http://www.selvesandothers.org/article12248.html
Selves & Others
Endgame in Kosovo? The Destruction of Yugoslavia Continues
The coming 'final status talks' on Serbia's southern autonomous
province will complete the Western conquest of the Balkans
by Jake Hess
16th November 2005
A decade ago this month, 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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".
Serbian News Network - SNN
[email protected]
http://www.antic.org/
