Independence for Kosova!
Socialist Outlook has, ever since the beginning of the break-up of Yugoslavia, supported the right of the peoples of ex-Yugoslavia to self-determination.
This does not mean that we actually supported the break-up. Unlike the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia was not a ‘prison house of nations’. Nor does it mean that we have always advocated independence for the former Republics of Yugoslavia. However, whenever there has been a clearly expressed desire by a majority in the former Republics we have supported their right to independence.
Our attitude has been in total contrast to that of the western leaders. Right from the beginning of the crisis in Yugoslavia the west attempted to maintain its territorial unity. Their entire strategy has been to maintain the status quo.
In Kosova it was patently obvious even before the war that the majority of the population want independence from Yugoslavia. Even if that were not the case it is highly unlikely, to say the least, that after the mass expulsions and murders Kosovars would want to be part of the same state as Milosevic. Yet Nato still refuses to recognise the right of the Kosovars to independence. That is not surprising.
The US and the EU - including Germany, despite what some on the left would have us believe - rejected the demands for independence by Slovenia and Croatia. Germany only gave recognition at the end of 1991 - after the war in Croatia had ended. The EU did not follow suit until January 1992.
The US did not recognise Croatia and Slovenia until April that year, when it also recognised Bosnia-Hercegovina and Macedonia.
Kosovar independence can only be guaranteed by the Kosovar people themselves. That means arming the KLA - not allowing NATO troops to prevent self-determination
Put simply, Nato has only recognised the right of self determination when it has had absolutely no other option. It has never once supported anyone exercising that right.
True, Tony Blair has recently stated that it may be necessary to reconsider the Rambouillet agreement, under which Kosova remained part of Serbia. But this is at a time when Nato is waging war against Serbia, and is no doubt intended to rally public opinion in Britain around the military campaign.
If Blair is serious about this belated recognition it is welcome - but proves exactly our point that it has had to be forced on a Nato government.
More importantly it contrasts with the plan for the future expansion of the EU and Nato to the east put forward by German Defence Minister, Joschka Fischer. Fischer’s plan envisages the maintenance of current borders for the next 20 to 30 years.
The government of Greece can certainly be expected to oppose Kosovan independence. Since Greece is the least reliable Nato power in the war against Serbia, anything that is likely to weaken Greece’s half-hearted support is going to be stamped on. Blair will no doubt end up supporting Fischer’s proposals.
Despite all the crocodile tears shed over the brutal expulsion by Milosevic of the Kosovan Albanians, the west has no intention of accepting any real independence for Kosova, whether or not it remains part of Yugoslavia.
This was absolutely clear at Rambouillet where Nato insisted that the Kosova Liberation Army (KLA) must disarm. After the KLA’s initial refusal to sign the Rambouillet agreement it was bullied into reversing this decision by the US. So much for the right of representatives of the Kosovars to self-determination.
If Nato was really interested in self-determination for Kosova they would have massively armed the KLA. Instead the Albanian population are expected to put themselves under Nato ‘protection’ - after having first been threatened with military violence if they fail to do what they are told by the US.
We have already seen in Croatia and Bosnia what Nato (or UN) protection means. UN troops were sent to Croatia at the request of Slobodan Milosevic. The United Nations’ Protection Areas guaranteed Serb control over areas that had been ‘ethnically cleansed’ of their Croat inhabitants. In Bosnia UN troops stood by while Serb forces carried out the massacre at Srebrenica.
Milosevic’s renewed war in Kosova is a direct result of the Dayton agreement imposed by the US, which saw the introduction for the first time of Nato troops into the Balkans.
Dayton did not only legitimate the de facto division of Bosnia into two ‘entities’, nor did it simply reinforce Slobodan Milosevic’s position as the west’s chief broker of any ‘settlement’ – a position that would have been seriously weakened if Nato hadn’t acted quickly to prevent the defeat of Serb forces in Bosnia by the Croatian and Bosnian armies.
It also guaranteed that Kosova would remain part of Serbia and Yugoslavia - despite the overwhelming hostility of the majority of Kosovars to Serbian rule.
Ignoring the wishes of the Albanian majority at Dayton led to a renewal of Serbian oppression in Kosova. That is exactly what we predicted at the time. If it was obvious to us, it is difficult to believe that Nato leaders could not also foresee such consequences. We can only conclude that in order to bring the war in Bosnia to an end Nato was willing to allow Milosevic, ‘a man with whom they could do business’, a free hand in Kosova.
But Dayton also had another consequence. For many years the Albanians of Kosova had pursued a strategy of passive resistance to Serbian rule. Nato’s willingness to reward Serbian aggression with the partition of Bosnia suggested to a number of Albanians that a more militant strategy might pay. The willingness of the west to reward Milosevic gave birth to the Kosova Liberation Army.
Almost up to the start of Nato attacks the KLA was portrayed in the west as a terrorist organisation. Today, for their own cynical reasons, Nato occasionally recognises the KLA as representing the Albanian majority in Kosova.
But the KLA has also been left in no doubt as to its very minor status. Nato envisages Kosova being turned into a ‘protectorate’ in which all major decisions will be taking by Nato forces - not the KLA or any other representatives of the Albanian people. ‘Protectorate’ and ‘self determination’ are totally contradictory conceptions.
Milosevic could decide to end the war by proposing partition of Kosova. In Nato’s eyes, the KLA would once again become a terrorist organisation, an obstacle to peace.
Of course we can understand why Kosovars have supported Nato actions, and why they may well welcome Nato troops - just as we could understand why many Catholics welcomed British troops in the North of Ireland in 1969. But any Nato troops in Kosova would be a serious threat to Kosovar self-determination.
Just as Irish Catholics quickly found that British troops were not there to protect them, so Kosovars will learn that Nato has no intention of defending their rights. On the contrary: Nato guns would very rapidly be turned on those they were supposed to be ‘liberating’.
Kosovar independence can only be guaranteed by the Kosovar people themselves. That means arming the KLA - not allowing Nato troops to prevent self determination.