James “Jay” G. Shaw cscp
. · Fullerton, CA 92831
· JayGShaw
March 11, 2008
A LETTER TO MR. STEVE GREENBERG, CANDIDATE FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FOR ILLINOIS
Mr. Steve Greenberg
Republican Candidate for the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 894
Mundelein, Illinois 60060
Dear Mr.Greenberg;
Your political ‘fame’ has reached sunny California, abet not in a way that
your might have preferred. Frankly, to this registered Republican, your
attempt to smear Congresswoman Bean was just tawdry and foolish as well. The
statement you issued concerning her name and family background has no
rightful place in politics, a[l]be[i]t that may be the “Chicago Style” but
then I don’t live in Chicago.
I am a student of history and you can tell from my name (see above to make
certain you get it right) I am not Serbian. My ancestors (on my father’s
side are Scotch/Irish & English and on my mother’s side are German) helped
to make me your typical American, so take whatever shot you wish at me. But
insofar as what has happened to Serbia in the past couple decades needs a
response because you clearly don’t know history and should you by any
stretch of the imagination get elected to our Congress you will need to
smarten up.
Last month, after Hashim Thaci’s unilateral declaration of independence for
the Serbian province of Kosovo and President Bush’s statement of recognition
the following day, there were public displays of rage in Belgrade and other
locations. The US embassy in Belgrade was attacked. This was truly
unfortunate but it was mild compared to other lessons of history.. The
recognition of Kosovo is a serious mistake in judgment from my perspective
and from a majority of the nations of the world.
Fewer than 25 countries have given diplomatic recognition to Kosovo’s
independence. Representative Bean, along with others in the Senate and the
House, are attempting to get the US back on the right side of international
law and stop the foolish actions that were supported by both the Clinton
and Bush administrations.
Mr. Greenberg, if you want to attack a Democrat make your statements against
Senator Hillary Clinton because it was during the period of time when she
was present in the White House as first lady (and for which she wishes to
take credit for dealing with foreign policy issues) that the United States
of America, my nation, launched a 78 day military attack against Serbia.
Serbia did not attack the USA. In addition, during the breakup of the
former nation of Yugoslavia the Clinton Administration provided substantial
military assistance to the Croats and the Bosnian Muslims.
The Serbs have reason to be upset. But they have not conducted any
terrorist attacks on our Nation either. It is part of our political
culture to petition our government and to also try to educate our elected
political leaders on issues of importance. You are trying to be elected
to the US House of Representatives but your approach is way off base.
I am not a Constitutional scholar, nor am I expert in all areas of foreign
policy, yet I have spent decades studying our history and that of much of
the world. As I have learned over the years, the international arena is a
complex one and it has been fraught with mistakes and misunderstandings and
miscalculations throughout time with horrific results. The Balkans appears
to have contributed more than their share but before you go shooting off
your mouth in a political campaign and try to vilify an ethnic group (e.g.
Serbs) you need to learn from history so you will not repeat the errors of
the past..
We like to believe that the US is a nation of laws, bound by the observation
and rule of law and not of men (wielding power.) But the events of the past
two decades, at least insofar as the lands of the former Yugoslavia (also
referred to as “The Balkans”) are concerned don’t appear to bear this out.
Allow me the following observations;
Ø The internationally recognized State of Yugoslavia, an original
signatory to the United Nations’ Charter, as is the United States, had a
Constitutional provision for dealing with the dissolution of the State. It
could have been done peacefully with the agreement of all parties, but was
not observed and with German pressure both Croatia and Slovenia broke away,
followed by Bosnia..
Ø Throughout history, various nations have attempted to expand their
“spheres of influence” by various means. The British used colonies and
empire to provide one example, but this has been achieved also by the
establishment of (mutual defense) treaties and alliances (such as the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization/NATO) by the United States, and the now defunct
“Warsaw Pact” by the former Soviet Union. If you look closely, the
situation in Kosovo has a number of links to other interests of the United
States (military bases and related commercial channels.)
Ø The Charter of the United Nations, to which the United States signed
as a Treaty obligation in 1945, and to which I wish to note was accompanied
by sufficient ratification by the United States Senate as required by our
Constitution (Article II, Section Two) hereby having the standing of law to
the United States, holds that established national borders of sovereign
states are recognized as inviolate so why should the US recognize an
independent Kosovo now?.
Ø The Helsinki Final Act (1975) also addressed the issue of national
borders, and the United States is also a participant in this recognized
article. You need to think about this trend.
Ø When spheres of influence appear to conflict the friction that
develops can and has, historically, lead to war. This was also observed by
German/Prussian Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck (paraphrased as “When the War
comes it will come out of some damn fool thing in the Balkans“) and the
passage of years from the 19th century to the 21st century does not appear
to have changed this fact. Consider that the rule of “unintended
consequences” is alive and well and living with Murphy.
Ø Former President Clinton launched a 78-day aerial assault against
Serbia in March of 1999 without a declaration of war, much like current
President George Bush has launched a war against Iraq (and Afghanistan)
without a Congressional declaration (clear and unambiguous.) These issues
of separation of powers that must be resolved for all time if we are to be
truly a nation of law so if by chance you get elected don’t forget this..
Ø The Constitution of the United States has a provision (Article IV
Section Three) “no new State shall be formed or erected within the
jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the Junction of
two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the
Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” Why not
observe this principle when speaking about the situation in Serbia?
Ø The Legislature of Serbia was willing to allow a status of autonomy
for Kosovo much like the Aalan Islands of Finland (populated by Swedes), as
affirmed by both the League of Nations in 1921 and the European Union in
1995, as a peaceful resolution to the concerns of the ethnic Albanians in
Kosovo but the US has rejected this concept. Why?
Ø Recently, Harvard Professor Samantha Power, (recently found to have
called Hillary Clinton a Monster) wrote in TIME Magazine “If Kosovo’s
supporters were more transparent about the factors that made Kosovo worthy
of recognition, they could help shape new guidelines.” A good point. What
are the real motives? So think about this point: Are we saying we support
a bigoted policy that only supports a single ethnic/religious group (as is
the Albanian/Islamic majority populace in Kosovo?) Think again. It
appears to be so.
Ø Why it is in the interest of the United States of America that 15% of
the territory of Serbia be amputated and made potentially graft able to
another State (Albania), along with laying the groundwork for ethnic
Albanians in Montenegro, and The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(FYROM), and Greece to consolidate into a ‘Greater Albania’. Absent that
event, why do we believe that Kosovo, as currently constituted, can possibly
be viable and why in your judgment should the United States be supportive?
Ø I repeatedly read materials that add the adjective “nationalist” when
speaking of democratically elected political leaders in Serbia, yet would
you not agree that “nationalist” would also be an applicable adjective for
you and other political leaders here in the United States? Or is the word
only to be used in pejorative manner? What about the adjective of
“interventionist?”
I must confess at this point in this communication that I am a supporter of
Dr. Ron Paul’s approach to foreign policy; read: non-interventionist but not
isolationist. By profession I am an international businessman so I am a
believer in interaction between individuals, businesses, and countries with
mutual respect at all points. That being the case I also believe that in
some instances “no deal is better than a bad deal” and the recognition of
Kosovo as an independent State is certainly a “bad deal.” The correction
we normally use in international transactions is to amend or possibly cancel
a prior agreement that is no longer mutually beneficial.
Perhaps you should reconsider your approach to challenging Representative
Bean insofar as Serbia and Kosovo is concerned. One way to remove Serbia
from the increasing influence of Russia is to change the U.S. policy and
treatment of Serbia. It will take a strong leader to say that we have lost
our way and need to get back on a course that is meriting respect (and not
fear) throughout the world.
Sincerely yours,
James G. “Jay” Shaw III, cscp
COPY: The Chicago Sun-Times
350 N. Orleans Street
Chicago, IL 60603
The Chicago TRIBUNE
435 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611-4041
