the sacrificial lamb for postponing just few more years of Islamic terror that eventually struck New York, Madrid London... The hardened Islamic holy warriors that fought Serbs in the 1990s, underlines the author, were somehow involved in all of these devastating terror attacks while the Muslim populace of Bosnia and Kosovo, even at a minuscule, provided logistics to these killer Muslims.
Yet the Jihad in Kosovo shows that there are policy limits of the Islamist containment though funding because the Islamist entrepreneurial spirit can and does bypass the official Jihadist charity channels by relying on brutal criminal networks that span from a heroin warehouse in a Kosovo Albanian village to a production facility in Afghanistan.
"Eighty percent of the gross income in Kosovo is attributable to criminal activities. Kosovo Albanians comprise 14% of arrested smugglers throughout the world," writes Joksimovich.
Dwarfing Albania and Bosnia, Washington's anti-terror funding is by far the largest in Kosovo. As this Taliban-style narco-statelet of Kosovo seeks to become the newest addition to the European collection of states, Joksimovich's book alerts to the dangers independent Kosovo would have to the very fabric of Western life that lurks as the status decision on this Serbian province is nearing.
Is independent Muslim Kosovo a threat to Europe and if so how?
Joksimovich: Part of the grand Islamist strategy is reislamization
of the Balkans and in particular creation of the green highway as a path
to conquest of Europe. This is a part of umma. Bosnian jihad was all about
creation of the first Islamist state in Europe. Kosovo jihad was of secondary
importance but nonetheless key to the green highway domination. Kosovo
as a UN protectorate has been a threat to Europe and an independent Kosovo
would be even more so. On UNMIK/NATO watch 150 Serbian churches and monasteries
have been demolished while 200 mosques have been built. This trend will
propagate into Western Europe in not too distant future: Kosovo today,
Europe the day after tomorrow. There are currently about 20 million Muslims
living in Western European countries. The Libyan leader, Muammar Gadhafi,
predicted that in a generation or two Europe would be fully islamized.
Do you think Serbia can ever be the American ally if US does not prevent the detachment of Kosovo from Serbia?
Joksimovich: The U.S. is currently preoccupied with its hegemonistic policies in Central Asia (Afghanistan) and the Middle East (Iraq) and will be for some time to come. Then there are also notable challenges from Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela. The Balkans is somewhere close to the bottom of priorities and is left in the hands of a third-tier decision makers in the State Department who essentially continue with the Clinton administration policies to “finish the job” in Kosovo. A reversal of these flawed policies would require an involvement of the first tier. Senator Voinovich has written a letter to President Bush requesting that he invite Kostunica and Tadic to Washington. The Serbian leaders can tell president Bush that the Serbian people are fed up with the Western policies of demonization and punishment of Serbia. Unless there is a reversal of the U.S. policy vis-à-vis Kosovo, in my humble opinion Serbia should look elsewhere for potential allies. Shanghai’s Co-operation Organization is an alternative. Kostunica walked out of the meeting with Putin “extremely satisfied.” It should also be born in mind that there are EU countries supporting the Serbian position like Italy and Greece as well as EU candidates like Rumania and Bulgaria.
You cite compelling evidence of al Qaeda presence in the ranks of Kosovo Albanian militia. How does one translate this into a concrete policy option for Serbs and Americans on the upcoming status decision?
Joksimovich: A compelling case must be made that Serbia is a Western ally in the war on terror. A concrete policy for the Serbs to retain Kosovo is to publicly target the Kosovo Albanian leaders KLA background and in particular their war crimes, their criminal and terrorist track record. The international law and eradication of Christianity should be other trump cards. As I understand the U.S. is currently the biggest foreign investor in Serbia. Commerce plays a dominant part in the U.S. foreign policy decisions. Hence, this aspect should be added.
For America, upon recognition that continuation of Clinton's flawed Balkan policies is not in the American best interest and there should be a gradual shift from the policy of appeasement and support of Albanian thugs to a policy of containment.
In the 1990-92 period, Western powers decided to break up Yugoslavia into their constituent Republics and put them into EU. Milosevic refused that break up and was willing to back that up by force. Is this coincidence of interests between Jihadists and the West that we could interpret as temporary by historic terms?
Joksimovich: Milosevic and his socialists back in 1990 established the policy that if integrity of Yugoslavia cannot be preserved the republican borders should be redrawn. David Owen in his book Balkan Odyssey revealed that the Dutch EC presidency (July 1 through December 1991) suggested this option of redrawing the republican borders. Owen says that incomprehensibly all 11 other EC countries rejected the proposal. It is absolutely not a coincidence. Since 1945, on many occasions the U.S. used the Jihadists to advance its strategic policies in various parts of the world. My book discusses at length several examples of these policies. I will single out 2 out of 8 chapters in the book: Faustian Deal with Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan: U.S. Proxy War, Afghan Arabs and Taliban. The other two chapters: Clinton Administration: Bin Laden Silent Partner and Bush-43 Administration: War on Terror contain examples of these policies as well.
Do you then believe that the inner Bush circle is more competent to figure out US interests in the Balkans then the State Department?
Joksimovich: I do not perceive it as an issue of competency. The first tier has the power to make a shift from the state of inertia into a support of those in the Balkans who are true US allies in the war on terror. President Bush, as the chief executive, can order an independent audit of US Balkan policies using due diligence principles as I have discussed in my three-part serbianna column.
Balkan Muslims are increasingly involved in Jihad violence as EU is attempting to integrate Balkans. Are there any policy implications for the future of EU once these two Muslim regions become part of the EU?
Joksimovich: I do not think that the EU is currently trying hard to integrate so called Western Balkans into the EU; it is by and large rhetoric only. In this protracted process of joining the EU they do not even distinguish between Muslim and Christian countries despite the problems experienced with their own Muslim population. As we speak Turkey enjoys the candidate status. Albania is ahead of Serbia! Full integration of Muslims, Turkey in particular, will in my opinion mark beginning of the EU end. Remember words in Izetbegovic’s Islamic Declaration: “No peace or coexistence.”
Christians in the Balkans are the Europeans that have had first hand experience of living under Islamic rule as oppose to, say English, who just dealt with them. Why do West and EU discount and trivialize this historical experience with Islam and Islamic governance?
Joksimovich: They are doing disservice to their own citizens. There are several principal reasons: Oil, even more importantly Petrodollars, as well as the left wing, neo-Marxist, ideology that favors minorities over majorities among other absurdities.
Your book is critical of Clinton policy towards Serbs. What should have been the correct one?
Joksimovich: As far as I am concerned the U.S.-Serb relations peaked out when President Wilson honored the Serbs in 1918 and when the Serbian flag was raised over the White House on the fourth anniversary of the Austro-Hungarian aggression on Serbia. Initially, during the WWII there was an admiration for General Mihailovic and his chetniks. President Truman awarded General Mihailovic with the Legion of Merit Award in 1948 but it was kept secret by the State Department for 22 years. The Anglo-American decision to abandon General Mihailovic in favor of the communist dictator Tito in 1943 was the first in a series of anti-Serb policies pursued by various American administrations, which lavishly supported Tito. Tito’s doctrine was Small Serbia—Strong Yugoslavia. In 1991 the U.S. opposed dismemberment of Yugoslavia.
However, by virtue of recognizing Bosnia in April of 1992 and sending a warning Christmas letter to Milosevic regarding Kosovo, president Bush 41 explicitly sided with the same entities in Yugoslavia favored by Adolf Hitler: Croatia, Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians. In one way or another, President Clinton inherited these flawed policies but took them one huge step further by authorizing the U.S./NATO military interventions in all three hot spots. For years I have advocated that the true U.S. allies in the Balkans should be the Serbs and the Greeks assuming that the U.S. cared about stability in the Balkans. Probably the choice of Serbia and Greece in 1990s as U.S. Balkan allies was somewhat unrealistic because Germany and Turkey were the pillars of NATO. However, there was nothing to stop Clinton from opting for the role of neutrality. He should have offered his good offices to mediate the conflicts at least along the lines pursued by Cyrus Vance as the UN envoy. President Bush 41 probably would not have used the military force.
Is violent Jihad a Wahhabi phenomenon or is this Saudi proselytism you describe in your book only the trigger for an existing Islamic religious kernel that has deified violence under a particular religious principle?
Joksimovich: In case of the Wahhabi creed of Sunni Muslims, also known as Salafis, even the Shiite Muslims are considered “non-believers.” To the Wahhabis, Jihad is the life-blood of Islam. In their dangerous ideology Jihad protects Islam and also extends its reach through proselytism.
In your book you write that "it is far-fetched, but not impossible, to create an ally out of Iran." Isn't the regime change in Iran, as Bush might advocate, the only option then?
Joksimovich: I do not believe so. Iranians are predominantly Shiites. The conflict between Sunnis and Shiites started with the death of the Prophet and has existed in one form or another for 14 centuries. As far as I understand the Russian Orthodox Church maintains contact with the Iranian clerics but not with the Wahhabi clerics, which are beyond redemption.
Muslims are involved in more then half of world's conflicts. In your book you advocate Manhattan Project-style energy independence initiative. What effect, if any, would this have on the ratio of incidence of Muslim violence across the world?
Joksimovich: It would substantially reduce the number of petrodollars available for funding various jihads, mosques and Islamic centers round the globe.
You seem to have given up on the idea of influencing Islamic outlook on the world. Why?
Joksimovich: I have given up on the Islamist not Islamic outlook. In my book I make a distinction. Wahhabis and their equivalents in Pakistan are Islamists. Paradoxically Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are considered US allies in the War on Terror.
As a physicist, which energy source should be tapped by the Project: hydrogen, ethanol... or any other. Please explain.
Joksimovich: For the electricity generation we should predominantly
rely on nuclear power plants like the French do. For other energy needs
we should primarily rely on natural gas and hydrogen. I see the role of
ethanol only in the interim. Since it takes 30 or so years to fully develop
a new technology with its associated infrastructure, we must drill for
oil and natural gas in Alaska and off various coasts like the one in California,
which needless to say is currently politically suicidal.