Of Nationalist Thugs (and those who enthroned them)

[Rob Schaap <carob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

G'day Brad,

Two responses come to mind.  Firstly, how would you define 'nationalist
thug' such that the utterances and actions of US presidents don't qualify
them as just that, and, secondly, are all nationalist words and actions much
of a muchness?  As Joanna Sheldon wrote the other day, nationalism in the
mouths and hands of the put-upon and the small is not be read as it might be
in the hands of the mighty.

But so much for the generalities of it.

Yes, Srebrenica was an appallingly ghastly episode, Brad.  So was the
Krajina and so was Mostar - that's war, mate.  It's disgusting, horrifying
and terrifying beyond the belief and imagination of we fortunates wherever
it happens.  But 'we' do it all the time - and where it is politically too
difficult for 'us' to do it, 'we' have ways of getting others to do it for
'us'.   This latter route has the added advantage of affording 'us' some
usefully graphic file footage to use against 'our' henchmen if they outlive
their usefulness, or begin to look at all independent or ungrateful.  So has
it been in the cases of Chile, Panama and Iraq.  And so is it with Serbia.

Never mind what sort of bastard you think Milo is, Brad; tell me where I
have my history (and 'our' glorious part in it) wrong in the following:

In 1989, 'we' destroyed the Yugoslav middle class, federalist PM Markovich's
main support base in the early nineties, by prescribing austerity programmes
that created nothing but unemployment, a massive transfer of wealth from the
proletariat and the petit bourgoeisie to the very rich, and fertile ground
for nationalist demagogues.

In 1991, 'we' (in the guise of the EC) disallowed the federalists (the
soveriegn government of Yugoslavia) to deploy their own military to preserve
their state.

Then, in March of 1992, 'we' sought to impose the Lisbon accord (which 'we'
would do again at Dayton), explicitly and deliberately perpetrating a
three-way ethnic division within a sovereign state, effectively enshrining
nationalist leaders (who owed their popularity to the now desperate economic
times) and their armies.  Ethnic partition is henceforth the theme, and
ethnic cleansing almost inevitably its manifestation (at Dayton, 'we' would
further weaken Belgrade's authority by imposing a supervisory occupation
force - which helped the ethnic cleansing along where it was not happening
neatly enough - witness Krajina and the eventual bombing of Yugoslavia).

Then, on 22 May 1992, 'we' (in the guise of the UN) granted an untenable
province (Bosnia) sovereign status without putting in place any diplomatic
groundwork in the region and without affording it any political economic or
military support.  'We' also took it upon ourselves to declare Croatia, part
of a sovereign state, to be a different country.

Then 'we' witnessed three sides doing what people do when they're at war,
but chose to blame one (Serbia), whilst refusing to arm or protect the
weakest of the three (Bosnia) and allowing the third to tool up to its
heart's desire (Croatia).

Then 'we' encouraged, funded and equipped a seperatist movement (KLA) within
a formally democratic nation state with whom 'we' were not at war.

Then 'we' broke 'our' own international law in deliberately bombing a
civilian population because its government sought to fight a seperatist
movement within its borders.

Reckon the Balkans'd be a much better place if 'we' had kept our filthy mits
off the place ...

Cheers,
Rob.