From Baghdad to Belgrade

The NATO war on Yugoslavia did not start in March 1999, but eight years earlier, when President George Bush attacked Iraq. The roots of both wars, with their scenes of ruthless destruction, may be found in the fall of the Soviet Union. Its collapse opened a vacuum in international relations, which the United States and its European allies quickly attempted to fill. Where nations were reluctant to join the new, unipolar World Order, its bearers have tried to thrust it upon them, using stealth bombers and Tomahawk missiles. Why not? With so much sophisticated power in their arsenals, they can wage nice, clean wars without shedding or smelling blood (their own, that is). The most recent of these push-button exercises, however, is costing Europe's backyard a very high price. For fifty years after World War II, military buffs had to make do with other continents. Now here they are again, letting loose on Europe itself.
After the first post-Soviet war, the US distributed new roles to its allies, rewarding the support they had given the American global dream. Israel received the Madrid Conference. Here the US was in charge, and it soon became apparent to the Arab world, including the Palestinians, that if they wanted America on their side, they had better accept Israel. This set the stage for Oslo, where the Palestinians struck out on their own, relinquishing the struggle for a viable state.
No less important was the role awarded to Germany. It expanded to include Berlin and East Germany, and it renewed its old sphere of influence in the Balkans. With German interests in view, the New World Orderers encouraged Croatia and Slovenia (relatively wealthy provinces, with German connections going back to World War II) to secede from Yugoslavia, and the fragmentation of that country began. Then came Bosnia. Now Kosovo. The US, with its military budget of $281 billion, has the first and last word in the unipolar system. Whoever wants a place here must pay with obedience. The UN has lost its role as a mediator between the great powers. When it is not serving as an auxiliary of the US State Department, it finds itself neutralized.

There are, of course, important differences between the West's war against Iraq and the one in the Balkans. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait after a disagreement concerning oil prices. The US, supported by a great many European and Arab allies, and with the backing of the UN, attacked Baghdad. The pretext was to defend international law and the sovereignty of Kuwait. Yet the deeper reasons were obvious: Saddam, a third-world leader, was threatening the established oil suppliers, over whom the US intends to keep control.
In Yugoslavia (not "third-world" in the least), the American mission is more complex. On the one hand, Washington wants to ensure that the old communist structures and alliances never return. Therefore it encourages nationalistic movements – the Kosovo Liberation Army, for example. On the other, it seeks to contain this nationalist genie, lest matters get out of control – it opposes statehood for Kosovo. Whereas Iraq invaded Kuwait, Kosovo is recognized by all to be part of Yugoslavia. The government in Belgrade is dealing with an internal problem, although it may be using brutal, unacceptable methods. Would America have dared bomb Pretoria to overthrow the apartheid regime? Or would it dare bomb Ankara today, in order to safeguard Kurdish rights?
Despite the differences, there are also striking resemblances between the two wars. In an article entitled, "Morality? Don't make me laugh", John Pilger of The Guardian writes: "In spite of his part in the blood-letting of Bosnia, Milosevic, the 'reformer', became a favorite among senior figures in the US State Department. And in return for his co-operation in the American partition of Bosnia at Dayton in 1995, he was assured that the troublesome province of Kosovo was his to keep." (So too the US supported Saddam in his long war with Iran, and at first it even gave him to understand, in a now famous ambassadorial letter, that he might punish Kuwait without reprisal. – YBE.) "'President Milosevic,' said Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy, 'is a man we can do business with, a man who recognizes the realities of life in former Yugoslavia.' The Kosovo Liberation Army was dismissed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as 'no more than terrorists'. Last October, the Americans drafted a 'peace plan' for Kosovo that was pro-Serbia, giving the Kosovars far less autonomy and freedom than they had under the old Yugoslav federation.
"But this deal included, crucially for the Americans, a NATO military presence. When Milosevic objected to having foreign troops on his soil, he was swiftly transformed, like Saddam Hussein, from client to demon. He was now seen as a threat to Washington's post-cold war strategy for the Balkans and eastern Europe. With NATO replacing the United Nations as an instrument of American global control, its 'Membership Action Plan' includes linking Albania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia. Like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic before them, these impoverished countries will be required to take part in a £22 billion weapons' buildup. The beneficiaries will be the world's dominant arms industries of the US and Britain - the contract for fighter aircraft alone is worth £10 billion." (The Guardian, April 19.)

The dismantling of the Old Order has not proceeded as smoothly as expected. Despite American airpower and ruthless economic sanctions against civilians, the US appears unable to topple the Iraqi leader. Its impotence has no doubt encouraged Milosevic to maintain, even strengthen, his grip over what's left of the old Yugoslavia. In the Balkans the US is trying, by violence, to piece together a puzzle whose parts are missing. Since the launching of the New Order in 1991, developments have shown that the world is too big for the American stomach. The unipolar global regime has already created contradictions between global and local markets, setting off a wave of economic disasters which started in Southeast Asia, got new momentum in Russia, and leaped the Atlantic to Brazil and Latin America. One finds such contradictions even within the camp of Washington's developed, capitalist allies. Ever since the Soviet Union collapsed, enabling the US to withdraw the trade privileges it had given Japan, its East Asian bulwark, the latter has been slogging through a dreary economic crisis. In a unipolar world, international conventions lose their credibility. Nations look beyond the New World Order to the New World Jungle. In search of something to rely on, they do not want to be without... the bomb. India and Pakistan, for example. Soon, Iran. Can Iraq be far behind?

The global dream of capitalist cooperation and economic prosperity seems a nonstarter in the Balkans. A virulent nationalism is fueling ethnic strife, threatening to spill over and infect other countries as well. International law is undermined. In 1991, when the US put the UN in its back pocket, nations began to understand: "Finis! The UN can be bypassed." This atmosphere gave rise, for example, to the Oslo agreement, outside the UN framework, in deliberate disregard of UN Resolutions. Or take Russia. Despite American promises, the huge amount of money that would have been necessary to transform that country did not materialize. The financial wizards in Moscow were extremely disappointed with what America was ready to offer. They had thought they would become partners in the global capitalist enterprise, but instead they found themselves degraded to the status of chronic beggars. The Russian people have come to miss the Soviet Union – not because of its social system, which offered everyone a modest but safe livelihood, rather because of its might, which gave them a sense of dignity and national pride. The way NATO is behaving in the Balkans today, is provoking a rise of Russian chauvinism and Slavic solidarity. American policy aims at containing Russia. With this end in view, tUS is trying to ensure the permanent dismemberment of the former socialist bloc. That is why it has encouraged nationalist sentiments in the Baltic States, the Ukraine, the Islamic republics, and of course Yugoslavia. That is also why it has cultivated the Yeltsin regime with the support of the Russian Mafia. Nato wants to limit the Russian role while securing German influence in Central Europe.
But the war in the Balkans may trigger, a few years down the road, a broader conflict in which Russia will strive to regain its place in the sun. At stake in Yugoslavia, therefore, is not only America's status as global sheriff, but also the fate of the Yeltsin government. The current war may well finish off that regime, in view of its economic dead-end and the rise of nationalist, anti- American trends. The situation of Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union should call to mind the humiliation of Germany after the First World War. We all know how that chapter ended.

It is impossible to solve the Balkan crisis within the present international capitalist framework. In contrast with national aspirations elsewhere, nationalism in the Balkans is not progressive. It plays into the hands of the imperialist powers, which are fighting to perpetuate their hold on the world. Capitalist countries must constantly find new markets in order to keep from collapsing. As a result of this necessity, they must periodically go to war. The Balkans, as a case in point, were a powder keg before they became communist. Socialism there – with all its faults and aberrations – did enable ethnic groups to live in peace and relative equality. When it fell, chaos came again. Much will have to happen, no doubt, before enough people, world over, realize the need for a different system. Yet only when we create a society that gives top priority not to the market, rather to the universal fulfillment of human needs, will we be able to live at peace with one another.