Untitled Document
The coming 'final status talks' on Serbia's southern autonomous province
will complete the Western conquest of the Balkans.
A decade ago this month [Nov 2005] , a US-sponsored conference to end the Bosnian
war opened in Dayton, Ohio. The peace treaty that resulted effectively concluded
the first round of the Western-fueled breakup of Yugoslavia [1],
the south Slav federation that lead the Nonaligned Movement during the Cold
War. A thoroughly partitioned Bosnia, comprised of Serbian and Muslim/Croat
"Entities", was placed under the rule of a Western-installed colonial
governor. This so-called "High Representative" and its wide-ranging
powers was supposed to have a temporary mandate. In December 1997, it was extended
indefinitely. [2]
Since its creation, the Office of the High Representative has rapidly accumulated
vast power over the functioning of the Bosnian state, including executive authority
to remove elected officials, dissolve regional legislative assemblies, appoint
politicians, censor the media, and otherwise rule by decree. In effect, the
"international community" has "assumed complete legislative and
executive power over [Bosnia]", according to David Chandler, the leading
critic of Dayton. [3]
Following the standard pattern, Western financial interests have trailed close
behind their military Trojan Horse. The European Bank of Reconstruction and
Development, through a proxy called the Commission on Public Corporations, is
overseeing the privatization of Bosnia's public services. [4]
Though the process has proceeded 'slowly' - to the unending chagrin of international
financial institutions - no less than 1,284 companies were privatized between
1999 and 2003 alone. [5]
Bosnia has become a model for the West: not of 'humanitarian intervention',
as the official story would have it, but of conquest. By this time next year,
a Dayton-style colonial regime will almost certainly be running Kosovo, Serbia's
southern autonomous province. After six years of NATO-EU occupation - ushered
in by a ruthless US-led bombing campaign in 1999 - the UN Security Council recently
gave its blessing to the opening of negotiations on the future of the province.
But the Western rulers of Kosovo have already settled on a solution; these 'talks'
will simply provide diplomatic gloss for their diktat.
You remember NATO's 1999 war against Yugoslavia. It was sold to Western public
opinion as a 'humanitarian' response to Slobodan Milosevic's (non-existent)
'genocide' in Kosovo. In truth, it was simply a continuation of the US-European
destruction of Yugoslavia, a process that began much earlier. For, even after
the secessions of the early 1990s, a rump Yugoslav Federation of Serbia and
Montenegro held on - and continued to resist the spread of Western colonialism
in the region. Milosevic's regime was not a member of NATO, the WTO, IMF or
World Bank; 75% of its industry was state or socially owned. The West was not
about to tolerate this defiant holdout against its rule.
The ensuing invasion settled the matter quite handily. As during the first
Gulf War, American fighters systematically bombed civilian targets far outside
the supposed battlefield. 14 Yugoslav tanks were destroyed, compared to 372
industrial centers - not one of them foreign-owned. [6] The
Yugoslav Red Cross reported the following when the carnage subsided:
"the vital facilities of the Yugoslav economy have been destroyed. Destruction
of factories, business and manufacturing plants amounted to over 100 billion
US Dollars. The destruction of the petrochemical industry, as well as the biggest
artificial fertilizer factor has caused inestimable damage to agriculture and
the life of the whole Yugoslav community, and it will be impossible to repair
these consequences for years. The NATO bombing of the Yugoslav road and railway
networks has destroyed and made inoperable over 50 bridges, all airports, numerous
railway and bus stations." [7]
A vast network of 'international' organizations, led by NATO and the EU, assumed
control of Kosovo when the war ended. UN Security Council resolution 1244 then
provided legal cover for their military occupation. As in Bosnia, a corporate
invasion followed: the Kosovo Trust Agency recently boasted of a "record
achievement...with the announcement of six rounds of privatization", including
a "record selling bid" worth 5m Euros. [8] A coveted
jewel is the enormous Trepca mine complex - estimated value $5bn - which, when
captured by the Nazis, supplied the German arms industry with 40% of its lead.
A 775-acre permanent military base, Camp Bondsteel, has also been established.
[9]
The West's Next Colony: Kosovo under 'Conditional Independence'
Kosovo, despite its obvious domination by NATO and the EU, is still officially
part of Serbia. That is about to change. Western planners are envisioning a
Kosovo under "conditional independence" - legally free from Serbia,
factually an international protectorate run like Bosnia. Jurisdiction will be
transferred from the United Nations, where it is currently, to the EU and NATO.
In effect, "independent" Kosovo will be the West's newest colony.
At this point, the West is still trying to assume the posture of an 'honest
broker', committed to striking a deal acceptable to all parties. But a steady
stream of press reports have already let the cat out of the bag. As a "senior
European diplomat" told Reuters, "conditional independence is the
central consensus in the international community"; "the most obvious
analogy would be the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia." [10]
The same arrangement was recently suggested by Kai Eide, Kofi Annan's Special
Envoy to Serbia and Montenegro. Eide was commissioned to prepare a review of
the situation in Kosovo and suggest whether or not final status talks should
begin. He suggested they should, and even made a few underhanded proposals about
what the outcome should be.
No matter what happens, "an international presence - military and civilian"
will be 'needed' to implement the settlement. [11] That is,
the current occupation will continue regardless. "The EU...will have to
play the most prominent role", because "they will have the leverage
and will be able to offer prospects in the framework of the European integration
process"; in other words, the EU will accelerate the restructuring of Kosovo's
economy along 'free-market' lines. NATO, of course, "will also have to
continue its presence." [12]
Eide then explicitly says the UN will step down from its current position,
and notes the "lead role" will be "taken by others" - NATO
and the EU, if his report is any indication. A "High Representative - or
similar arrangement" will have to be "considered", and be "firmly
anchored in the EU" with the participation of other outside powers, "in
particular the US". This political "reconfiguration" will take
place in a "coordinated manner" - meaning, it will be rubber stamped
by the UN. [13]
As has happened in the past, the US and EU are teaming up to pursue their common
imperial ambitions: the United States will back Kosovo's extrajudicial break
from Serbia, and NATO will continue to supply the military muscle in the aftermath.
Senior State Department official Nicholas Burns recently briefed the Senate
on the matter. Though he made pretensions of objectivity, "diplomats said
[Burns'] testimony was a clear signal the US looked favorably on independence",
according to the Financial Times. [14] Commenting on the same
affair, Reuters said the testimony "focused mainly on how independence
[for Kosovo] would be achieved". Diplomats speaking on condition of anonymity
said "Washington favors...'supervised independence'". [15]
As an added bonus, Richard Holbrooke - the former State Department official
and architect of the Dayton Accords - expects 'independence' for Kosovo to lead
to the dissolution of the Serbo-Montenegrin union, effectively demolishing the
last vestige of south Slav unity. [16]
No doubt, Belgrade already knows it has lost Kosovo - the Serbian Jerusalem
- forever. During the 'negotiations', it will seek to extract maximum concessions
from the West in exchange for acceptance of the fait accompli. Serbia really
has no choice but to consent to its own dismemberment. If it tries to resist,
Brussels and Washington will simply isolate the pro-Western regime by denying
it EU and NATO membership. [17] The country was devastated
by sanctions in the 1990s; they're in no position to resist now, and nor do
they have the means to in the first place.
This kind of national fragmentation is precisely what Yugoslavism was founded
to prevent. Only by uniting the Balkan Slavs in a strong union, the argument
went, could they hope to defend their interests and beat back foreign intrusion.
The imperial powers always agreed. A century and a half after it was born, the
"south Slav dream" has finally been killed; and all over Washington
and Brussels, diplomats are smiling.
Jake Hess, 20, is a student activist based in Boston. He welcomes
feedback at jakehess@hotmail.com .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
[1] The somewhat vague term 'Western' is often used in this
article. It refers to the US, NATO, EU, and various associated institutions.
Further clarification is often neglected because in many ways the conquest of
Yugoslavia has been a joint project of these bodies.
[2] For a detailed critique of the Dayton Accords, see David
Chandler, "Bosnia: Faking Democracy After Dayton", (Pluto, 2000).
For a more concise treatment of the same issues, see Chandler's essay "Bosnia:
Prototype of a NATO Protectorate" in Tariq Ali, ed., "Masters of the
Universe? NATO's Balkan Crusade" (Verso, 2000).
[3] Chandler, "Bosnia: Prototype of a NATO Protectorate",
pg 274.
[4] Kate Hudson, "Breaking the South Slav Dream: The
Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia", (Pluto, 2003), pg 105.
[5] Agency for Privatization in the Federation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, "Results of privatization in the period 1999-2003", press
release, 30 June 2004.
[6] Neil Clark, "The spoils of another war: Five years
after Nato's attack on Yugoslavia, its administration in Kosovo is pushing through
mass privatization", The Guardian, 21 September 2004.
[7] Quoted by Hudson, pg. 133.
[8] SEE Online, "Kosovo Trust Agency record achievements",
06 November 2005.
[9] John Pilger, "Calling the Kosovo Humanitarians to
Account", the New Statesman, 13 December 2004.
[10] Matthew Robinson, "Kosovo destined for independence,
but on probation", Reuters, 12 October 2005.
[11] Kai Eide, "A Comprehensive Review of the Situation
in Kosovo", United Nations report, 07 October 2005. Full text available
online at www.kosovo.com/images/eide_oct0705.pdf
[12] Eide, pg. 16.
[13] Eide, pages 15 and 16.
[14] Guy Dinmore, "US backs Kosovo incentives for Serbs",
Financial Times online, 09 November 2005.
[15] Saul Hudson, "US: Serbia can't join NATO without
Kosovo Solution", Reuters, 08 November 2005.
[16] S. Hudson, "US: Serbia can't join NATO without Kosovo
Solution".
[17] Rueters, "Independence only way forward for Kosovo:
Holbrooke", 08 November 2005. Holbrooke says: "I cannot see any final
status for Kosovo other than independence...in the end, the Serbs will have
to choose between Brussels and Kosovo, its as brutal as that".