Arrest of Milosevic
New pieces in Balkan puzzle
The arrest of Slobodan Milosevic comes at a time of growing tensions throughout former Yugoslavia. In the last few weeks there have been armed clashes in Macedonia. The Dayton accords, which supposedly brought peace to Bosnia, are being torn up by sections of the Croat community. Later this month elections in Montenegro will probably decide on whether or not to secede from what remains of Yugoslavia.
All of these issues are inextricably linked. They are a product of the wave of Serb nationalism unleashed by Milosevic in the late 1980s which led to the violent break-up of Yugoslavia. They are also the results of imperialist intervention region, intervention which has led to new crises arising. Geoff Ryan explains.
The arrest of Milosevic
Socialist Outlook has consistently argued that the Greater Serbia policy pursued by Milosevic was the major cause of the violent break-up of Yugoslavia. There is no doubt that Milosevic bears the main responsibility for the wars that have led to so much death and destruction.
Consequently we have always been in favour of the overthrow of Milosevic, his arrest and trial. Just as we welcomed Milosevic’s overthrow last year, we now welcome his arrest and investigation pending trial.
Milosevic was overthrown by the workers of Serbia. They are the people most fit to judge him.
The rebuilding of unity between working people throughout the Balkans necessitates the Serbian working class coming to terms with Milosevic’s crimes. That requires recognising that Milosevic’s main crime was not losing wars but starting them.
Milosevic should certainly be indicted for corruption, embezzlement and enriching himself and his family and cronies. He should also be charged with the murder and attempted murder of his political opponents. However, this is not enough.
If the Serbian working class is to come to terms with the past it has to break with the destructive national chauvinism unleashed by Milosevic. That means recognising that although Serbia was a victim of Milosevic it was by no means the major victim. A real settling of accounts with Milosevic means he must also face trial for war crimes in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosova.
Does that mean Milosevic should be handed over to the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague? We certainly do not demand it. We utterly oppose any attempts by western powers to bully the Yugoslav government into handing over Milosevic.
In particular we condemn the cynical hypocrisy of the United States since both Democrat and Republican administrations have made absolutely clear that there is no chance an American soldier accused of war crimes would ever be handed over to the Hague.
However, if the Yugoslav government did freely decide to hand over Milosevic I certainly wouldn’t advocate taking to the streets to oppose it. The present governments of Croatia and Bosnia have handed over Croats and Bosnian Muslims to face charges at the Hague. In fact the current Yugoslav government recently handed over Milomir Stakic, the former mayor of the Bosnian town of Prijedor.
Divisions
The arrest of Stakic sharpened divisions between Yugoslav President Kostunica and Serbian Prime Minister Djindjic, with the former opposing extradition and reaffirming that Milosevic will never be handed over.
In any case the central issue is not where Milosevic should be tried, but that he should be tried for war crimes. However, as a Serb human rights worker recently told the Guardian’s Martin Woollacott ‘half of the present government should be in the courtroom at the Hague’.
The imperialist powers and Yugoslav politicians want to put all the blame on Milosevic. This allows them to cover up their own responsibilities in aiding and abetting his crimes against the people of former Yugoslavia. Milosevic should certainly be in the dock – but large numbers of western and Yugoslav politicians should be standing alongside him.
Macedonia
The ‘Macedonia Question’ was a major issue for imperialism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was also a central concern for NATO and western governments as Yugoslavia disintegrated.
Between 1945 and 1989 it was also the subject of heated arguments between the ‘socialist’ governments of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Today its continued existence is threatened, with recent armed clashes between the Macedonian army and the Albanian minority.
The current state called Macedonia was created as one of the Republics of Yugoslavia in 1945. In royalist Yugoslavia it was part of Serbia, and is still regarded as ‘South Serbia’ by many Serb nationalists.
However, the republic did not include the whole of the geographical area of Macedonia which was split between Vardar Macedonia (the former Yugoslav republic), Pirin Macedonia (south western Bulgaria) and Aegean Macedonia (northern Greece) – as well as a small part in Albania.
Challenged
Bulgarian and Greek nationalists, including the Stalinist varieties, have always challenged the legitimacy of an independent Macedonian nation, insisting that Macedonians were ‘really’ Bulgarian or Greek. Hence the insistence by Greek governments on the absurd name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The disintegration of Yugoslavia also threatened the disintegration of Macedonia, with Bulgaria and Greece making territorial claims. Bulgarian and Greek offers of support to the government of Macedonia should not be allowed to obscure their own designs on the territory (or their own mistreatment of national minorities).
The possibility of war between Greece and Turkey, both members of NATO, was a major cause of anxiety in western capitals in the early 1990s. It also informs current western hostility to the recent Albanian guerrilla struggle.
Albanians make up about one third of the population of the Macedonian state. They have been discriminated against in terms of jobs, education, language and other basic democratic rights.
The situation of Albanians in Macedonia is by no means the same as in Kosova under Milosevic. An Albanian party participates in government while another is in (legal) opposition. However, that does not mean the Albanians (and, for that matter, other national minorities in Macedonia) are not subject to national oppression.
Socialist Outlook has always championed the right of people to self-determination. That includes the right to independence. We argue that borders are not sacrosanct. At the same time we insist on the need to guarantee full and equal rights to all national minorities.
Although we defend the right of nations to independence and, where necessary, redraw boundaries to unite a nation in a single state, we do not usually advocate it.
In the real world, especially in such a multi-national region as the Balkans, there can be no ethnically homogenous states. Attempts to unite all Croats, Albanians, Hungarians etc in a single state will almost certainly involve, at best, massive transfers of people. In reality it will mean war and ‘ethnic cleansing’.
It is also clear that any attempt to force one third of the population of a state to remain against their wishes can only be accomplished by large scale repression. If the majority of the Albanian population of Macedonia want to secede and unite with Kosova we support their right to do so. This includes the right to unite the majority of the Albanian people in a single state. Macedonian socialists have a duty to insist on the right to self-determination, including independence, of the Albanian minority.
However, it is by no means clear that a majority of Albanians in Macedonia do, in fact, want to secede. Even the National Liberation Army has spoken mainly about equal rights for Albanians within Macedonia, rather than independence. Albanian Socialists in Macedonia should argue for equal rights for Albanians and other national minorities, including rights to autonomy, as well as a huge expansion of democratic rights for the whole population.
Recent events in Macedonia are a spin off from the war in Kosova. The refusal of the imperialist powers to countenance independence for Kosova has increased frustrations among Albanians throughout the region which are currently being fought out in Macedonia.
Same initials
In Albanian both the National Liberation Army and Kosova Liberation Army are known by the same initials: UCK. This is no coincidence. Many of the fighters with the NLA fought in the KLA and many, though by no means all, are Kosovars. Most probably the majority of former KLA activists come from sections which lost out in the post-war power struggle among the different factions of the KLA.
They appear to have believed that if they could provoke the Macedonian army into massive repression this would swing the majority of Albanians behind independence and bring western pressure on the Macedonian government. They did not understand that imperialism intervened in Kosova not because they cared about the fate of Albanians but because Milosevic was no longer the best guarantor of stability in the region.
Hopefully the haste with which western governments have declared their hostility to Albanian separatism in Macedonia will help disabuse them of their illusions in imperialism.
Bosnia
From the beginning of the war in Bosnia Socialist Outlook supported Bosnian independence. We did not take the view that all parties involved in the war were equally bad but argued for defence of Bosnia against Serbian and Croatian aggression.
Bosnia was a multi-national state and its government, (whatever our many criticisms of it), continually defended its multi-national and multi-ethnic nature.
We therefore opposed the Dayton Accord because it gave de facto recognition to the partition of Bosnia along ethnic lines. Far from reducing national conflicts, Dayton institutionalised them.
In the Republika Srpska the hard-line nationalists of the Serbian Democratic Party (SDS) associated with Radovan Karadzic have received the backing of Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica – proof that simply removing Milosevic was never going to be enough to end Serb nationalism.
This had an impact in the Muslim-Croat Federation where the Croat nationalist HDZ (the party of ex-President Tudjman) is now attempting to resurrect Tudjman’s vision of a Croat mini-state that would become part of Croatia.
Large numbers of Croats have responded to their call to leave posts in the army, police and government services. In the divided city of Mostar, clashes have taken place between HDZ supporters and Bosnian and UN police, backed by NATO troops. The HDZ opposed government forces taking over the Hercegovacka Banka – widely believed to have been used by the HDZ to finance its secessionist campaign.
The HDZ has consistently refused to end the division of Mostar and has maintained parallel institutions to those of the Federation. Despite paying lip service to the Muslim-Croat Federation, it has continued Tudjman’s plans for the carving up of Bosnia between Croatia and Serbia.
However, there is now a crucial difference: the post-Tudjman government is opposed to the creation of a Croat mini-state in Bosnia. The Croatian government welcomed the seizure of the Mostar bank and has supported the removal of HDZ leader Ante Jelavic and other Croat officials from the Bosnian government. This contrasts with Kostunica’s continued support for the SDS in the Serb entity.
There has been a reversal in the relationship between Croatia and the Bosnian Croats. Tudjman used his position in Croatia to influence events in Bosnia, the Bosnian Croat leadership are now trying to influence events in Croatia. In February a 100,000 strong demonstration organised by the HDZ protested against the warrant issued by the Croatian government for the arrest of Major General, Mirko Norac – the highest ranking army officer to be indicted for war crimes. Along with four others, he is charged with ordering and participating in the massacre of at least 24 Serb civilians in October 1991.
This brings us back to Milosevic. The willingness of the government of Croatia to recognise war crimes committed in the name of Croatian nationalism and to deal with the perpetrators is in marked contrast to the failure so far of the Serbian authorities to recognise the responsibility of Serbian nationalism for the brutal wars in ex-Yugoslavia.
Moreover, events in Bosnia show that although we always support the right to self-determination we do not always support demands for independence, especially when they are primarily designed to prevent the continued existence of another state.
We support the right of Croats in Bosnia to full and equal rights, including national rights. Croats, and all the other nationalities of Bosnia, should have considerable autonomy. However, we would only support their right to secede from Bosnia if the level of national oppression was such that there was absolutely no possible alternative.
That is clearly not the situation at present. Nor is it the situation of the Macedonian Albanians.