[ Benche' affetto da una certa ossessione anticomunista, il
commentatore serbo-statunitense Nebojsa Malic sa descrivere con
profondita' e colore la attuale situazione nei Balcani. In questi due
editoriali che qui riportiamo, egli da una parte si chiede quali
confini debba/possa mai avere la Serbia, dall'altra chiede il ritiro
delle truppe di occupazione occidentali dall'area... ]
Two commentaries by Nebojsa Malic
SEE ALSO:
Imperial Balkans: A Legacy of Lies and Disasters (23/9/2004)
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=3640
Electing to Abstain (10/7/2004)
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=3721
(go to the original URLs to find many useful hyperlinks)
---
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/
Solving the 'Serbian Question: Empire's Sinister Plans'
Thursday, October 14, 2004 -- Balkan Express
by Nebojsa Malic
It was only a matter of time before someone said it: "[A]n old question
haunts the continent: Where should the borders of Serbia lie?" So began
Roger Cohen's commentary in the International Herald Tribune on
Tuesday, titled "The Serbian Question, Still on Europe's Plate."
Though the wars of the 1990s – which he blames squarely on Slobodan
Milosevic's "destructive vision" – are over, the "issues behind the
killing are not yet resolved," Cohen says. "Fundamental decisions will
have to be made soon – about the nature of Bosnian society, about
Kosovo, and about the future of the truncated federation of Serbia and
Montenegro."
Cohen is carefully vague, but the article makes it obvious what the
"solution" is likely to be. Total centralization of Bosnia and the
separation of Kosovo and Montenegro – the Morton Abramowitz platform,
to the letter – are presented as almost inevitable.
Kosovo as Paradigm
Cohen, like the rest of the Western press, frames Kosovo in simple
terms: "Serb minority" versus the "overwhelming Albanian majority" that
demands independence. One conclusion clearly follows from the
terminology: "An adjustment of borders may have to come one day."
The only thing shocking here is Cohen's admission. The Empire's
official propaganda arm, Voice of America, considers Washington
"sympathetic towards independence" in a report indicating all Albanians
are united on the issue. In just a few days, the Albanians will come
out and vote for a new provisional government, an institution created
under the "constitutional framework" by a UN viceroy in 2001.
Some may argue that the UN had no mandate to create a virtual state in
occupied territory where it was only authorized to provide "substantial
autonomy." That's true. It is also true that the armistice signed by
NATO and the Yugoslav military was not an act of unconditional
surrender, though NATO treated it as such. It is also true that NATO
and the UN mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) are in violation of the UN
Security Council Resolution 1244, which provides cover for the
occupation that resulted from an illegal war of aggression. And it is
also true that nobody cares – especially not the UN and NATO. The
Empire does not obey treaties; it creates them to demand the obedience
of others.
When the beleaguered Kosovo Serbs announced they would disobey the
Empire and not participate in the elections, both they and the
government in Belgrade faced enormous pressure. Prime Minister
Kostunica declined to coerce his compatriots in Kosovo, but President
Tadic caved in.
Not surprisingly, UNMIK praised Tadic's choice. So did the UN, Brussels
and Washington. "Participation will allow the minority community to
have its voice heard," said viceroy Jessen-Petersen last Wednesday, and
was echoed by the State Department spokesman the following weekend.
Of course, the reason Kosovo Serbs are boycotting the election –
Tadic's plea notwithstanding – is that their voice has not been heard
since 1999, despite them bending over backwards to collaborate with the
UN/NATO occupiers. Serb participation is not really about anyone having
a voice, but about lending legitimacy to the occupation regime.
Absence of Resistance
In the remainder of Serbia, official resistance to the rape of Kosovo
is virtually nonexistent. Serbia's dominant political parties all come
from the same bloc supported by the Empire in the fall of 2000 to
overthrow the government of Slobodan Milosevic. They know the Empire's
definition of "reformers": those who stay bought; all others are
denounced as "ultra-nationalists."
President Boris Tadic is a reformer, all right. The Empire has doubts
about Prime Minister Kostunica, but then no one can say for sure where
he stands – probably not even Kostunica himself. The AP casts Tadic as
a brave pro-Western voice and Kostunica as part of "those supporting
the hardline policies of confrontation by Milosevic and his loyalists."
But the truth is rather less dramatic. Kostunica's political quarrel
with Tadic is "over how far to bend to Western wishes" (Reuters), not
whether.
Last week, Tadic condemned Kostunica's policies of "not doing anything"
as "extremely inefficient and dangerous for our national interests."
That implies his policy of unquestioned obedience is beneficial. But is
it? It does not seem to appease the Hague Inquisition. It only
emboldens the advocates of Kosovo independence. Satisfying one set of
demands only brings out another: that's the way with successful
extortion.
Is there no one in Serbia who would pursue a logical policy: defend the
country's integrity and independence, demand that the Empire cease
meddling and return the illegally occupied Kosovo? Seems not. Such a
policy would serve Serbia, and the present leadership serves only
Brussels and Washington. This is why European and American policymakers
can engage in plotting "solutions" to the "Serbian question." The Serbs
don't seem inclined to stop them.
"Thesis Reversal"
Roger Cohen's article ends with a comparison that is ominous, yet
entirely consistent with the way the Empire has been casting the
Balkans conflict:
"An attempt to keep [Kosovo] within Serbia may in the end merely
prolong the Serbian question. It was only with the resolution of the
German question that peace came to Central Europe. As long as the
Serbian question festers, the Balkans will remain unstable."
What Cohen is referring to here as the "resolution of the German
question" is somewhat unclear. He could be talking about the
reunification of Germany in 1991, but it neither brought peace (since
Germany immediately fomented conflict in Yugoslavia), nor does it fit
into the theme of the article; partition, not unification, is on
Cohen's mind.
The other option is the horrendous ethnic cleansing of almost 12
million Germans after 1945, often from lands they had inhabited for
centuries. The victors justified this as "revenge" for Nazi atrocities;
the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo in 1999 and the subsequent
terror against the remnant has been consistently described as "revenge
attacks" by Cohen's colleagues in the press. In the eyes of the Empire,
Serbs can never be victims of ethnic cleansing – only perpetrators.
But while Hitler's Germany claimed territories in Eastern Europe
(including, interestingly enough, Serbia) by the "right" of conquest,
the Serbs did no such thing in Yugoslavia. They actually had rights,
both as founders of the first Yugoslavia and oft-abused partners in the
second, guaranteed by the Yugoslav Constitution and a host of
international treaties and conventions. These rights were flagrantly
violated by the seceding regimes in Ljubljana, Zagreb and Sarajevo, and
their EU and U.S. sponsors.
How is it not "aggression" to forcibly separate territories from a
country (again, in violation of international treaties) but it is
"aggression" when the two million people living in those territories
object? How can it be considered "aggression" to defend one's country
against a terrorist separatist movement, as Slobodan Milosevic did in
Kosovo, but entirely legitimate to actually start a war and occupy
Kosovo on behalf of that terrorist movement, as NATO did?
And yet, most of the mainstream Imperial view of the Balkans is one
gigantic "thesis reversal" of this kind.
One Alternative
After the projected amputations, Cohen would see the resulting Serbia
handed over to the EU: "Where empires – Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian or
communist – once ruled, the EU would step in, a benign deflator of
nationalist extremes." However, the EU is an empire, or an adjunct to
one, and has a record of maliciously inflating nationalist extremes in
the Balkans.
Although the EU is being forced on Serbia as the "only choice,"
becoming a tributary to the Brussels Leviathan does have alternatives.
Take for example Iceland, the wealthiest place in Europe despite its
small size, population and scarcity of natural resources (which is not
a problem for Serbia): it has grown prosperous precisely because it has
not joined the EU.
"Icelanders believe that self-government is the natural condition for a
sturdy, free-standing citizenry. They understand that there is a
connection between living in an independent state and living
independently from the state. They have no more desire to submit to
international than to national regulation. That attitude has made them
the happiest, freest and wealthiest people on earth." (The Spectator,
Oct. 9, 2004)
Why is this so difficult to understand?
What's Next?
Cohen's commentary is just the latest in a continuum of fiction, but
perhaps the most forthright since Richard Holbrooke's memoir. Only the
deliberately dim can claim ignorance now: Serbia is to be dismembered,
starting with Kosovo and ending who-knows-where, in the interest of
"Balkan stability."
Rhetoric notwithstanding, the current crop of politicians in Serbia is
either oblivious to this threat, or believes it inevitable and
therefore not worth fighting. If the Serbian people lack the will to
resist the fate Empire has chosen for them, it is very hard to argue
they don't deserve it. Is something truly a crime if the victim
consents?
But then, from Dayton to Kumanovo, such "consent" is just what the
Empire has been after all along.
---
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=3584
Withdraw From the Balkans And End a Disastrous Intervention!
Thursday, September 16, 2004 -- BALKAN EXPRESS
by Nebojsa Malic
When Napoleon ordered the abduction and murder of a political opponent
in 1804, his foreign minister, Count Talleyrand, commented: "That was
worse than a crime; it was a mistake." Apparently, the wisdom of
Talleyrand was not limited to the time. The public opinion in the U.S.
and its "willing allies" may have successfully ignored the fact that
the Iraq war was a crime – under Nuremberg Principle VI (a) – but it
can hardly close its eyes to the mounting evidence that it was a
colossal mistake.
Britain's Financial Times floated the heretofore unspeakable idea in an
editorial Monday, offering a scenario in which the Washington might
save face and still extricate itself from the nightmare that is Babylon:
"The time has therefore come to consider whether a structured
withdrawal of U.S. and remaining allied troops, in tandem with a
workable handover of security to Iraqi forces and a legitimate and
inclusive political process, can chart a path out of the current chaos."
The advice may well be too little, too late, as the situation in Iraq
deteriorates rapidly. Even so, there doesn't seem to be any readiness
in the U.S. to take it. On the same day, two American "national
security consultants" published an opinion piece in the International
Herald Tribune, claiming that the difference between a "success" in
Bosnia and failure in Iraq was the insufficient number of troops for
the latter. It is an utterly misplaced comparison; the occupation of
Bosnia took place at the end of a brutal civil war, with the three
sides hating each other more than they hated the foreigners. It does,
however, provide an occasion to reflect on the alleged "success" of
Imperial intervention in the Balkans, compared to the obvious failure
of Iraq.
The Final Solution
Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991, with the vocal support of
Germany, Austria, the Vatican, and somewhat less pronounced backing
from the United States. Contrary to popular perception, the crumbling
federal government did not try to crush the secession. It did, however,
support the native Serb population that remained loyal to Yugoslavia,
resented being erased from the Croatian Constitution, and remembered
all too well a genocide perpetrated by the pro-Nazi Croat authorities
in World War Two – whose "legacy" the new authorities eagerly embraced.
A UN plan for ending the bloody conflict established an armistice in
early 1992, putting the Serb-inhabited territories under UN protection.
Though this status quo supposedly benefited the Serbs, the EU plan for
Yugoslavia's dissolution ruled out any changes to the Communist-drawn
borders, effectively recognizing Croatia's claim to these territories.
As the negotiations dragged on to no avail, Croatia's military was
being armed and trained by the United States, as an asset to be used in
the Bosnian War. After several probing attacks, such as the Medak
incident (1993), Croatian forces assaulted Serb zones in May and August
1995, in full sight of impotent UN troops. It was the largest single
instance of ethnic cleansing in the modern Balkans wars, and it went
completely unpunished.
Croatian authorities have recently demolished monuments to Nazi leaders
from its dark past, but the largest monument to their legacy still
stands: the Serbs who lived along the old Military Frontier since the
late 1600s are now gone.
Jihad Unleashed
In neighboring Bosnia, outside involvement created even greater
calamities. Though it became obvious as early as 1991 that the ongoing
survival of Bosnia as an entity (independent or otherwise) depended on
the three main ethnic communities finding a modus vivendi, Bosnian
Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic repeatedly sabotaged various attempts
at compromise. Supported by the United States, Izetbegovic chose to
declare Bosnian independence unilaterally, sparking a conflict first
with the Serbs, then the Croats. In the resulting mayhem, no one was
innocent. But Izetbegovic's backers blamed everything on the Serbs,
using their alleged "genocide" as a pretext to involve NATO in a combat
operation (for the first time since the Alliance's inception) and
impose a "peace" on Bosnia that has been anything but.
The root of all problems in Bosnia is the notion of ethnic politics,
promoted by democracy, and the ensuing question of which community will
hold power over others. This caused the war, not "ancient hatreds" or
religious differences. Under Imperial occupation, ethnic politics have
become an institution and the ethnic autonomy guaranteed by the peace
agreement has steadily fallen prey to efforts at centralization.
The very worst consequence of the Bosnian War was the unleashing of
Islamic jihad on Europe, as thousands of militant Muslims fought on the
side of Izetbegovic's forces and settled in post-war Bosnia.
Izetbegovic himself authored in 1971 the Islamic Declaration (.pdf), a
manifesto for Islamic revolutionaries worldwide, and has never
renounced his beliefs. But the unreserved support he received from
Washington enabled him to continue the pretense of being a secular
democrat until the day he died.
Aggression and Pogroms
In 1998, the U.S. intervened again, this time on the side of Albanian
militants seeking to separate the province of Kosovo from Serbia and
carve out an ethnically pure "Greater Albania." After a staged massacre
and an ultimatum designed to be rejected, NATO began bombing Serbia on
March 23, 1999.
The attack was clearly illegal, and the attackers knew it. But the
bombing went on for 78 days, justified daily by the vilest lies from
the NATO propaganda mill. In the end Belgrade backed down, signed an
armistice, and allowed the NATO/KLA occupation of Kosovo. All of the
accusations were proven false; there was no "genocide." On the other
hand, the KLA expelled hundreds of thousands of non-Albanians, looted
and torched their homes, and demolished over 100 Serbian Orthodox
churches, chapels and monasteries, often in the presence of NATO troops.
In the most recent pogrom, the biggest so far, 50,000 Albanians
rampaged through the province for two days, destroying thirty churches
and expelling 4,000 Serbs. The perpetrators were never caught, let
alone punished.
Even after five years, the Empire persists in denying the reality of
its occupation of Kosovo, while Albanian criminal clans rule the
province and everyone, especially non-Albanians, suffers.
Surrender to Terrorism
The occupation of Kosovo soon had tragic consequences in Macedonia, as
the KLA mounted another terrorist land-grab. When Macedonian
authorities tried to fight, the U.S. and EU interfered, pressuring the
government to capitulate to KLA demands. The same propaganda that so
thoroughly mislabeled the Bosnian War and justified the aggression in
Kosovo now spun terrorism as a fight for "greater rights," which in
practice actually meant special privileges.
As willing as Macedonian politicians were to take orders from the
Empire to surrender to terrorism, their people are somewhat different.
They have won a right to organize a referendum on the redistricting of
the country – the last phase of the capitulation that would have given
Albanians disproportionate political power. Naturally, the EU and
Washington condemned the referendum, and continue to pressure Skopje to
cancel it, or ignore its results.
Destruction of Justice
Last, but not least, the Empire has sought to justify its intervention,
aggression and occupations by establishing a "war crimes tribunal" for
the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, with the mission to judge people
suspected of war crimes.
Resembling the Inquisition or a Star Chamber in its methods and
practices, obeying no law but its own, always serving at the pleasure
of the Empire, the "International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia" has become a paragon of injustice and persecution in this
modern world. Led by mad prosecutors and chaired by arrogant "judges,"
petty tyrants who often trample law whenever convenient, it is a
circus, not a court. Its chief purpose is to fabricate a version of
recent history that would cast former president Slobodan Milosevic and
the entire Serb political leadership as a vast conspiracy against peace
and humanity – an insane argument if there ever was one.
Presented as a legitimate UN court, it is instead a mockery of justice,
a factory of lies, a cancer on the established body of international
law.
Empire Out!
Everyone who advocated intervention in the Balkans invoked humanitarian
reasons and moral obligations. They wanted to stop "humanitarian
catastrophe," and "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide," but actually
promoted – even caused – them all. They proclaimed their devotion to
justice as they were busily destroying every vestige of the rules of
conduct painstakingly crafted to prevent the very sort of barbarism
they habitually engaged in for the cause of "benevolent global
hegemony." Even the claims of fighting terrorism rang hollow as they
actually helped terrorists. Its authors may claim success – indeed they
must, in order to survive in Imperial politics – but reality belies
their rhetoric.
Worse yet, the Balkans adventures helped create the American Empire as
it exists today. It was a triumph of belligerent social engineers and
power-hungry bureaucrats over the danger of peace posed by the abrupt
ending of the Cold War.
Some would argue that the United States and its satellites – the
self-proclaimed "international community" – have a responsibility to
help undo the damage they have done in the southeastern corner of
Europe. This is impossible. What has been destroyed by force cannot be
repaired or rebuilt by force – and force is the only tool at
governments' disposal. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely the Empire
will itself recover from the demons unleashed by its misguided and
malicious meddling; it can hardly help anyone else.
Not just the best, but the only way the Empire can help the Balkans now
is to depart from it, forever.
commentatore serbo-statunitense Nebojsa Malic sa descrivere con
profondita' e colore la attuale situazione nei Balcani. In questi due
editoriali che qui riportiamo, egli da una parte si chiede quali
confini debba/possa mai avere la Serbia, dall'altra chiede il ritiro
delle truppe di occupazione occidentali dall'area... ]
Two commentaries by Nebojsa Malic
SEE ALSO:
Imperial Balkans: A Legacy of Lies and Disasters (23/9/2004)
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=3640
Electing to Abstain (10/7/2004)
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=3721
(go to the original URLs to find many useful hyperlinks)
---
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/
Solving the 'Serbian Question: Empire's Sinister Plans'
Thursday, October 14, 2004 -- Balkan Express
by Nebojsa Malic
It was only a matter of time before someone said it: "[A]n old question
haunts the continent: Where should the borders of Serbia lie?" So began
Roger Cohen's commentary in the International Herald Tribune on
Tuesday, titled "The Serbian Question, Still on Europe's Plate."
Though the wars of the 1990s – which he blames squarely on Slobodan
Milosevic's "destructive vision" – are over, the "issues behind the
killing are not yet resolved," Cohen says. "Fundamental decisions will
have to be made soon – about the nature of Bosnian society, about
Kosovo, and about the future of the truncated federation of Serbia and
Montenegro."
Cohen is carefully vague, but the article makes it obvious what the
"solution" is likely to be. Total centralization of Bosnia and the
separation of Kosovo and Montenegro – the Morton Abramowitz platform,
to the letter – are presented as almost inevitable.
Kosovo as Paradigm
Cohen, like the rest of the Western press, frames Kosovo in simple
terms: "Serb minority" versus the "overwhelming Albanian majority" that
demands independence. One conclusion clearly follows from the
terminology: "An adjustment of borders may have to come one day."
The only thing shocking here is Cohen's admission. The Empire's
official propaganda arm, Voice of America, considers Washington
"sympathetic towards independence" in a report indicating all Albanians
are united on the issue. In just a few days, the Albanians will come
out and vote for a new provisional government, an institution created
under the "constitutional framework" by a UN viceroy in 2001.
Some may argue that the UN had no mandate to create a virtual state in
occupied territory where it was only authorized to provide "substantial
autonomy." That's true. It is also true that the armistice signed by
NATO and the Yugoslav military was not an act of unconditional
surrender, though NATO treated it as such. It is also true that NATO
and the UN mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) are in violation of the UN
Security Council Resolution 1244, which provides cover for the
occupation that resulted from an illegal war of aggression. And it is
also true that nobody cares – especially not the UN and NATO. The
Empire does not obey treaties; it creates them to demand the obedience
of others.
When the beleaguered Kosovo Serbs announced they would disobey the
Empire and not participate in the elections, both they and the
government in Belgrade faced enormous pressure. Prime Minister
Kostunica declined to coerce his compatriots in Kosovo, but President
Tadic caved in.
Not surprisingly, UNMIK praised Tadic's choice. So did the UN, Brussels
and Washington. "Participation will allow the minority community to
have its voice heard," said viceroy Jessen-Petersen last Wednesday, and
was echoed by the State Department spokesman the following weekend.
Of course, the reason Kosovo Serbs are boycotting the election –
Tadic's plea notwithstanding – is that their voice has not been heard
since 1999, despite them bending over backwards to collaborate with the
UN/NATO occupiers. Serb participation is not really about anyone having
a voice, but about lending legitimacy to the occupation regime.
Absence of Resistance
In the remainder of Serbia, official resistance to the rape of Kosovo
is virtually nonexistent. Serbia's dominant political parties all come
from the same bloc supported by the Empire in the fall of 2000 to
overthrow the government of Slobodan Milosevic. They know the Empire's
definition of "reformers": those who stay bought; all others are
denounced as "ultra-nationalists."
President Boris Tadic is a reformer, all right. The Empire has doubts
about Prime Minister Kostunica, but then no one can say for sure where
he stands – probably not even Kostunica himself. The AP casts Tadic as
a brave pro-Western voice and Kostunica as part of "those supporting
the hardline policies of confrontation by Milosevic and his loyalists."
But the truth is rather less dramatic. Kostunica's political quarrel
with Tadic is "over how far to bend to Western wishes" (Reuters), not
whether.
Last week, Tadic condemned Kostunica's policies of "not doing anything"
as "extremely inefficient and dangerous for our national interests."
That implies his policy of unquestioned obedience is beneficial. But is
it? It does not seem to appease the Hague Inquisition. It only
emboldens the advocates of Kosovo independence. Satisfying one set of
demands only brings out another: that's the way with successful
extortion.
Is there no one in Serbia who would pursue a logical policy: defend the
country's integrity and independence, demand that the Empire cease
meddling and return the illegally occupied Kosovo? Seems not. Such a
policy would serve Serbia, and the present leadership serves only
Brussels and Washington. This is why European and American policymakers
can engage in plotting "solutions" to the "Serbian question." The Serbs
don't seem inclined to stop them.
"Thesis Reversal"
Roger Cohen's article ends with a comparison that is ominous, yet
entirely consistent with the way the Empire has been casting the
Balkans conflict:
"An attempt to keep [Kosovo] within Serbia may in the end merely
prolong the Serbian question. It was only with the resolution of the
German question that peace came to Central Europe. As long as the
Serbian question festers, the Balkans will remain unstable."
What Cohen is referring to here as the "resolution of the German
question" is somewhat unclear. He could be talking about the
reunification of Germany in 1991, but it neither brought peace (since
Germany immediately fomented conflict in Yugoslavia), nor does it fit
into the theme of the article; partition, not unification, is on
Cohen's mind.
The other option is the horrendous ethnic cleansing of almost 12
million Germans after 1945, often from lands they had inhabited for
centuries. The victors justified this as "revenge" for Nazi atrocities;
the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo in 1999 and the subsequent
terror against the remnant has been consistently described as "revenge
attacks" by Cohen's colleagues in the press. In the eyes of the Empire,
Serbs can never be victims of ethnic cleansing – only perpetrators.
But while Hitler's Germany claimed territories in Eastern Europe
(including, interestingly enough, Serbia) by the "right" of conquest,
the Serbs did no such thing in Yugoslavia. They actually had rights,
both as founders of the first Yugoslavia and oft-abused partners in the
second, guaranteed by the Yugoslav Constitution and a host of
international treaties and conventions. These rights were flagrantly
violated by the seceding regimes in Ljubljana, Zagreb and Sarajevo, and
their EU and U.S. sponsors.
How is it not "aggression" to forcibly separate territories from a
country (again, in violation of international treaties) but it is
"aggression" when the two million people living in those territories
object? How can it be considered "aggression" to defend one's country
against a terrorist separatist movement, as Slobodan Milosevic did in
Kosovo, but entirely legitimate to actually start a war and occupy
Kosovo on behalf of that terrorist movement, as NATO did?
And yet, most of the mainstream Imperial view of the Balkans is one
gigantic "thesis reversal" of this kind.
One Alternative
After the projected amputations, Cohen would see the resulting Serbia
handed over to the EU: "Where empires – Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian or
communist – once ruled, the EU would step in, a benign deflator of
nationalist extremes." However, the EU is an empire, or an adjunct to
one, and has a record of maliciously inflating nationalist extremes in
the Balkans.
Although the EU is being forced on Serbia as the "only choice,"
becoming a tributary to the Brussels Leviathan does have alternatives.
Take for example Iceland, the wealthiest place in Europe despite its
small size, population and scarcity of natural resources (which is not
a problem for Serbia): it has grown prosperous precisely because it has
not joined the EU.
"Icelanders believe that self-government is the natural condition for a
sturdy, free-standing citizenry. They understand that there is a
connection between living in an independent state and living
independently from the state. They have no more desire to submit to
international than to national regulation. That attitude has made them
the happiest, freest and wealthiest people on earth." (The Spectator,
Oct. 9, 2004)
Why is this so difficult to understand?
What's Next?
Cohen's commentary is just the latest in a continuum of fiction, but
perhaps the most forthright since Richard Holbrooke's memoir. Only the
deliberately dim can claim ignorance now: Serbia is to be dismembered,
starting with Kosovo and ending who-knows-where, in the interest of
"Balkan stability."
Rhetoric notwithstanding, the current crop of politicians in Serbia is
either oblivious to this threat, or believes it inevitable and
therefore not worth fighting. If the Serbian people lack the will to
resist the fate Empire has chosen for them, it is very hard to argue
they don't deserve it. Is something truly a crime if the victim
consents?
But then, from Dayton to Kumanovo, such "consent" is just what the
Empire has been after all along.
---
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/?articleid=3584
Withdraw From the Balkans And End a Disastrous Intervention!
Thursday, September 16, 2004 -- BALKAN EXPRESS
by Nebojsa Malic
When Napoleon ordered the abduction and murder of a political opponent
in 1804, his foreign minister, Count Talleyrand, commented: "That was
worse than a crime; it was a mistake." Apparently, the wisdom of
Talleyrand was not limited to the time. The public opinion in the U.S.
and its "willing allies" may have successfully ignored the fact that
the Iraq war was a crime – under Nuremberg Principle VI (a) – but it
can hardly close its eyes to the mounting evidence that it was a
colossal mistake.
Britain's Financial Times floated the heretofore unspeakable idea in an
editorial Monday, offering a scenario in which the Washington might
save face and still extricate itself from the nightmare that is Babylon:
"The time has therefore come to consider whether a structured
withdrawal of U.S. and remaining allied troops, in tandem with a
workable handover of security to Iraqi forces and a legitimate and
inclusive political process, can chart a path out of the current chaos."
The advice may well be too little, too late, as the situation in Iraq
deteriorates rapidly. Even so, there doesn't seem to be any readiness
in the U.S. to take it. On the same day, two American "national
security consultants" published an opinion piece in the International
Herald Tribune, claiming that the difference between a "success" in
Bosnia and failure in Iraq was the insufficient number of troops for
the latter. It is an utterly misplaced comparison; the occupation of
Bosnia took place at the end of a brutal civil war, with the three
sides hating each other more than they hated the foreigners. It does,
however, provide an occasion to reflect on the alleged "success" of
Imperial intervention in the Balkans, compared to the obvious failure
of Iraq.
The Final Solution
Croatia seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991, with the vocal support of
Germany, Austria, the Vatican, and somewhat less pronounced backing
from the United States. Contrary to popular perception, the crumbling
federal government did not try to crush the secession. It did, however,
support the native Serb population that remained loyal to Yugoslavia,
resented being erased from the Croatian Constitution, and remembered
all too well a genocide perpetrated by the pro-Nazi Croat authorities
in World War Two – whose "legacy" the new authorities eagerly embraced.
A UN plan for ending the bloody conflict established an armistice in
early 1992, putting the Serb-inhabited territories under UN protection.
Though this status quo supposedly benefited the Serbs, the EU plan for
Yugoslavia's dissolution ruled out any changes to the Communist-drawn
borders, effectively recognizing Croatia's claim to these territories.
As the negotiations dragged on to no avail, Croatia's military was
being armed and trained by the United States, as an asset to be used in
the Bosnian War. After several probing attacks, such as the Medak
incident (1993), Croatian forces assaulted Serb zones in May and August
1995, in full sight of impotent UN troops. It was the largest single
instance of ethnic cleansing in the modern Balkans wars, and it went
completely unpunished.
Croatian authorities have recently demolished monuments to Nazi leaders
from its dark past, but the largest monument to their legacy still
stands: the Serbs who lived along the old Military Frontier since the
late 1600s are now gone.
Jihad Unleashed
In neighboring Bosnia, outside involvement created even greater
calamities. Though it became obvious as early as 1991 that the ongoing
survival of Bosnia as an entity (independent or otherwise) depended on
the three main ethnic communities finding a modus vivendi, Bosnian
Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic repeatedly sabotaged various attempts
at compromise. Supported by the United States, Izetbegovic chose to
declare Bosnian independence unilaterally, sparking a conflict first
with the Serbs, then the Croats. In the resulting mayhem, no one was
innocent. But Izetbegovic's backers blamed everything on the Serbs,
using their alleged "genocide" as a pretext to involve NATO in a combat
operation (for the first time since the Alliance's inception) and
impose a "peace" on Bosnia that has been anything but.
The root of all problems in Bosnia is the notion of ethnic politics,
promoted by democracy, and the ensuing question of which community will
hold power over others. This caused the war, not "ancient hatreds" or
religious differences. Under Imperial occupation, ethnic politics have
become an institution and the ethnic autonomy guaranteed by the peace
agreement has steadily fallen prey to efforts at centralization.
The very worst consequence of the Bosnian War was the unleashing of
Islamic jihad on Europe, as thousands of militant Muslims fought on the
side of Izetbegovic's forces and settled in post-war Bosnia.
Izetbegovic himself authored in 1971 the Islamic Declaration (.pdf), a
manifesto for Islamic revolutionaries worldwide, and has never
renounced his beliefs. But the unreserved support he received from
Washington enabled him to continue the pretense of being a secular
democrat until the day he died.
Aggression and Pogroms
In 1998, the U.S. intervened again, this time on the side of Albanian
militants seeking to separate the province of Kosovo from Serbia and
carve out an ethnically pure "Greater Albania." After a staged massacre
and an ultimatum designed to be rejected, NATO began bombing Serbia on
March 23, 1999.
The attack was clearly illegal, and the attackers knew it. But the
bombing went on for 78 days, justified daily by the vilest lies from
the NATO propaganda mill. In the end Belgrade backed down, signed an
armistice, and allowed the NATO/KLA occupation of Kosovo. All of the
accusations were proven false; there was no "genocide." On the other
hand, the KLA expelled hundreds of thousands of non-Albanians, looted
and torched their homes, and demolished over 100 Serbian Orthodox
churches, chapels and monasteries, often in the presence of NATO troops.
In the most recent pogrom, the biggest so far, 50,000 Albanians
rampaged through the province for two days, destroying thirty churches
and expelling 4,000 Serbs. The perpetrators were never caught, let
alone punished.
Even after five years, the Empire persists in denying the reality of
its occupation of Kosovo, while Albanian criminal clans rule the
province and everyone, especially non-Albanians, suffers.
Surrender to Terrorism
The occupation of Kosovo soon had tragic consequences in Macedonia, as
the KLA mounted another terrorist land-grab. When Macedonian
authorities tried to fight, the U.S. and EU interfered, pressuring the
government to capitulate to KLA demands. The same propaganda that so
thoroughly mislabeled the Bosnian War and justified the aggression in
Kosovo now spun terrorism as a fight for "greater rights," which in
practice actually meant special privileges.
As willing as Macedonian politicians were to take orders from the
Empire to surrender to terrorism, their people are somewhat different.
They have won a right to organize a referendum on the redistricting of
the country – the last phase of the capitulation that would have given
Albanians disproportionate political power. Naturally, the EU and
Washington condemned the referendum, and continue to pressure Skopje to
cancel it, or ignore its results.
Destruction of Justice
Last, but not least, the Empire has sought to justify its intervention,
aggression and occupations by establishing a "war crimes tribunal" for
the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, with the mission to judge people
suspected of war crimes.
Resembling the Inquisition or a Star Chamber in its methods and
practices, obeying no law but its own, always serving at the pleasure
of the Empire, the "International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia" has become a paragon of injustice and persecution in this
modern world. Led by mad prosecutors and chaired by arrogant "judges,"
petty tyrants who often trample law whenever convenient, it is a
circus, not a court. Its chief purpose is to fabricate a version of
recent history that would cast former president Slobodan Milosevic and
the entire Serb political leadership as a vast conspiracy against peace
and humanity – an insane argument if there ever was one.
Presented as a legitimate UN court, it is instead a mockery of justice,
a factory of lies, a cancer on the established body of international
law.
Empire Out!
Everyone who advocated intervention in the Balkans invoked humanitarian
reasons and moral obligations. They wanted to stop "humanitarian
catastrophe," and "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide," but actually
promoted – even caused – them all. They proclaimed their devotion to
justice as they were busily destroying every vestige of the rules of
conduct painstakingly crafted to prevent the very sort of barbarism
they habitually engaged in for the cause of "benevolent global
hegemony." Even the claims of fighting terrorism rang hollow as they
actually helped terrorists. Its authors may claim success – indeed they
must, in order to survive in Imperial politics – but reality belies
their rhetoric.
Worse yet, the Balkans adventures helped create the American Empire as
it exists today. It was a triumph of belligerent social engineers and
power-hungry bureaucrats over the danger of peace posed by the abrupt
ending of the Cold War.
Some would argue that the United States and its satellites – the
self-proclaimed "international community" – have a responsibility to
help undo the damage they have done in the southeastern corner of
Europe. This is impossible. What has been destroyed by force cannot be
repaired or rebuilt by force – and force is the only tool at
governments' disposal. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely the Empire
will itself recover from the demons unleashed by its misguided and
malicious meddling; it can hardly help anyone else.
Not just the best, but the only way the Empire can help the Balkans now
is to depart from it, forever.