A few days after the unilateral declamation of Kosovo independence on 19th February 2008, Washington Times came out with an editorial titled “Europe’s new jihadist statelet?”. The authors note that “Lawlessness and terrorism are likely to fester inside Kosovo — which is rife with organized criminal gangs and plagued by corruption” and continue by ascertaining that “remnants of the old drug-smuggling, arms-trafficking terrorist organization calling itself the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) are still active.
Though it may look unexpected at first glance, the initiative of the German Chancellor Schroeder (launched by him at the latest conference in Munich) on the necessity of transforming NATO and the establishment of an independent expert group to this end, which should elaborate in 2006 particular proposals for the transformation of the pact into a “largely political organization” is a logical continuation of concepts, supported by Schroeder himself and by other leaders from the so called “Old Europe”, about the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
The US endeavors to commit and subordinate the tasks for the maintenance of stability, liberty and democracy worldwide with their own strategic interests become more and more obvious. Moreover, the White House does not even consider it necessary to coordinate its foreign policy objectives with the international norms and the position of global international organizations (and most of all with the UN).
The statements, made by the newly-elected Ukrainian president Jushchenko, concerning the necessity of the country’s accession into the EU, raise a number of questions. It would be difficult to say what effect for the EU would have the simultaneous accession of the Ukraine and Turkey (the population of both countries is comparable to that of France), having in mind the fact that the negotiations with the latter are still pending.