Right of Knin to self determination

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, in retrospect I think my position on this *was* weak on
the point on which Paul challenged me (see below).

Now Knin has fallen far faster than expected. And tens of thousands of
Serbs are being allowed to flee into Bosnia.

I was deliberately trying to post while the news was breaking and
while we were in a position of maximum uncertainty, to see to what
extent it was possible to define a principled marxist position.
That inevitably left hostages to fortune. And as the news of the
Croat bltzkreig unfolded, even if Geneva conventions were followed
(most doubtful) I felt bad. Made worse by hearing the British and
French governments condemning the attack. Even though the British
government has in my view a record of almost unparalled hypocrisy
in Yugoslavia, I feel that this statement in the concrete situation was
a small positive step, may have acted as a small break of caution on
the headlong nature of a Croat attack, and should have been called for.


But, but, Paul is inviting me to go into a serious discussion of the
application of the right of nations to self determination in the context
of the break up of socialist Yugoslavia, and I think that is a very
serious point against which anger and despair must be set on a
marxist list. I write on the assumption that Paul has worked as hard on
this aspect of marxism on other questions.

[I do not know Paul's position on the national question in the British
Isles, but for the record I think of England as the oppressor nation and I
assume categorically the *right* of Scotland to secede from Britain,
even if it was for awful reasons, led by a
party in league, shall we say purely hypothetically, with
the likes of Rupert Murdoch, who coincidentally wanted to control the
oil revenues from the Scottish sector of the North Sea. ]

The development of the marxist approach to the national question after the
death of Engels was always in a concrete historical and political context.
Marxist do not regard the nation as purely abstract miasma, of a
psychological significance separate from the economic base.

There are several phases. Prior to the October revolution, the marxist
policy on the national question was one of handling the question in the
context of the socialist revolution, to clear away any basis for
division between the workers of different nations and to maximise their
unity against capitalism. That meant upholding the right but not always
fighting for the exercise of the right of self determination of nations.

After the success of the October revolution the struggle on a world scale
against imperialism and colonialism gave an additional major strategic
significance to national democratic revolutionary movements in many
countries of the world (a position with which Trotskyists often had
difficulties).

We now see a new phase of the question in the former state socialist
countries of eastern Europe - a particularly problematic form of
nationalism as capitalism is reintroduced in several shapes or forms.
Despite the backing of dubious emigre anti-communist millionaires
however, such nationalism has little chance of creating a coherent
democratic state separate from the larger world economy, and is seldom
progressive.

The tragedies in Yugoslavia are associated not only with the centrifugal
economic effects of its proximity to the European Common Market,
intensifying differential rates of economic growth, as Louis
illustrated, but with the degeneration of the League of Communists of
Yugoslavia and the loss of a marxist perspective. Presumably Tito wrote
extensively on the national question. If anyone can dig up any
quotes from him I am reasonably confident that the Socialist Party of
Serbia is departing from their spirit.

I assume, that nationalist sentiment among Serbs has been used to provide
an ideological replacement for a marxist basis for unity, and that this
is comparable to the Slav nationalists in Russia.

I concede that in other parts of the former Eastern Bloc, there are parties
that have assumed a more overt nationalist character but also retained
important democratic or even socialist aspects. Presumably Paul feels
the Serbian marxists are of this sort.

As I understand it in 1991 Slovenia and Croatia wanted a constitutional
change from a federation to a confederation, to retain control of locally
raised taxes. The Serbs blocked the routine rotation of a Croat to
the presidency who would have had the vote that could tip the balance
for constitutional change. Croatia and Serbia backed by Bosnia and
Macedonia, gave an ultimatum that they would secede. The Serbs headed by
Milosovic called their bluff. When Slovenia seceded the Yuglosav
federal army was sent in. That was impermissible in marxist terms whatever
the motives behind the action of the Slovenes.

When Croatia and Bosnia confirmed their desire to secede, whether they
had dubious backers or not, the Serb counterploy was to deny the legitimacy
of the vote within the territory of the voting province, and to try to
repartition the country by force of arms distributed from the federal army
preferentially to Serb speakers. From a marxist perspective that
is counterproductive because it damages working class unity, whatever
the dubious allies of the Croats.

Paul may have more evidence than me, and I certainly concede Ustazi
fascist links with the Croat regime, but it is not clear to me that in
parts of Croatia not subject to war, there have been human rights
abuses against non-Croats.

Now in that concrete context should a Serb region like the Krajina have the
right to secede. I think Paul is wrong on this.

Clearly a marxist position would say that the Serbs in Krajina had a right
not to be oppressed whatever state structure they lived under. I presume
they had the right to use their language and to have their children
schooled in that language. Marxists should have defended that and still
defend it. But the Greater Serbian nation counter strategy to the right of
Croatia and Bosnia to secede was to insist on the breakup of multi-ethnic
civil powers and to force population expulsions. That is a violation of
human rights that has not only caused great injustice and suffering but
from a marxist view of the national question has caused great disunity
among working people.

Essentially marxists should have defended multiethnic civil structures.

Now the Knin area of Krajina has been mainly populated by Serb speakers
but does that make it part of the Serb nation? It does not have territorial
coherence which is a significant materialist consideration, but even
more important it does not have economic coherence as it is on the
communication routes down the Dalmatian coast.

A common language is not sufficient to constitute a common nation, as
subscribers to this list will agree.

Something less than national independence to Serb Krajina might be relevant
however, such as local autonomy particularly in questions of language and
schooling.

I accept that the Croatian attack should be criticised but it probably
could not have been stopped. What could still be stopped is active
atrocities by the Croat forces.

I think a marxist policy for regrouping a democratic and socialist agenda
in the provinces  of former Yugoslavia which will have to trade together
again in due course, should be one based on the respect for human rights,
and has to see a policy of Serbian nationalism, in the context of present
conditions, as damaging to the unity of workers of all nations and
nationalities. Croat nationalism of a similar nature should also be opposed.




>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: wpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Paul Cockshott)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 95 21:51:58 PDT
Subject: Re: War poised to expand

Chris
- -----

If, if, there really could have been a broad democratic movement
of solidarity with the people of the former Yugoslavia for peace and
human rights, tonight it would be coordinating pressure on the
Western Governments to press Croatia in turn to give clear
guarantees for respect of Geneva agreements, and the right for
people to continue to live in their own home, regardless of religion,
language or script. To give grudging due to the British government
it appears it may be doing that tonight.

Paul
- ----
This seems to me a very weak position. It evades the real question
- - the right to self determination. Although as Marxists we may
think that secession may be unwise, we have to recognise the
right to secession. If the Serbs in Kraina wish to form an
independent republic they have as much right to do so as the
Croats had to gain independence from Jugoslavia.
To call only for the recognition of the Geneva conventions is
to condone the trampling of this democratic right by the
Ustashi government.




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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