Forwarded from Anthony (reply to Jared Israel)

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Lou. Please post this.

In Reply to Borba:

What I wrote about Slobodan Milosevic is simply true, and easily verifiable.

You quoted me as follows:

"In power he [Milosevic] did more to build the petty nationalisms of
Croatia, Slovenia, et. al than any of their petty nationalist leaders could
ever have done. "

And you went on to say:

"This is simply untrue.  My question is, is it the media demonization of
the  Serbs that makes leftists feel they have the right to talk without
providing  evidence?  In other words,  have some people so absorbed
Serb-baiting  assumptions, that this kind of fallacy can just be stated
without requirement  of fact?"

In 1989 Miolosevic ended Kosovos autonomy, and soon after closed Albanian
language schools, dismissed Albanian language school teachers and
university professors, and then suspended its parliament and governmental
authorities. Milosevic at the time justified his actions by the complaints
of Serbians in Kosovo of mistreatment at the hands of the Kosovars.

Here is a quote which is factually accurate,

"Kosova (Koh-SOH-vah), also known as Kosovo, is the disputed region between
Kosova's Albanian majority and Serbia. Once an autonomous federal unit of
Yugoslavia, in 1989 it was stripped away of its autonomy by the government
of Slobodan Milosevic, whose later actions would result in the break-up of
Yugoslavia, which Serbia is a part of, and the ensuing wars in Croatia,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Kosova.

After the revocation of Kosova's autonomy, the Serbian authorities closed
schools in the Albanian language, massively dismissed Albanians from
state-owned enterprises, and suspended Kosova's legal parliament and
government."

(Source of quote is Albania.com - but you can go to the archives of any
source for the year 1989 - at the time I was reading the NYT, Washington
Post, SF Chronicle and assorted left press from the USA and find the same
story.)

                This action by Milosevic was the spark that lit the 
conflagration. It
justified the fears of many in Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, and Vojovodonia,
and Montenegro, that they might also suffer at the hands of the Serb
leadership. The nationalists in all of those Republics were able to
capitalize on those fears, and to rapidly increase their popularity.



        Six months later, nationalist leaders won election in Croatia, and 
Slovenia.

        Milosevic had lit the spark. Yugoslavia was now set to go up in flames.

        If Milosevic had not cracked down against the Albanian speaking 
Kosovars,
Tudjman might not have won election in Croatia.

        If Milosevic had not cracked won in Kosovo, in 1989 - Yugoslavia might
still exist.

        What Milosevic did in 1989 simply continued the political trajectory he
had adopted two years earlier, in 1987. Here is a little snippet if you
want some source other than yours truly. Please check all the facts
presented here against other sources.

THE POLITICAL SITUATION in THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC of YUGOSLAVIA (FRY)
(January 2000 (rev.1), http://www.europeanforum.bot-consult.se/cup/Yugoslavia)

Developments since 1987 The relations between Serbs and Albanians living in
Kosovo have always been troubled and potentially explosive, with discontent
on both sides. Then Serbian President Ivan Stambolic ruled like Tito had
done; he tried to maintain the status quo. When Slobodan Milosevic went to
Kosovo in April 1987 to represent Serbian President Stambolic in routine
discussions with the local leaders, he was not tainted with nationalism
yet. However, in Kosovo he first saw the strength of Serbian nationalism,
and he placed Kosovo on the political agenda. He exploited the powerful
anti-Albanian sentiments among the Serbs to gain support to topple his
mentor, Ivan Stambolic. After Stambolic' resignation in 1987, Milosevic
started the Anti Bureaucratic Revolution: a series of reorganizations to
remove all political enemies from the Serbian League of Communists. When
this was finished, gaining control over the autonomous provinces and the
other Yugoslav republics was his next step: in 1989 Milosevic was in
control of four of the eight representatives in the Central Committee:
Serbia, Montenegro, Vojvodina and Kosovo. To change the Socialist Yugoslav
Constitution, he needed five votes, but by using Serbian nationalism as his
means, he could not get a fifth vote. The Slovenes and Croats openly
opposed him, and the Bosnian and Macedonian delegates refused to surrender
themselves to him. The nationalistic speech Milosevic gave on the 600
anniversary of St. Vitusday, June 28, 1989, on Kosovo Polje scared many in
Yugoslavia and further alienated the non-Serbs in the country. Throughout
1990 elections were held in all republics, and in January 1991, the Federal
Presidency met, now consisting of Serbian nationalists, Croatian
nationalists, Slovene democrats aiming at independence, Bosnian
nationalistic Serbs and Croats, and the Bosnian Muslims and Macedonians
caught in the middle."

Borba continued,

"I've been doing research, mainly Lexis, on 1990-1992 and the more I read
the more obvious it is that a) Milosevic did not take a nationalist line.He
was a Yugoslavist, as opposed, say, to his opponent Vuk Draskovic. He never
called for Serbia to expand - he called for holding Yugoslavia together,
quite a different matter. Moreover, at the risk of sounding like a broken
record, Serbia itself as largely not ethnically Serbian. . B) If
Milosevbich is to be faulted, it is for being soft on secessionism - a
little of US Grant would have gone a long way."

I would like to suggest you take your research a few years back. The key
years are 1984 to 1990. By 1991 the fire was already burning, and like I
said, Milosevic lit the match. If you read Milosevic?s speech?s of the
times, like the famous one on the 600th anniversary of the Battle of
Kosovo, you will find he mixes "Yugoslavism" with mystical Serb patriotism
(Serbs have always been liberational, etc.). But you have to put those
speeches in the context of Milo?s actions in 1989 in Kosovo. Actions speak
louder than words.

On the issue of citing sources. I wrote my little shot at Milosevic without
reading anything about the man recently. I was actively involved in
politics during the years I mentioned, and followed Milo?s career as
closely as I could - although from a distance. My take on the man was based
on that study, made ten to fifteen years ago. I think I, and my cothinkers
of the time, were absolutely right - we predicted the civil war and
dismemberment of Yugoslavia then. We hoped we would be wrong, and I wish we
had been.

On the issue of Milosevic being a Titoist or nationalist. He certainly
wasn?t an "orthodox Titoist - Tito engineered the multi-cultural,
multi-lingual approach to Kosovo that Milosevic overturned. As for being a
Serb nationalist - in his heart - maybe he?s not. Maybe he?s only an
opportunist bureaucrat who used nationalism to get to the top. But his
actions fanned the flames of national hatreds - left him no other choice
but to become a nationalist. So what?s the difference?

Anthony


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/