> Comments on the Milosevic Ouster, etc. > By Noam Chomsky > > A number of people in the ZNet forum system and elsewhere > have raised questions about the prominent role they see > assigned to US-NATO in the flood of commentary on recent > events in Yugoslavia, "gloating over the victory of the > opposition in Yugoslavia--as if that affirms the NATO > bombing" (as one puts it). Others have noticed a similar > focus with an opposite emphasis: denunciations of US > violence and subversion for the overthrow of an independent > Serb government in favor of Western clients. I've been asked > for my own reaction. What follows is an amalgam of several > responses. > > It's surely right that publicly the Clinton-Blair > administrations are "gloating" over the outcome, and that > the usual cheerleaders are doing their duty as well. That is > commonly the case whatever the outcome. But we should not > overlook the fact that more serious observers -- as > anti-Milosevic as you can find -- are telling quite a > different story. For example, the senior news analyst of > UPI, Martin Sieff, described the outcome of the election as > "an unpleasant shock to both incumbent Slobodan Milosevic > and the Clinton administration (Sept. 25), pointing out that > Kostunica "regularly denounces the NATO bombing of > Yugoslavia last year as `criminal'," "implacably opposes > having Milosevic or any other prominent Serb tried as a war > criminal," and worse still from the Clinton-Blair point of > view, "does appear to accurately express the democratic > aspirations of the Serbian people." > > That's correct across the board, and Sieff is not alone in > reporting it. In his campaign throughout the country and on > state TV, Kostunica "condemned "NATO's criminal bombing of > Yugoslavia" and denounced the International Criminal > Tribunal on Yugoslavia (ICTY) as "an American tribunal -- > not a court, but a political instrument" (Steven Erlanger > and Carlotta Gall, NYT, Sept. 21). Speaking on state TV > after taking office, he reiterated that while he sought > normalization of relations with the West, "the crimes during > the NATO aggression, nor the war damages, could not be > forgotten," and he again described the ICTY as a "tool of > political pressure of the US administration" (Oct 5, 6). > > In the British press, some prominent (and bitterly > anti-Milosevic) correspondents have pointed out that "The > West's self-satisfaction cannot disguise the reality of the > Balkans...it was not the bombing, the sanctions and the > posturing of NATO politicians" that got rid of Milosevic. > Rather "he was toppled by a self-inflicted, democratic > miscalculation," and if anything his fall was impeded by > Western intervention: the rotten situation in the Balkans > "has been made worse by intervention,... NATO's actions > escalated the nastiness, prolonged the resolution and > increased the cost." "At the very least, outsiders such as > [British Foreign Secretary] Mr Cook should stop rewriting > history to their own gain. They did not topple Mr Milosevic. > They did not bomb democracy into the last Communist > dictatorship in Europe. They merely blocked the Danube and > sent Serb politics back to the Dark Ages of autocracy. It > was not sanctions that induced the army to switch sides; > generals did well from the black market. The fall of Mr > Milosevic began with an election that he called and then > denied, spurring the electors to demand that the army > respect their decision and protect their sovereignty. For > that, Yugoslavia's democracy deserves the credit, not Nato's > Tomahawk missiles" (Simon Jenkins, London Times, Oct. 7). > "The kind of people who made last Thursday's revolution" > were those who were "depressed in equal measure by the > careless savagery of the Nato bombing and the sheer > nastiness of the Milosevic regime" (John Simpson, world > affairs editor of BBC, Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 8). > > Serb dissidents, to the extent that their voices are heard > here, are saying pretty much the same thing. In a fairly > typical comment on BBC, a Belgrade university student said: > "We did it on our own. Please do not help us again with your > bombs." Reaffirming these conclusions, a correspondent for > the opposition daily Blic writes that "Serbs felt oppressed > by their regime from the inside and by the West from the > outside; she condemns the US for having "ignored the > democratic movement in Yugoslavia and failing to aid > numerous Serbian refugees" -- by far the largest refugee > population in the region. A prominent dissident scholar, in > a letter of remembrance for a leading human rights activist > who recently died, asks whether "the ones who said they > imposed sanctions `against Milosevic' knew or cared how they > impoverished you and the other people like you, and turned > our lives into misery while helping him and his smuggling > allies to become richer and richer," enabling him to "do > whatever he wanted"; and instead of realizing "the stupidity > of isolating a whole nation, of tarring all the people with > the same broad brush under the pretense that they are > striking a blow against a tyrannical leader," are now > saying -- self-righteously and absurdly -- "that all that is > happening in Serbia today was the result of their wise > policy, and their help" (Ana Trbovich, Jasmina Teodosijevic, > Boston Globe, Oct. 8). > > These comments, I think, are on target. What happened was a > very impressive demonstration of popular mobilization and > courage. The removal of the brutal and corrupt regimes of > Serbia and Croatia (Milosevic and Tudjman were partners in > crime throughout) is an important step forward for the > region, and the mass movements in Serbia -- miners, > students, innumerable others -- merit great admiration, and > provide an inspiring example of what united and dedicated > people can achieve. Right now workers' committees are taking > control of many companies and state institutions, "revolting > against their Milosevic-era managers and taking over the > directors' suites," as "workers took full advantage of > Yugoslav's social ownership traditions." "With Milosevic's > rule crumbling, the workers have taken the communist > rhetoric literally and taken charge of their enterprises," > instituting various forms of "worker management" (London > Financial Times, Oct. 11). What has taken place, and where > it will go, is in the hands of the people of Serbia, though > as always, international solidarity and support -- not least > in the US -- can make a substantial difference. > > On the elections themselves, there is plenty of valid > criticism: there was extensive interference by the West and > by Milosevic's harshly repressive (but by no means > "totalitarian") apparatus. But I think the Belgrade student > is right: they did it on their own, and deserve plenty of > credit for that. It's an outcome that the left should > welcome and applaud, in my opinion. > > It could have happened before. There is good reason to take > seriously the judgment of Balkans historian Miranda Vickers > (again, as anti-Milosevic as they come) that Milosevic would > have been ousted years earlier if the Kosovar Albanians had > voted against him in 1992 (they were hoping he would win, > just as they did this September). And the mass popular > demonstrations after opposition victories in local elections > in 1996 might have toppled him if the opposition hadn't > fractured. Milosevic was bad enough, but nothing like the > rulers of totalitarian states, or the murderous gangsters > the US has been placing and keeping in power for years all > over the world. > > But ridding the country of Milosevic doesn't in itself > herald a final victory for the people of Serbia, who are > responsible for the achievement. There's plenty of > historical evidence to the contrary, including very recent > evidence. It's hard to think of a more spectacular recent > achievement than the overthrow of South Africa's Apartheid > horror, but the outcome is far from delightful, as Patrick > Bond has been documenting impressively on ZNet, and as is > obvious even to the observer or visitor with limited > information. The US and Europe will doubtless continue their > (to an extent, competing) efforts to incorporate Serbia > along with the rest of the Balkans into the Western-run > neoliberal system, with the cooperation of elite elements > that will benefit by linkage to Western power and with the > likely effects of undermining independent economic > development and functioning democracy, and harming a good > part (probably considerable majority) of the population, > with the countries expected to provide cheap human and > material resources and markets and investment opportunities, > subordinated to Western power interests. Serious struggles > are barely beginning, as elsewhere. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ex-yu-a-lista mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://inje.iskon.hr/mailman/listinfo/ex-yu-a-lista > _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
