Factors in Serbia's future

 

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=10032

American Chronicle

The European and American factor in Serbia's future
Dr. George Voskopoulos



May 22, 2006

The recent referendum in Serbia-Montenegro and the marginal victory of those who support an independent Montenegro seems to be defining the future of the country. Yet, a number of parameters need to be clarified before evaluating today's signals as expressed by the Montenegrin people.

First, the referendum constitutes a part of a series of a policy clearly aiming at punishing Serbia for its policy vis-Å•-vis American policy in the Balkans. Serbia's international behaviour and more particularly its policy in Bosnia and Kosovo, did not constitute simply or just a deviation from democratic practices and the need to respect human rights. This goes without saying and may be considered the overt cause of its international isolation.

To those who scrutinize world politics through the spectrum of Political Realism and power politics the real motive for Serbia's territorial mutilation was the perceived arrogance of its senseless leadership (S. Milosevic) to challenge American policy in south-eastern Europe. Actually this led to Serbia's bombing in 1999 without the clear consent of the United Nations Security Council.

Serbia was the first European country bombed after the end of the Second World War, that is on the grounds of protecting human rights. Undeniably the reason was a noble and justified one but those who are aware of world politics realities and the perplexed ethnological map in the Balkans may realize why it may be regarded as an excuse to realize a particular strategic plan.

Serbia defied the macrostrategic plan of powerful intrusive actors to impose a new model of governance, a new local not just world order and had to be punished. The existence of S. Milosevic regime and its defiance of international law simply provided an ethical excuse to dissolve once again a country with inherent power in south-eastern Europe.


Moreover, the establishment of the International Criminal Court meant to realize one specific aim, that is to punish those responsible for the atrocities against individuals by the Serbian militia. Yet, Carla Del Ponte's (the prosecutor in charge) biased attitude and institutional arrogance turned the quest into witch hunting thus delegitimising the whole process.

The problem with Milosevic himself was that he was probably guilty of conceptualizing a plan to institutionally or/and physically eliminate what he saw as a threat to his country's territorial integrity but at the same time he operated as a legitimate leader defending the [mis]perceived interests of his country. Under this spectrum, his trial could also be seen as a blow to state sovereignty and a selective application of a human rights regime. The international community rightfully intervened to put an end to the atrocities against individuals, yet it did not do the same in other blatant cases such as Cyprus.

The Court became one of the political weapons in the hands of those who wished to terminally "deal with" Serbian arrogance. A second powerful weapon, this time devised by Europeans, used to punish the country through the negative conceptual model Serbia has been viewed all these years was the EU's "give-and-take" policy vis-Å•-vis the so wanted for war crimes Serbian leaders Karazic and Mladic.

Serbia's failure to deliver them to the International Criminal Court led to a European policy that eventually punished the average Serb not those considered guilty for genocide. European policy leveled with Washington's wishes to drastically weaken the country by rendering it a politically and economically problematic state in the most backward region of Europe.

To many in Europe this was part of the wider American strategy in the region and the establishment of weak neophyte states or protectorates operating as pockets of instability to remind Europeanists (those who challenge American dominant role in Europe) that European security could only be guaranteed through NATO.

As a result, Kosovo is on its way to independence, while Montenegro's referendum assists directly and indirectly this policy. The problem is that the process results in producing problematic states, epicenters of illegal activities in the region. In both Kosovo and Montenegro drug and weapons trafficking are transnational activities affecting the security of the whole region not to mention human slavery.

American and European policies have to this day failed to impose the rule of law and order allowing local leaders to operate unrestrained. Their initiatives focused exclusively on punishing Serbia, yet, in a way this practice turned certain Serbian leaders to national heroes. What is needed is a new plan for rehabilitating the country, without prejudice and above all without the application of double standards. For as long as the international community pretends to be upholding the law in one only direction south-eastern Europe will have black holes in its security structure.

George Voskopoulos holds a BA from Brock University (Canada), a BA from Ionian University (Greece). He received his MA from Lancaster University (UK) and his Ph.D from Exeter University (UK), Centre for European Studies. He is currently a Visiting Research Fellow at the Luxembourg Institute for European and International Studies and Assistant Professor at the University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece. His latest publication is James Mitchell & G. Voskopoulos (eds.), American Government and Politics in Focus, Whittier publishers, NY, 2005.

seeiia@yahoo.gr





 

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SERBIAN NEWS NETWORK" group.
To post to this group, send email to SENET@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SENET-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SENET
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---