[Fwd: WHAT DOES AMERICA REALLY WANT IN THE BALKANS?]

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Sat Dec 2 10:18:23 MST 2000







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee for National Solidarity Tolstojeva 34, Belgrade, YU

  Author: Academician            Milorad Ekmecic WHAT DOES AMERICA REALLY WANT
IN THE BALKANS?   Today barroom politicians use to say  that it is America that
created Yugoslavia in 1918 and broke it up in 1992. To say that means to
disregard a crucial fact that the America of 1918 and that of 1992 are not one
and the same. On the eve of 1917 when America entered the war and when two
Americas were marching hand in hand none could predict that the gap between
these two Americas would grow so wide and the opposition so great as to make it
almost impossible to believe that they had ever, as people, belonged to the same
nation. The first America was the nation educated by Calvinistic teachers who
believed in the sovereign right of each nation to self-determination as a
stepping stone to democracy. It is from that angle of vision that the first
America considered Yugoslavia as one linguistic entity and fought for its
democratic unity. Woodrow Wilson was one of the most prominent personalities
professing these Calvinistic ideals. He is famous for saying that he " did not
know of any instance in history in which political advance had been made by
benefits granted from above; they all had to be gained by the efforts and the
bloods of the elements from below." This is the reason behind Wilson's refusal
to send marines to crush the rebellion in Mexico with the explanation that it is
up to each sovereign nation to build its own democratic state by itself. He also
refused to establish a big standing army and navy, because, in his view, they
would inevitably militerize the foreign and internal policy of the country and
provide for the domination of powerful intelligence services, thus bringing
about the destruction of the very foundation of American democracy and its
tradition. Wilson's support to the creation of unified Yugoslavia stemmed from
the principle that any solution based on the sovereignty of a nation could not
be permanent. The scholars, members of  " The Inquiry Group" in charge of
determining the American war aims for the Peace Conference in 1919 supported, as
basic, the idea that "scientists may safely conclude that any solution which
does not treat the Yugoslavs as one nation is based on unscientific foundations,
and hence cannot be considered a permanent solution". In 1917 this Group asigned
to work out the basic democratic principles of the future Yugoslavia, actually
feared that the Catholic church would try to use Germany as its major powerful
tool for the expansion towards the Christian Orthodox East. This fear was
actually the main driving force behind a successful completion of the project
called Yugoslavia. At the same time this fear was the main reason for not  
supporting the restoration of a Catholic Central Europe as an option which would
bring genuine stability to Eastern Europe. Woodrow Wilson also advised the
Serbian king that, whenever faced with the difficulties in the process of
establishing a democratic state in the Balkans he should only opt for a liberal
solution. Moreover, aware of the danger that in Northern Albania traditional
anarchy could be revived among the Albanian tribes Wilson thought that this
territory should either be incorporated in the state of Yugoslavia, or placed
under the trusteeship of the League of Nations. The Calvinistic concept of
"Covenant Democracy" did not prevail, either in the American domestic or foreign
policy. The actual winners of that historical race are the "Rednecks", a popular
name for the representatives of the big corporations and banks, who are
developing their proper ideology within semi-secret organizations. The main
features of that alternative American future were disigned already in 1915, in
the book:  America and the World War by Theodore Roosevelt. Instead of one 
League of Nations the author supports the idea to create a League of Winning
Nations, with America as a leader of the industrially most developed European
countries. This list also includes some small countries such as: Belgium,
Holland and Switzerland ( and oddly enough Uruguay too) because of their "
important and honorable role in the development of civilization!". This League
of Nations conceived as some kind of a punitive force on a global level against those
who do not comply with the rules of the new order. It was to be called "Posse
comitatus" but judging by its description it would rather remind of a group of
cowboys from the Wild West in pursuit of thieves. Within this framework the
American foreign policy is based on the principle "speak softly and carry a big
stick". Germany is to be the next leading nation to America because " the
Germans are not merely brothers; they are largely ourselves'. On the other hand,
the Slavs, assessed as not yet civilized, are not on this list. Evidently, the
author of the book displays ignorance about the Slavs similar to that of average
American who confuses "Yugoslovakia" with "Czechoslovakia". In his view the
Americans should not support the "Czechoslavs" and the "Yugoslavs". According 
to him the best solution for the Serbs is to be incorporated in a Catholic Habzburg
state. It is from the "Redneck Democracy" conceived before 1914 that the present
sumptuous plant of the American foreign and internal policy has developed. In
1992  Wilson D. Miscamble, historian, explained that the American government had
honored its commitment to support the Yugoslav state so long as Marshal Tito
represented a model of internal corrosion for the USSR. The very moment  the
Catholic nations of the Eastern  Europe started offering their more radical
assistance in this regard the American government responded by providing support
to the Catholic parts of Yugoslavia and their separatism. The first victim of
this change in approach was the principle of sovereignty of people as a basic in
democratic state. Instead, the idea of  "Nations without states" was gaining
support, as promoted by Gidon Gottlieb in "Foreign Affairs" of May 1994. It was,
actually, a redrafted philosophical idea of the Austrian authors Ludwig Von
Mises and Friedrich Hayek, from 1919. According  to Gottlieb the principle of
sovereignty "must  be supplemented by new scheme that is less territorial in
character and more regional in scope". This practically meant American political
support to a slow transformation  of integral Yugoslavia as a state by
encouraging the Catholic and Islamic separatism. In addition to that, due to the
crisis of communism in Eastern Europe and the disintegration  of the Soviet
Union  the integral state of Yugoslavia lost support from that side too. At
first the idea was to support the establishment  of network of cantons with
self-administration on the ruins of Yugoslavia, which would be followed by
independance of the states recognized by NATO. It was practically the approach
of Count Julius Andrassy before the Berlin Congress in 1878. Bosnia and
Hertzegovina were to be occupied because they do not have " a national of their
own and tend to unite with Serbia, thus threatening the stability of the whole
Central European system. In 1996 Henry Kissinger properly described  the outcome
of that approach in the following way:" When NATO recognized Bosnia as an
independent state it did not mean the birth of new state but the beginning of 
civil war." Nowdays the aim of the American government is not to set up a system
of stable, democratic states in the Balkans. As Woodrow Wilson feared already in
1914, America has become a global militaristic state, by its intelligence
services transformed into a police state, like any other such state. For America
all solutions for the Balkans are only the means, not the ends. The fundamental
democratic criteria the American government recognizes are not free elections
and a multi party system, but readiness to accept NATO military control over the
national territory and national foreign policy. The war NATO started against
Yugoslavia on March 24 last year was a "video game war", as suggested in July
1994 by David Gompert, Vice_Chairman of Rand Corporation and Senior director for
Europe and Euroasia in the Bush administration, because, according to him , the
Serbs only understand the language of force. "A sustained economic and
information war against Serbia should in time topple the Belgrade regime and
permit a better solution. Industrial demise and wretched living conditions
should create pressure for change.... Isolation and misery should produce a
democratic revolution and leaders eager to earn a place for the Serbs in the
society of nations. We should commit to quarantine Serbia until the virus it
carries has been eradicated." Today, the Balkans is a battle ground of the
adventurous policy pursued by the industrialized Central Europe, like in 1878,
1914 and 1941. By bombing the Serbs in Bosnia in 1995 and the Serbia in 1999
America is actually writing a new "Declaration of Independence" of a
militaristic and police state for the next century.   This is my answer to the
question  posed in the title.   Mrs Jela Jovanovic, art historian Secretary
General


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





More information about the Marxism mailing list