Resurrecting Yugoslavia

Resurrecting Yugoslavia

By Julia Gorin

FrontPageMagazine.com | June 6, 2007

Western
powers led by the United States went to great lengths to abolish a
pluralistic society called Yugoslavia, encouraging its component
ethnicities to assert their identities and vie for their own little
slice of land based on those separate identities.



Yet as soon as one of those separate identities that we’ve buttressed misbehaves, suddenly we bring Yugoslavia
back from the dead. Witness the strategic and ubiquitous use of the
word “Yugoslav” in virtually every media report describing the four
Albanian suspects in the recently foiled Fort Dix plot.



When that aggressively dismantled country is needed again, say for blame-laying, then we suddenly want to keep Yugoslavia together rather than splintered into small parts. Albanians are trying to kill Americans? Dig up Yugoslavia. A Bosnian shoots 11 people in Utah? No no — we don’t want separate Balkan identities anymore; now we want the amorphous whole back.



After
diligently slicing multinational Yugoslavia up into separate ethnic
identities, now we’re embarrassed of those identities and don’t want to
identify them; now we’re suddenly interested in Serbian unity, and
envision a Greater Serbia in which we can call all the culprits Serbs,
or at least trace any and all misdeeds back to some sinister Serbian
entity.



We quite deliberately sponsored the creation of a
country for Croats; then we tried to make one for Bosnian Muslims (so
far it’s an entity composed of a Bosnian-Croat Federation, and a
Serbian Republic — but the dissolution of the non-Muslim parts is
underway); next we decided to give Kosovo Muslims their own country,
with their own flags, symbols, army and so on. But should our protégés
do something unbecoming, we want to spread the guilt around. So that
you think for at least a minute that maybe it’s the Serbs whodunit, and
by the time you figure out it wasn’t, you’ve been put through the
exercise of tracing the precipitation of the crime back to something
the Serbs may or may not have done during the perpetrators’
pre-embryonic lives.



The association with Serbia is actually more direct and intentional if you consider that, as Serbianna.com’s Mickey Bozinovich points out, Serbia is the successor state to Yugoslavia. More shameless, however, was this display from a Juan Cole,
who is president of something called the Global Americana Institute,
and who threw even the media’s sleight-of-pen subtlety to the wind,
blatantly titling his piece on the foiled plot “Dix Plot is Milosevic’s
Fault.”



That’s right: A dead guy is trying to kill Americans!



The Washington Times picked up on what was happening in an editorial titled “‘Albanian’ vs. ‘Yugoslav’”:

“Yugoslav”
is a sanitizer…Early in this story, the Albanian connection emerged in
some outlets, but “Yugoslav,” a term we associate with Slobodan
Milosevic or Josip Tito more than Islamist violence, persisted. The
connotations of “Albanian” begin with the fact that 70 percent of
Albanians are Muslim. Now, combine “Albanian” with the allegation of a
thwarted assault-rifle attack on Fort Dix…The
hypothesis: An attack by Islamist terrorists may just have been
thwarted. It has nothing to do with anti-fascist partisans or Communist
apparatchiks. Our news organizations seem now to be acting upon the
desire to avoid fueling that speculation as long as possible. We’re not
clear why, except for their biases, or perhaps their worry of offending
people…They should not engage in “perception management.”

Here
the paper takes for granted the fact that “biases” govern reporting on
Islamic terrorism, in this case Islamic terrorism from the Balkans. The
paper effectively admits to there being slanted Balkans coverage, based
on pro-Muslim biases — which actually calls into question two decades
of Balkans reporting. And yet the editors don’t intimate anything of
the sort, much less call for the begged-for reexamination of the
Balkans narrative.

 

Isn’t
it possible that the pro-Muslim bias they bemoan from today’s media was
also at work in Balkans reporting throughout the 1990s, when the story
being shoved down our collective throat was that the Serbs were
randomly pummeling Muslims?



The “perception management” that is
now so apparent is meant to keep the public confused and still
shrugging at words like “Balkans”, “Bosnia” and “Kosovo” — and thinking
that despite the terrorism which Muslims, acting alone or in concert,
are inflicting upon every corner of the world, somehow a place called
“the former Yugoslavia” exists in a vacuum and isn’t affected by global
trends. Jihad didn’t find Yugoslavia, we’re supposed to think; Yugoslavia summoned jihad-like symptoms — so it’s not exactly jihad.



Even
now, editors, reporters and politicians struggle to keep the Balkans
suspended in its own context, as if it’s some “unique” case (as our
leaders call Kosovo), immune to the trend of nationalism followed by
separatism — which we buy and then Americans die as that separatism
morphs into Islamism.



When the Fort Dix
news hit, the names Mladic and Karadzic speedily found their way into
news reports, and there was almost simultaneous coverage of, and an
unusual amount of attention paid to, the gains made by a nationalist
party in Serbia. As one Belgrade reader saw it:

You see how the media are portraying the recent election of the Parliament speaker in Serbia?
First, mention the politician, Tomislav Nikolic; then suggest that his
talk is like that of Milosevic; then remind the reader of Srebrenica
and Kosovo and the wars. By now the reader is thinking this politician
is the devil. I find it amusing that the idea of America fighting in Iraq
is nobler than the Serbs wanting to fight against secessionists for
land that’s been in their history for a thousand years. Incredible as
it would be, I have a fear that the sequel to all the Balkan wars has
started.

The
media seem to be reminding the world of the past and linking it to the
present. I fear that when the situation in Kosovo gets out of hand and
war comes, the Serbs will be painted as the bad guys again. It worked
before, and it made for great [pro-Muslim] drama. So why change the
role of the bad guy when that would only confuse audiences?

There is also the trick of using the words “terror” and “Serbia” in the same headline. Some played this game when Serbian police raided a Wahhabi terror camp in southern Serbia in March. (“Discovery of Serbia Training Camp Draws Attention to Radical Islamists” — NY Times.) Before that, initial reports about investigations into the London bombings linked the Tube terror to “eastern Europe” and “Serbia.”
The UK’s Sky News reported that the explosives used in the attacks came
from inside Bosnia, supplied by mujahedeen there (subsequently it was
discovered they came from Kosovo, and that Bosnia served as a
coordinating point). But one British police officer interviewed in that
broadcast — which was shown on Fox News and others — said the
explosives came from “Serbia.” He was talking about Kosovo which, when convenient, is remembered to be part of Serbia.



These
tactics have been effective in stunting the initial wave of public
outrage, giving it no clear direction, then allowing the facts to come
out as the outrage subsides. How long will “isolated,” “pattern-free”
cases of Balkan Muslim terror continue to be swept under the rug?



An AP headline quietly appeared this week, reading “Michigan men detained in Montenegro since September.” According to the article,

Three Michigan men have been
sitting in a prison in Montenegro for months, awaiting trial on charges
of inciting rebellion against the government there…[specifically]
planning terrorist attacks and an armed insurgency in the former
Yugoslav republic…Montenegro declared independence from Serbia, after
its citizens voted for the split by a slim margin, marking the final
breakup of what once was Yugoslavia.

The final breakup? If the media’s co-architects of
Yugoslavia’s demise believe that Montenegro is the final chapter in the
balkanization of the Balkans, which the Kosovo and Bosnia precedents
inspired, they’re in for a surprise — and we’re in for more perception
management. After Montenegro and Kosovo, we’ll be looking at Vojvodina separatism (a Hungarian-majority area of Serbia whose nationalism U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos, a Hungarian-American, is stirring up). Then there’s southern Serbia,
which is a Wahhabi/terror nest that seeks to join with Kosovo. Next,
there are the Albanians who are looking, with unofficial material
support from the U.S., to get a piece of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Then it’s back to Montenegro, which has separatists within its borders.



No,
the final breakup of Yugoslavia will take place in Greece, Romania,
Azerbaijan, Quebec, Southern California, Texas, Arizona, Galilee,
Basque, the Thai south, Michigan, and every other place on the globe that has a significant ethnic minority concentrated in a province or state.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=28630

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Real Solution For Kosovo

The Real Solution For
Kosovo

by Aleksandar Jokic

Current Discourse on Kosovo

(Swans - June 4, 2007)  
Suddenly, the urgency to settle Kosovo's political status in the form of
"supervised independence" is on the US imperial agenda. If one is to
believe US officials who have been closely associated for a long time with US
policy regarding Kosovo (the real name of this Serbian province is Kosovo and
Metohija), such as Nicholas Burns, the US is taking a "regional
approach" to this problem. Says Burns: "The
Balkans region will not be stable, however, as long as Kosovo remains in a
state of political suspended animation." Alas, words are cheap, and
actions by the sole superpower clearly demonstrate that it is its interest and
not "regional stability" that is the sole guiding principle. In fact,
all principles, including the letter and spirit of international law, will be
sacrificed in the name of those interests. Kosovo is still the best example of
this, which by now should be an uncontroversial statement.

After years of neglect following the US-led NATO aggression
against Yugoslavia in 1999 (the operation was called "Merciful
Angel") and merely a year of "negotiations" between
representatives of the Serbian government and an Albanian delegation from
Kosovo, it was announced that the time had come for an imposed
"solution" and that "no
more negotiations" on the status of Kosovo could take place between
those directly involved. One may wonder why such a sudden rush to grant
independence to Kosovo, despite Serbia's opposition to giving up 15% of its
territory and Russia's consistent position that any solution must be acceptable
to both sides, thus virtually guaranteeing a Russian veto of any UN resolution
granting Kosovo independence? And why continue to insist, in this context, as
US officials do that "supervised independence" (whatever that might
be) "is now the only
way forward"? It is hard to see how this stubborn insistence on Kosovo
independence could be reconciled with any concern for "regional
stability."

No wonder then that we have witnessed an intense campaign to
"explain" why independence for Kosovo is good, indeed the "only
way forward," or attempts to induce Serbia to agree to this "solution"
preferred in the West. These efforts range from tedious to grotesque.

Thus, disturbed by the prospect of Russia exercising its veto
right at the UN against any imposed "resolution" between Serbia and
its province of Kosovo and Metohia, Olli Rehn, EU Enlargement Commissioner,
asks "While
Russia generally condemns unilateralism, why does it yet threaten to use the
veto in the UN Security Council -- the ultimate unilateral act?" Contrary
to this gratuitous definition, the exercise of veto power is not the
ultimate unilateral act, but it might more accurately be defined as the
unilateral threat or use of force (also known as aggression) in international
relations. It is hardly a contradiction (worth mentioning, much less a valid
"argument") that Russia would condemn unilateralism whilst exercising
its veto rights. Just as an individual can condemn unilateralism while
exercising voting rights without fear of specious and misguided suggestions
that one is ipso facto hypocritical.

Others, in the best tradition of car salesmen, are intent to
opening the eyes of Serbian officials to a good deal they are being offered.
For example, Carl Bilt, Swedish Foreign Minister, while on state visit to
Japan, stated that "the EU would take a more positive attitude to
accepting Serbia as a prospective [EU] member state if the country warmed
toward an independent Kosovo." But who would buy this? No other state had
to give up territory for dubious membership in EU that is, unlike Serbia,
incapable of even agreeing on its own constitution. Furthermore, a Euro-skeptic
could try to clarify things for Bilt in this way:

As the smart French General Charles de Gaulle clearly
recognized, EU remains an incoherent idea as long as the UK is part of it, as a
Trojan horse for US imperialism, hence Sweden should abolish all its European
ties and join the energy rich regional Eurasian alliance of Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO). However, Sweden can do this -- "and simply
as a prospect" -- if the country warmed toward an independent
Vasternorrlands to be administered by SCO right away as of now. Do you get the
picture?

Similarly, in his op-ed on the status of Kosovo Joschka Fischer
tries to sell the Serbs the idea that essentially Serbia should swap
Kosovo for potential membership in EU because "Serbia
has a bright future with the EU, but getting there requires that it break with
its own past -- on [...] Kosovo [...]." Certainly, the invitation to
"break with a past" (coming from Germany) could appear to have merit,
but again the Bilt point could be made in its German variation: "Germany
should abolish all its European ties and join the energy rich regional Eurasian
alliance of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). However, Germany can do
this -- in prospect only -- if the country warmed toward an independent Bavaria
which is to be administered by SCO right away as of now. Additionally, this
might help Deutschland break further with its own past and obtain a bright
SCO-future, full of affordable energy."

To show that pronouncements by academics can be more dismal than
those by politicians we can look at an example of a Fulbright Scholar's wisdom
on Kosovo acquired by merely spending a few months there. Timothy Kenny offers
the ultimate argument in favor of Kosovo independence by crying: "If
anyone deserves independence, it's long-suffering Kosovo." The merit
of a call such as this one can easily be demonstrated by juxtaposing it to for
example this one: "If anyone deserves reparations, it's long suffering
African Americans." Yet, Kenny continues his appeal: "after being
victimized in the past of four Balkan wars...action on the issue appears at
hand." And again, one may wonder isn't the following a more noble concern
for him: After being victimized for centuries and actual genocide
being committed against them the surviving Native Americans require action to
secure independent and sovereign states for the First Nations in North America?
Then comes the knockout argument that "Serbia has started one regional war
too many to be rewarded with keeping Kosovo." How sound this thinking is
can be realized by considering whether it isn't the case that the US had
started one major war too many in Iraq so that it cannot be rewarded by keeping
the federation intact? Should not the 50 states go their merry way away from
this shameful, aggressive federation?

Armed with dismal reasoning of this sort in support of the
independence "solution" it is small wonder that its proponents resort
to statements of inevitability, repeating them ad nauseam. Kenny is no
exception: "An independent Kosovo working with the European Union and NATO
is inevitable." But, we are back to mere words, and perhaps something much
more serious: If it were true that independence of Kosovo is inevitable --
"the only way forward" -- why the need to say this so often? Is it in
the hope that saying it makes it so? If so, that is a sign of serious
personality disorder or worse: the DSM V contains several references to
disorders and diseases which have as a characteristic the patient's delusional
belief that mere words create reality à la biblical: "in the beginning
there was logos."

The Solution

Instead of dwelling on the "inevitable" let us consider
what would be the result of an approach honestly concerned with regional
stability. The obvious and inexpensive solution is to partition Kosovo between
Serbs and Albanians by the process in which Serbia would exercise expulsive
secession. The Serbian part of Kosovo would then become a part of Serbia proper
while the Albanian part would become independent. Albanians have made it
abundantly clear that they want nothing short of full independence. If
possible, this genuine desire ought to be satisfied at least to a degree. Some
give and take would be necessary, however, but partition is the only natural
way to go. What would it take to accomplish this?

First, the myth that Serbs would not find this option palatable
must be rejected. In fact many Serbs, including members of the Serbian Academy
of Sciences and Arts (SANU), and in particular the former President of
Yugoslavia, the novelist Dobrica Cosic, have long advocated this sort of
solution. Back in 1996 SANU President Despic in a newspaper interview
recommended partition. What exactly it should amount to is another matter, but
it is a feasible step for both Serbs and Albanians.

In fact, convincing Serbs that a specific partition is good will
seem less of a problem than divorcing the Kosovo issue from the Republika
Srpska issue. And this is where the key policy may lead to a happy return of
foreign servicemen and women (including Americans) from both Kosovo and Bosnia.
A carefully crafted package of financial incentives and policy of compensating
the Serbs' loss of territory in Kosovo with empowering Republika Srpska to join
Serbia would provide a long term security and stability solution for the puzzle
that the Balkans have presented until recently. If it were objected that the
borders of a new country would be meandering unreasonably given the size of
Republika Srpska the obvious answer is: Croatia is already that way! (In order
to get to Molunat from Ilok a full circle must be traveled.) This proposal
would have to be further fine tuned, such as offering a provision that the UN
guarantees that the Orthodox sites that remain in Albanian dominated Kosovo
would enjoy protection from destruction and access secured to all Serbian
pilgrims, etc.

The policy of partitioning Kosovo along with the unification of
Republika Srpska with Serbia offers long term security and stability for the
region. Also, it is no less natural an outcome than the unification of Germany,
for example. Once NATO and EU troops pull out of Bosnia, Serbs in Republika
Srpska will be safe from possible attack coming from the Muslim and Croatian
Federation as the strength of the Serbian Army will function as a decisive
deterrent. On the other hand the Muslim and Croatian side would have nothing to
fear from a democratic government in Belgrade. Similarly, after partition of
Kosovo, KFOR can pull out without worry of a renewed full-scale war between
Serbs and Albanians there. A small contingent of NATO troops (preferably
Americans, because of their credibility) would have to maintain a long-term
presence in Macedonia to prevent a conflict erupting in the western part of the
country where Albanians have a majority similar to the Kosovo situation.
Albanians there might be tempted to repeat a Kosovo style uprising. American
troops in Macedonia would guard against this, further contributing to the
long-term security of the Balkans. The cost would, however, be an insignificant
fraction of the current costs of maintaining both the Bosnia and Kosovo
missions (currently surpassing $3.5 billion annually).

This entire enterprise is likely to provoke fierce resistance only
from one side: the ethnic Muslims in Bosnia. However, American diplomats should
have no serious problem convincing them to go along, as Muslims have enjoyed
American protection and favors from the beginning of the Yugoslav crisis. While
Croats were supported by Germany and Serbs supposedly by Russia, Muslims in
Bosnia were the side the US chose to favor. Perhaps the honor of carrying out
the implementation of this comprehensive and long-term security solution could
fall on the son of the president who got the US involved in the Yugoslav mess
in the first place.

http://www.swans.com/library/art13/ajokic03.html

Powered by ScribeFire.