by Diana Johnstone (7-09-00)
Diana Johnstone writes on Balkans affairs.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
First my thanks to the Institute for kindly inviting me to take part in this conference. My subject relates to lies and deception, and this very morning when I turned on BBC television I heard another lie: the description of people marking the anniversary of the start of the NATO bombing by protests as "supporters of Miloevic". Personally, I am certainly not here to support Miloevic -- Yugoslav politics are the business of the Yugoslavs, not my business. I am here to express solidarity with the people of Yugoslavia who have been unjustly subjected to bombing, economic sanctions, political isolation and slander, and with all the people in the world who want peace and the rule of international law. My presence here is in protest against the cruelty of the self-styled humanitarians who wield enormous economic and technological power without a trace of wisdom or compassion, whose wealth and military might have brought them to the state of mind which the ancient Greeks called hubris.
Aggressive wars and imperial enterprises usually cloak themselves in noble pretexts. Each pretext must seem plausible in its own historical period. The notion of "humanitarian intervention" grew out of a combination of contemporary factors: the drastuc decline of progressive political thinking at the end of the Cold War, the decline of the protective role of the weaker national governments, the rise of "non-governmental organizations", the multiplication of internal armed conflicts often along ethnic lines. In the early nineties, it was being theorized by one of the most prestigious of United States "think tanks" the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In 1992, the Carnegie Endowment published a book entitled Self-Determination in the New World Order, which foreshadowed the policy of the Clinton administration in Kosovo, since it was the product of a team of policy-makers who went on the design that policy.
In the post-Cold War world, the Carnegie Endowment study noted, "groups within states are staking claims to independence, greater autonomy, or the overthrow of an existing government, all in the name of self-determination". In regard to these conflicts, "American interests and ideals compel a more active role".
So allow me to quote: "As of mid-1992, neither the United States nor the world community has reached a point where humanitarian calamities resulting from self-determination claims or internal repression automatically trigger collective military intervention to accomplish strictly humanitarian objectives. But humanitarian intervention will become increasingly unavoidable."
What is noteworthy here is that the United States policy-makers proposed "collective military intervention", and not any sort of diplomatic or political solution, as the inevitable outcome of "self-determination claims", which could be expected to meet with "internal repression". And already in 1992, this military action was labeled "humanitarian intervention".
The statement that "humanitarian intervention will become increasingly unavoidable" was a self-fulfilling prophecy in the unusually literal sense that those who made it helped it come true. The 1992 book, Self-Determination in the New World Order, was the product of a group of foreign policy specialists brought together by the Carnegie Endowment President to work out new policy options for the post-Cold War period. That president was Morton Abramowitz, a former U.S. ambassador to Thailand who has specialized in intelligence matters, and who went on to be a champion of the UÇK and an advisor to the Kosovo Albanian delegation at Rambouillet; Abramowitz has since become president of the influential Council on Foreign Relations. He is also on the board of the International Crisis Group, the Brussels-based think-tank that formulates policy options for the "international community" in Bosnia and Kosovo, and is financed by both Western governments and private foundations, notably the Soros foundation. The Abramowitz group of specialists that pondered the theory of "humanitarian intervention" in the early 1990s included Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke and Leon Feurth, who is the foreign policy advisor to Albert Gore, now vice president and leading candidate for the presidency to succeed Clinton. The authors of the book I have cited on Self-Determination in the New World Order were Morton Halperin, head of State Department policy planning under Madeleine Albright, and David Scheffer, who is Albrights special envoy for war crimes issues.
So here we have a team that first evolved the theory of "humanitarian intervention" and then put it into practice. From what I know of American policy-makers I would not, however, leap to the conclusion that this is a conspiracy. Rather, I think it is closer to hubris: the arrogance of a small elite group of people who take it upon themselves to decide how to use the immense military power of the United States, and who never question their own right to do so or their own righteousness. Madeleine Albright is widely quoted as having asked rhetorically what good it was to have the world's greatest military power if one didn't use it. Having found what they consider a theoretical excuse to use that power, they eagerly seized what looked like a perfect occasion to put it into practice. They probably convinced themselves. They imagined that they were "present at the creation" of a new era of unchallenged U.S. power, that they were constructing something grandiose... when in reality they were embarked on a frightful course of destruction.
The Military-Industrial Complex
At the end of the Cold War, it was commonly said in Washington that "NATO must either go out of area, or out of business". Such expenditure, and such a massive U.S. military presence in Western Europe were no longer credible in the defensive terms of the North Atlantic Treaty. To survive, it was argued, NATO had to be expanded in two ways: it needed to take in new members from the old Soviet bloc, and it needed to extend its mission to the defense of vaguely defined "security interests" of its member anywhere in the world.
What was the need of such expansion? Experts searching for new "strategic threats" were unable to agree on anything convincing. But the think tanks and futurologists continued to search for plausible reasons because they were handsomely paid to do so. The institutes that finance such theorizing in search of enemies are funded by the industries and financial institutions that profit from Pentagon contracts and related sales to U.S. military allies.
The U.S. economy needs NATO. In the past half century, the military industrial complex has become a determining factor in U.S. public life, subsidizing advanced research, financing political campaigns and controlling major media. Expansion of NATO means new markets for U.S. military contractors. To join NATO, Central Eastern European countries will be required to strain their budgets in order to procure the latest U.S. military equipment. Poland alone is expected to buy 100 to 150 new fighter planes, meaning contracts worth some two to six billion dollars for Lockheed or Boeing. Not surprisingly, then, the reluctance of many U.S. Congressmen to endorse NATO expansion was overcome by a powerful lobby, the "U.S. Committee to Expand NATO", presided by Lockheeds chief executive. It was U.S. private corporations and not Member State governments that provided the $8 million to pay for NATOs birthday party last April.
This direct interest of the arms industry goes hand in hand with the more general U.S. interest in strengthening NATO as the primary instrument for maintaining U.S. supremacy over its main economic partner, the European Union. In the race between the E.U. and NATO to take over the former communist countries of Eastern Central Europe, NATO has been winning. The militarization of the Yugoslav crisis has greatly contributed to this militarization of European unification.
The New World Order
One last citation from the Halperin-Scheffer book: "The vision of a `new world order' since 1990 has been a world with one superpower -- the United States -- in which the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle, disputes are settled peacefully, aggression is firmly met by collective resistance, and all people are justly treated". This is a remarkable statement since it refers to a "rule of law" that has not yet been written and implicitly rejects existing international law as "the rule of the jungle". To quote further: "International law -- as it always has done -- will respond and adjust to the behavior of nations and the actions of multilateral institutions". The NATO war against Yugoslavia, in flagrant violation of existing international law, was designed to force such adjustment.
A major feature of this "new world order" is the demolition of national sovereignty, an essential principle of existing international law. A world with a single superpower is a world where only that superpower has a sure claim to "national sovereignty" -- an outdated concept for the rest. Lesser sovereign nations are to be broken down not only from the outside, by the pressures of economic globalization, but also and more acceptably from the inside. The reason is simple: weak governments of small states cannot protect their resources or the welfare of their populations from the demands of "the markets", that is, from the interests of transnational investment capital.
The United States is a "free market democracy" with emphasis on the "market", which includes a "free marketplace of ideas". Foreign policies also need to sell themselves on a very special, bifurcated marketplace. There is the "up market" of the professional geostrategists, the "foreign policy community" with its think tanks, elite clubs and sober publications. And there is the "down market" that goes all the way down to the British tabloids. A successful policy will be one that can sell itself both to the up market, as being in line with dominant interests, and to the down market, as appealing to ready stereotypes and gratifying emotions.
"Humanitarian intervention" is essentionally for the down market, even though it may involve prominent intellectuals and famous show business celebrities. For the "up market", there is Zbigniew Brzezinski and his Realpolitik objective: "to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still". This involves creating a "geopolitical framework" around NATO that will initially include Ukraine and exclude Russia. This will establish the geostrategic basis for controlling conflict in what Brzezinski calls "the Eurasian Balkans", the huge area between the Eastern shore of the Black Sea to China, which includes the Caspian Sea and its petroleum resources, a top priority for U.S. foreign policy.
The Brzezinski geostrategy may recall the quip about NATO and Europe: "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". Can this be exactly what the Germans want, now that Germany is back to being what its leaders call a "normal" power? Brzezinski openly wants to prevent a juncture between Germany and Russia that would lead to a European superpower out of U.S. control.
This and other considerations may suggest that the German-American strategic partnership is not quite as solid as claimed. But for the moment it is interesting to see how the divergent geopolitical aims and approaches of Germany and the United States have combined to tear apart Yugoslavia in what I would call a two-phase movement.
Destruction in Two Phases
Transforming Yugoslavia from a medium-sized independent state, with a unique reputation in the region for resistance to foreign empires, into a series of ethnic statelets whose economic assets can be easily expropriated and whose territory can be used for NATO bases on the way to Ukraine and the Caspian certainly fits in generally to the Brzezinski scheme of things.
Still, the initial support to secessionist movements in Yugoslavia came from Germany, not from the United States. And again in Kosovo, there are strong indications that Germany was the first to provide support for the Albanian secessionist movement, including the UÇK. In both cases, Germany was the first to intervene, but the United States, with agile opportunism, managed to take control of the game and play it to American advantage. The game is not over.
In this two-phase movement, Germany and its traditional völkisch -- which might be roughly translated as ethnic nationalist or separatist -- approach to Eastern Central Europe dominates the first phase of attack against the targeted nation-state. In the second phase, the United States takes over with a rhetorical "multiculturalism" justifying a takeover of political and economic decision-making by the "international community".
In Germany, the völkisch approach was flagrant in the right-wing press campaign of 1991 and 1992 championing the Croats as "real Europeans" in contrast to the Serbs, stigmatized as Oriental barbarians with no place in civilized Europe. This was a revival of the traditional German policy toward the Balkans of divide and rule through emphasis on ethnic identities, and manipulation of Croatian and Albanian nationalism in particular to weaken Serbia. In addition, German policy toward Yugoslavia reflected the influence and interests of the powerful associations of Vertriebene, representing over twelve million Germans and their descendants who were expelled from Eastern European countries after World War II. Stigmatizing "ethnic cleansing" as a peculiarly Slavic practice, equivalent to genocide, can strengthen the hand of ethnic Germans in their efforts to regain their property and positions in Eastern European countries eager to join the European Union.
In the United States, the origins of the policy toward Yugoslavia are much more confused. The influence of certain lobbies has pushed U.S. policy in the German direction, but the underlying ideology and interests are somewhat different. In American politics, ethnic lobbies can decide elections, and politicians pay a lot of attention to their demands. The extraordinary influence of the Cuban exile lobby in Florida is the most striking example. But lobbies of anti-communist exiles from Eastern Europe -- often including Nazi collaborators -- have also had a very negative influence. In the case of Yugoslavia, the nationalist Croatian lobby was extremely active. Together, the Croatian and Albanian separatist lobbies reinforced each others credibility by presenting themselves as victims and stigmatizing Yugoslavia as a mistake of history, a prison of peoples oppressed by Serbs.
These anti-Yugoslav, anti-Serb lobbies were able to extend their influence without any serious contradiction. There were no comparable pro-Yugoslav or pro-Serb lobbies, inasmuch as Serb émigré communities had no project for getting U.S. support to change Yugoslavia. Political divisions between Serbs persist in emigration. Even today, when Serbian-Americans are suffering from the demonization of the Serbian people, there is still no coherent, effective Serbian lobby in the United States.
Using professional public relations techniques, the Croatian and Albanian lobbies prepared congressmen and editors to interpret the Yugoslav conflicts as an attack by Serbs on everybody else. By supporting the Albanians in particular, the United States adopted an ethnic policy parallel to that of Germany. In Kosovo, the armed Albanian separatist rebels provided the "self-determination claims" causing "humanitarian calamities" needed to trigger "collective military intervention".
U.S. support for the Bosnian Muslims was of a different nature. United States support for the Bosnian Muslims apparently had less to do with Yugoslavia than with the opportunity it offered to pursue a strategic alliance with such important allied Muslim states as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan, and to prove that despite its unswerving support to the State of Israel, America really loved Muslims. And indeed, the United States has repeatedly favored Islamic political currents as an effective counter to nationalisms that risk endorsing protectionist economic policies. As an added bonus, support for Muslim Bosnia could prove a thorn in the side of Germany, which had moved so rapidly to assert its influence in Croatia.
The U.S. sponsorship of the Bosnia Muslim was the first part of "phase two": support for independent Bosnia-Herzegovina was definitely not völkisch but was cast in terms of multiculturalism. In this respect, the sporadic Serbian attempt to gain Western sympathy by recalling Serbias historic role as bulwark of Christian civilization against encroaching Islam misfired badly. It appealed only to a small and isolated fringe on the far right. For the most part, contemporary public opinion in the West is too ignorant about the Balkan past to understand the historical basis for this argument and instead projects its own past -- the Crusades, colonialism, exploitation of Muslim immigrant workers -- onto the Serbs. Support for the Muslims was even a sort of atonement for past Christian sins. Izetbegovic was celebrated as a champion and martyr of tolerance and multiculturalism. The Serbs thus became the scapegoat for the bad conscience of that part of the West -- including precisely the liberal currents which traditionally were allied with the Serbs -- which is more ashamed than proud of its "Christian heritage".
The New Crusade
Despite the role of right-wing nationalist movements in the dismantling of the old Yugoslavia, the NATO crusade against Belgrade has been pursued most vigorously by center left political formations in the NATO countries in the name of "humanitarian intervention". This represents the second phase, with its American ideology and harmony with the goals of U.S.-sponsored globalization.
The political center left represented by this generation of American liberal and European social democratic leaders, in the absence of effective economic policies to promote the social justice they traditionally claim to serve, have in the past decade found a successful role for themselves as ideological apologists for globalization. These politicians are the ideal salesmen for globalization with a human face, in the name of human rights without borders as the virtuous cause they need in order to distinguish themselves from "the right", presumed to be indifferent to human suffering. Obliged to accept tax breaks for big investors, mass dismissals of factory workers and cutbacks in social programs, in terms of domestic policy the "third way" retains its position on the left primarily by championing cultural diversity. The enemy can no longer be capitalism. The enemy now is nationalism, portrayed as the source of all modern evil. For the "third way" of the left, we are living in a world where dominant economic forces, known euphemistically as "the markets" are neutral and innocent arbiters of all things, whose influence can only be healthy and even benevolent. Like theologians of other religions, since their god -- the Market -- is almighty and good, they are left with the problem of evil in the world. This must come exclusively from bad people who adopt wrong ideas, and foremost among these wrong ideas is " nationalism". The erstwhile champions of working class internationalism thus transform themselves into champions of international finance capital. This ensures them much more favorable media coverage than their predecessors.
In the United States, an extremely nationalist country where schoolchildren are required to pledge allegiance to the flag every morning, anti-nationalism is today the dominant ideology -- for the rest of the world. The U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, Nelson Strobridge ("Strobe") Talbott the Third, perfectly reflects current American ruling class attitudes when he writes: "Ill bet that within the next hundred years [...] nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority." The origin of that authority is implicit in the title of this essay, "America Abroad; The Birth of the Global Nation", published in the July 20, 1992 edition of Time magazine. Making the matter quite clear, he adds the observation that such multilateral financial institutions as the International Monetary Fund and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade "can be seen as the protoministries of trade, finance and development for a united world".
The political editor of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman, celebrated the start of the bombing of Yugoslavia with a notorious article announcing frankly that "the hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist" and that "for globalism to work, America cant be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is". Friedman illustrated his praise of globalization as the ultimate guarantor of world peace by a detail that must be particularly appreciated here in Belgrade: "It's true", he wrote, "that no two countries that both have a McDonald's have ever fought a war since they each got their McDonald's." But as you know, it is not true. To be sure, with all its McDonalds, Serbia did not attack the United States, but those McDonalds did not prevent the United States from attacking Serbia.
In Europe, anti-nationalism has been indispensable in the promotion of European unification. The more the European Union has been reduced to an instrument of transnational business and finance, the more it has been necessary, in public rhetoric, to stress its noble mission of putting an end to the national antagonisms that led to major European wars. The nation-state has been stigmatized as the cause of war, oppression and violation of human rights. This interpretation overlooks both the persistence of war in the absence of strong states and the historic function of the nation state as the most effective existing framework for the social pact enabling citizens to build structures of social protection and cultural development, as well as to develop legal systems able to provide equality before the law and to defend citizens rights. Demonizing as "nationalism" the only existing context for functioning institutionalized democracy obviously facilitates the dictates of "the markets", which are innocent of nationalist prejudice.
In this regard, we can see why, among the various "nationalisms" that have accompanied the collapse of Yugoslavia, the only "bad" nationalism in the NATOland perspective has been Serbian nationalism. Various factors may be mentioned, such as the strength of the Croatian nationalist and Albanian lobbies, the traditional German-Austrian policy, the belief -- whether true or not -- that Serbia was more attached to socialism than the other parts of Yugoslavia, and even, allow me to say, certain bad mistakes or misdeeds by Serbian nationalists, who are human like everybody else. However, the fundamental political fact is that Serbian nationalism is inextricably linked to the Serbian view of their role as state-builders in the Balkans. This was an asset to the Western allies at the start of the twentieth century. But now is a time when the great powers are not trying to build states, but to weaken them in favor of "the markets".
Germany and the United States
In the interplay of German and American propaganda against Yugoslavia, a very particular role has been played by the German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer. The traditional right-wing ethnic or völkisch German policy was contrary to the anti-nationalist liberal ideological climate of post-Cold War Europe. True, it was alarmingly successful in Germany in gaining support for Croatian secession, but the "Serbien muss sterbien" revival was not translatable in the rest of the European Union (except, of course, Austria) and was totally unsuitable for winning consensus for German military intervention in the Balkans. In order to reverse Germanys post-World War II policy of never sending military forces against another country, it was necessary to come up with arguments that silence the peace movement whose conspicuous blossoming in the 1980s had done so much to create the image of a new, peaceful Germany the Russians could trust with reunification. For this task, nobody could be better suited than the German Greens chosen leader -- chosen, incidentally, above all by the German media, who for well over a decade had "discovered" in Fischer a "realist" to celebrate, thus strengthening his position within his own party.
During the peace movement of the 1980s, Fischer defended NATO against critics within his own movement by an anti-nationalist argument: the "keeping Germany down" function. German nationalism, he argued, could best be kept under control within the NATO framework. Much more original was his argument, as it emerged in the mid-1990s, in favor of sending German military forces into Yugoslavia. The argument was simplicity itself, and went like this: "There are two `never again principles in the Green identity. One is `never again war, and the other is `never again Auschwitz... when they clash, as in Bosnia -- or later Kosovo -- one has to be sacrificed to the other." Thus all that was needed was a massacre, real or staged, labelled "Auschwitz" and the German Luftwaffe could take to the skies and bomb Belgrade just as in 1941, this time alongside the Americans.
Fischers line of argumentation and his attachment to "multiculturalism" produced a rationale for aggression against Serbia far more acceptable to his NATO allies than that of his conservative predecessors.. Indeed, the enthusiasm in Washington over the surprising rise of this self-educated, one-time street-fighting "revolutionary" is so amazing as to suggest some sort of prior meeting of minds. Before Fischer even took office, Richard Holbrooke declared that he would make "a great foreign minister". Fischer earned his place in the highest councils of power by his remarkable success in changing the look and the official rationale of German policy toward Yugoslavia from its original focus on ethnic identities to something quite different but still peculiarly German -- a sort of penance for Auschwitz. This was a properly German excuse for "humanitarian intervention".
In this way, German and American elements have merged in the ideological construction used to justify military aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and occupation of Kosovo. The pretext had to be extreme to justify violation of virtually every relevant treaty or international convention. The success of this "humanitarian" lie can be illustrated by a paradox. The protests in Seattle last December against the World Trade Organization showed that a huge new popular movement is developing to oppose "globalization". The people who went into the streets to denounce the WTO should have been demonstrating earlier against the NATO war in Yugoslavia. The fact that most of them did not proves that they did not understand that the NATO assault on Yugoslavia was precisely an integral part of that forced globalization they oppose. The people who should be opposing NATOs war policy have been temporarily confused and demobilized by the "humanitarian" claims of the center left hypocrites in office in most of the NATO countries.
This makes our task clear: we need to make our people understand that NATO is the military arm of an unjust, undemocratic and destructive economic globalization. The war against Yugoslavia was deliberately launched in order to initiate a new phase of imperialist intervention, more dangerous and destructive than the imperialism of the past. This is the truth that must be recognized for justice to be done.
To find out more about "JUDGMENT!" go to http://emperors-clothes.comFilm/astunnin.htm