Qosja talks idea of partitioning Kosovo, strikes Sali Berisha

The prominent academicist Rexhep Qosja, questioned by the window.net, for the exchange of territories, provides a depleting answer to the concept of exchange, the concept of partitioning Kosovo.

The academy mentions early and present accusers, and especially shows his fears for participants in Kosovo's Kosovo talks, where the dilemmas prevail.

Although he does not directly mention the name, Qosja stands out against former Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha for the correction of borders.

Why, then, are those who were dependent on non-resistant, those accusers of partitioning Kosovo are accusing those who in no way did?

There may be reasons for this. First, ignorance. Second, resentments, which often define the content of the opinions of some of those accusers, and, third, perhaps the main one, attempt to clear its political life story in their non-vulnerable past”, Qosja wrote in his window analysis.net.

Transaction of Territorials

By Rexhep Qosja

The issue prompted many individual and party presentations in Kosovo, but also in Albania. And these presentations brought some concepts, notions, and political platoons. The main concept of these discussions became the tong word “Kosovo's zinger”.

Because of discussions about these concepts, notions, and platoons, it is seen that some authors do not understand them, while others misunderstand them may deliberately be. I can say that those who have used the concept of exchange of territories and those who have used the concept of mending the border between Kosovo and Serbia have never thought in any way, and never for partitioning Kosovo. The exchange of territories and the correction of the border do not imply division of Kosovo. The exchange of territories and the correction of the border mean movement, in fact changing borders at the edges of Kosovo, at the northern end of Kosovo.

For every person who thinks rationally, with data, arguments, with truths and rights in mind, the Kosovo division's order means partitioning of Kosovo, which would be done by a border, anyone would extend through Kosovo and its borders today.

I repeat: the exchange of territories and the correction of the border means only change of Kosovo's extreme northern border, not Kosovo's partition.

Why is it then that those who are dependent on non-virvability, those accusers of partitioning Kosovo are accusing those who in no way make this request?

There may be reasons for this. First, ignorance. Second, resentments, which often define the content of the opinions of some of those accusers and, third, perhaps the main, attempt to clean up its political life story in their ovable past

I say so because of those accusers who accused several former KLA political and military leaders, who eventually brought freedom and independence to Kosovo, of course because of the US and the European Union; among those accusers who accused Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama, who is the only politician in the history of relations between Albania and Serbia and Greece that Serbia and Greece had told the most serious truths that no Albanian politician had told them in Tirana or in Pristina to this day, it is not surprising that these accusers, who based on Kosovo's partition, so there was Kosovo's territory called bin bin bint, which is, and therefore half of Kosovo's half the option, and therefore, half of Kosovo's independence. For that reason, Albanians in Europe staged protests calling it a national traitor.

Among these accusers were those who, as participants in Kosovo's power at the time of the Milosevic regime's violence and terror in Kosovo, participated in orders to eliminate demonstrations of Kosovo Albanian youth by whom dozens of young people were killed.

Among these accusers were those who at the time of the Milosevic regime's violence and terror served the State Security of that regime with the most charged information, actually hostile to the KLA and the liberation war in Kosovo in general.

Among these accusers were those who, as party leaders in the years of '90s and as journalists and publicists at the time, denied any opportunity not only for independence, but also for establishing Kosovo's status in the Republic under the Federation or the Yugoslav Confederacy.

Among these accusers were those who participated in the drafting of their parties' programmes, which were registered at the Belgrade relevant ministry, and who denied any active resistance and that Kosovo's future saw in relation to the remaining Yugoslavia, which is finally with Serbia.

Among these accusers who stood up against the idea of partitioning Kosovo, which the accused did not ask for, was also an intellectual and intellectual in Tirana, but stood up with a soft, confused language, which, however, they said, because they are extraordinary connoisseurs of Albanian-Serbe relations, did not have the right to say.

For all these reasons the participation of these accusers in the discussions being made for future talks called final between Kosovo and Serbia, in my opinion, will not take seriously. In no way do I deny these accusers the right to change their former thinking, which is the truth they have changed after the liberation of Kosovo from the conquest of Serbia, but deny them the right to accuse others instead of the former self.

He will, meanwhile, take counsel with Kosovo's two top officials today with some illiterates, specifically consultations with the first illiterate, dominated by the Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts, which with their index finger made him head of that party and private academy in order to use that academy as they finally used it in talks on an interstate agreement on Kosovo already approved in the Kosovo Assembly.

He will seriously take up this issue: the issue of the Albanian delegation participating and participating in talks between Pristina and Belgrade. Kosovo has historians, has lawyers, has geographers, has anthropologists, has politicians, has intellectuals, with different historical and specific preparations for all problems and issues that could be raised in those talks. But in groups that so far talked in Vienna and Brussels and are even now talking in Brussels about the agreement between Kosovo and Serbia almost dominate the dilemmas. Not because they don't want to, but why they don't know, no good can be expected for Kosovo.

Those who are programming talks with Serbia and those who participated in discussions on exchange of territories and border corrections would have to know one thing: international factors usually in talks between the two sides do not allow one side to give anything of the other nothing.

Those who are programming talks with Serbia and those who participated in the discussions on the exchange of territories would have to try and learn that exchanges of territories, even parts of the population between the two countries, have taken place throughout history. And they've even become not too far in time even in the South East Balkans.

Those who are dealing with the above would have to know at last that major international factors do not usually oppose reconciliation between the two states and the two peoples even when certain general principles that they politically protect are affected.

Those who are getting what was said earlier, in particular those who are preaching the rhetoric of border correction, namely uniting the Presevo Valley with Kosovo, will have to know that international factors will not accept the right to self-replace the Albanians of the Presevo Valley and deny the right to self-determination of the northern Kosovo Serbs.

Let's say in the end, therefore, that those who oppose the exchange of territory between the Presevo Valley, including Presevo, the Morganic of Kosovo Medvegen and the remote North, to Mitrovica, the ram or sledk are donating to Serbia one and the other: The Presevo Valley as part of Serbia, while the north of Kosovo as substantial autonomy (as independence) in which the Kosovo authorities, as well as now, will bow down to the great monument of Knjaz Lazar.