Re: economics of Yugoslav war

["John Gelles" <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>]

"1)  To what extent does the war reflect the increasing
  inequality that arose between the republics and provinces
  of the former Yugoslavia.  In particular, Kosovo-Metohija
  is by far the poorest region and fell behind other areas
  (such as leading Slovenia) during the postwar period.
  Was this due to systemic aspects of the Yugoslav economy,
  due to outside interference, or due to characteristics within
  Kosovo-Metohija itself.

"2)  To what extent did the war arise from economic
  imperialism?  A variety of specific motivations have been
  proposed including controlling the mines of Kosovo-Metohija,
  controlling the Danube for transportation, gaining a regional
  foothold to insure oil supplies from further east, a systemic
  attack on the remnants of socialism in Serbia, a general
  European pacification to allow expansion and development
  of the EU, and a more general desire to control the world.

"3)  It has been argued that the US, Germany, and the
  IMF plotted to break up Yugoslavia.  Certainly Germany
  encouraged the secessions of Slovenia and Croatia.  Was
  the US trying to break it up also, or trying  to keep it together
  as an anti-Soviet bulwark?  Certainly the IMF was imposing
  strict austerity in the late 1980s that exacerbated the regional
  tensions, but Yugoslavia also was experiencing hyperinflation
  then and had high foreign indebtedness.

"4)  Why did the Rambouillet Accords demand a change
  in the local economic system (to a "free market" one)?

"5)  Economically what should be done when the war ends?"

            Five important questions from  Barkley Rosser
            today

            Some possible answers:

            1.  The war is not excused by poverty in Kosovo.
                 But poverty is a cause of unrest and a temptation
                 to those who "have more" to look with disdain
                 and often hatred at those who are different --
                 especially at those who have much less or have
                 much more than the tempted bullies.

            2.  Imperialism plays not part in NATO's actions.
                 Serbia seeks land without its current inhabitants.
                 This could be called minor league imperialism.

            3.  The US, German and the IMF might have been
                 more Keynesian in their approach to Yugoslavia.
                 But that would be asking a lot. They do not invest
                 in their own back yard to end poverty and pollution
                 as fast as they might. But war is not the outcome of
                 ordinary stinginess.  This war is the direct result of
                 Serbian politics and ethnic divides.

            4.  Good question!  Global capitalism may screw up
                 somewhat the way it did in 1914. As Tom Friedman
                 says, if you want global investment you better provide
                 a global standard for safety nets -- the welfare state
                 cannot be killed off without chaos -- people's real
                 needs must be recognized and met.

            5.  At war' end spend and lend enough to make Kosovo
                  far better than it was and Serbia a democratic nation.

            Thanks Barkley Rosser for a common sense interpretation
            of what Ric Holt really meant. Should he disagree, we can
            take it from there.

                    John Gelles
                    http://www.1944.org
                    http://www.rain.org/~jjgelles/1944.html